The security line into the city administration building backed up through the door as hundreds of people filed in for a San Diego City Council meeting Tuesday. The councilmembers were scheduled to discuss whether to adopt a resolution — not a binding law, but something they described as “the lowest form of what we can do.”
The resolution would define antisemitism for the city of San Diego.
Heated exchanges broke out in the elevators as members of the public rode to the council chambers on the 12th floor.
“Boycott, Divest & Sanction Israel” one woman’s T-shirt read.
The first amendment right to free speech is what makes this country beautiful, she said to a man in the elevator.
Not if you use it to take away from someone else, he retorted.
The council chambers were filled with kippahs and keffiyehs, Israeli flags and images of watermelons. “Rosa Parks was a Zionist” one T-shirt read. “Anti-Israel =/= Anti-Jewish” was written on a sign. Several people held up photos of dead Palestinian children.
“Don’t you f–ing touch me, that’s assault!” a man cried before the meeting had even come to order.
Increased security surrounded the room. Before the night was over, they would escort out five members of the public.
Public comment ran over four hours. Nobody argued whether antisemitism was rising or not. Nobody argued about whether or not the city should take steps to combat it. All agreed it was a terrible thing that must be stopped.
They disagreed about how to define it.
The city adopted the definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Dozens of countries and cities across the U.S. have already adopted it, including Los Angeles, Chula Vista and El Cajon.
San Diego’s Human Relations Commission already adopted the definition, and recommended last May the City Council do the same.
It says: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
It’s followed by 11 examples, seven of which involve the state of Israel.
IHRA specifies “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
However, critics of the definition say the example language has been used to silence criticism of Israel and support for Palestinians by labeling it antisemitic, and the examples blur the line between antisemitism and anti-Zionism.
Several of the examples were cited during Tuesday’s debate as limiting the types of criticism that could be made against Israel:
- “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
- “Applying double standards by requiring of (Israel) a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
- “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”
Proponents of the definition — including Councilmember Stephen Whitburn who brought the resolution forward — were adamant that it would not be used to silence free speech.
Opponents claimed it’s already done that elsewhere, and was used in President Donald Trump’s deportation proceedings against pro-Palestinian activists. The definition’s lead drafter published an opinion piece in 2019 with the headline: “I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it.”
One of the definition’s critics is Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera, who is Jewish.
“After years of feeling like the world was becoming safer for Jews, we are slipping backwards,” he said Tuesday night. “Rather than the world being safer for my son than it was for me, it actually feels more dangerous. It's a travesty and it must be recognized and it must be combatted. Unfortunately, this resolution and the examples contained within the IHRA definition are not the way to do that.”
He said some of IHRA’s examples “are vague and raise unanswerable questions.”
“How does one know when a double standard is being applied?” he asked. “I'm a Jew. I'm told I have a stake in Israel. Am I antisemitic for holding Israel to a higher standard than nations I have no connection to?”
He also challenged whether comparing contemporary Israeli policy to Nazi policy should be considered antisemitic.
“I cannot support a definition that makes any such comparison categorically off limits,” he said. "If a government called for the total extermination of an ethnic people, are we forbidden from calling that what it is? The most important moral reference point in modern Jewish history cannot be placed beyond reach. That does not protect Jews. It dishonors the concept of ‘never again.’”
He urged the council to consider other definitions, like the Jerusalem Declaration.
“I think that it's interesting that (the IHRA definition’s critics) are the very people who are constantly harassing us and that they're trying to define what antisemitism is to the Jewish community.” said Liat Cohen-Reeis, director of StandWithUs San Diego Antisemitism Task Force. “95% of mainstream Jewish organizations worldwide have defined this definition.”
Proponents of IHRA called Jewish critics of the definition “fringe.”
Cohen-Reeis hopes that by the city adopting IHRA’s definition, they can empower law enforcement and other city staff to more effectively combat it.
Leah Koller, a Jewish resident of San Diego, is skeptical of that. She said IHRA’s definition “does nothing to actually protect Jewish people from real antisemitism. And it also denies Palestinians the right to, you know, talk about their lived experience.”
The more than 200 in-person public commenters were nearly evenly split for and against the IHRA definition, despite the concern one Muslim speaker raised that the meeting was being held during Ramadan, preventing many from attending.
The council was not evenly split. Elo-Rivera was the only vote against adopting the definition. Though some members agreed the definition was “not perfect,” they pushed it through.
“If not now, when?” asked Councilmember Raul Campillo, quoting the Jewish scholar Hillel the Elder.
The resolution passed 8-to-1, with an added amendment to direct the San Diego Human Relations Commission to equally address and define other forms of racial discrimination and hate.
KPBS asked Whitburn’s office whether the city would deny funding, permits to gather on city property or any other supports to groups found to be antisemitic by the IHRA definition. As of the publication of this story, they did not respond.
