• 7 months ago
At a House Rules Committee hearing on Monday, Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA) questioned Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) about legislation on antisemitism.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript


Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Transcript
00:00 You know, to equate when the Israelis say that they want control from the river to the
00:05 sea to the genocidal call of the pro-Hamas group saying from the river to the sea, Palestine
00:10 will be free, is completely laughable.
00:13 And we know it's laughable because of this.
00:15 In the areas that the Israelis control now, there are Arab Israelis.
00:19 In fact, 20%, roughly 20% of the population in Israel is actually Arab Israelis.
00:25 There's been zero genocide.
00:27 But when the Palestinians, the pro-Hamas protesters say from the river to the sea, that is a call
00:33 for genocide.
00:34 And we know that because if you look in the areas that are controlled by Hamas, there
00:37 are zero Jews living there of their own accord.
00:39 Zero.
00:40 The Jewish population in Gaza, minus the hostages that are still being held, are zero.
00:46 So that is the difference between the two.
00:48 When the two groups talk about it, one group is talking about having control, having political
00:54 control, the other group is talking about basically ethnic cleansing the Jews from the
00:58 area.
00:59 Mr. Nadler, from my understanding, your main objection to this is the Ira language.
01:05 Is that correct?
01:06 It's the Ira language and the provision that excludes the other two definitions that are
01:12 exempt.
01:13 I'd also, let me just comment on one other thing, by the way.
01:19 When the Palestinians use from the, or rather say, from the river to the sea, Palestine
01:25 and we see them, they very well be genocidal.
01:27 But you can't cite as evidence that there are no Jews living in Gaza because there were
01:35 Jews in Gaza and Prime Minister Sharon in 2005 decided to withdraw the settlements.
01:42 So that was an Israeli decision.
01:46 You're correct on that and that worked out from what we have, clearly I'm being sarcastic,
01:51 in that there was a withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and that area was 100% controlled by
01:56 the Palestinians, which still led to the attacks of October 7th.
02:00 But again, so your main-
02:01 Which simply shows what a genocidal, horrible organization Hamas is.
02:06 We agree on that.
02:07 So you're basically saying that because this bill precludes the other two definitions,
02:12 you can't support it?
02:14 Because it precludes the other two definitions and frankly because it codifies the IHRA definition
02:19 and the author of the, or the chief author of the IHRA definition, Ken Stern, says it
02:24 shouldn't be codified.
02:27 If you read the definitions, they give examples of things that could be anti-Semitic.
02:34 To codify them into law is to say as anti-Semitic what may in some context be and in some other
02:42 context may not be.
02:43 So you-
02:44 It's inaccurate.
02:45 So you would not support a bill that codified the IHRA language?
02:48 No.
02:49 Okay.
02:50 Are you aware that there was a bill in the 115th Congress called the Anti-Semitism Awareness
02:54 Act?
02:55 By which you mean the-
02:57 The Peter Oskam bill?
02:58 I don't remember who sponsored it, but I think Mr. Burgess, Chairman Burgess referred to
03:02 it.
03:03 Yes.
03:04 Yeah.
03:05 And ICO sponsored it for one, for a reason that differs.
03:07 It didn't exclude the other two definitions and I was mistaken to do so then in any event.
03:11 Okay, so do you regret co-sponsoring that-
03:14 Yes.
03:15 Okay.
03:16 Yes, but it was still better than the current bill because it did not include language excluding
03:20 the other two definitions.
03:21 Okay, but you agree that the language is roughly the same between the bill that you co-sponsored
03:25 in the 115th and this one?
03:27 No, it codified the IHRA definition.
03:30 It did not include the paragraph in this bill that says specifically you shouldn't use the
03:36 other two definitions because they are harmful in some way.
03:41 Do you want me to read you?
03:42 I have the definitions.
03:43 I can read them to you if you want.
03:45 That's not the point.
03:47 Read that paragraph.
03:48 I mean, I have nothing to disagree with the specific definition.
03:52 The definition, its own author says it shouldn't be codified into law.
03:57 It gives examples of things that may, that indicate anti-Semitism, but not necessarily
04:02 in every case.
04:03 I guess, you know, what I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around is the fact that
04:07 you're saying that you're not supportive of this bill because the IHRA definition is being
04:11 codified yet in the 115th Congress there was virtually identical language that also had
04:16 the IHRA definition that you not only support, you were a co-sponsor.
04:19 As I said, there were two things.
04:23 One, it did not have the paragraph that in this bill excludes the Nexus and Jerusalem
04:28 definitions and two, I think in retrospect I was mistaken in co-sponsoring it then.
04:33 All right, that's fair.
04:34 Thanks for admitting that.
04:35 Mr. Fry, do you have anything additional that you would like to add on this topic?
04:41 Thank you, sir.
04:42 I think that we're talking about the definition.
04:44 I think the Jewish League, there's a letter in here, said that as prominent scholars of
04:50 anti-Semitism have said, the IRHA's definition is the gold standard of defining anti-Semitism.
04:56 I think that's really important.
04:59 I think, again, I go back to just the fundamentals of this.
05:03 You have two presidents, American presidents, that have done this in an executive order
05:07 starting with President Trump and now President Biden.
05:09 You have 35 states that have done this.
05:12 You're not seeing in some of these states that are listed, New York, Texas, some of
05:16 these states are right now what is going on in these college campuses and you're not seeing
05:21 the fallout that is being predicted by the ranking member.
05:23 I think that, again, that's important.
05:26 Two things in my mind, and I'm sure that Mr. Massey will have some questions on this too,
05:32 but two things in my mind that strike me, civil liberties.
05:36 One is the text of the bill itself.
05:38 The text of the bill itself is not going to go against the civil liberties and to the
05:42 extent that there is an outcry that this is going to chill freedom of speech on college
05:46 campuses, you also look at the definition itself, which says criticism of Israel similar
05:53 to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.
05:58 I think the importance of having the definition provides that clarity to an agency that in
06:09 my mind to this point has not provided that even hand of justice when examining these
06:16 cases that are popping up on college campuses, particularly since October 7th.
06:19 Yeah, I think what you can really point to for anti-Semitism is the fact that for about
06:25 a decade now on college campuses, there's been a crackdown on free speech.
06:31 The fact that the belief that speech is violence, if you misgender somebody, you can be expelled
06:36 from school.
06:37 All of that speech is cracked down upon.
06:40 Yet the second you call for the genocide of Jews, the second that you say that you don't
06:46 feel comfortable with Jews in campus, then at that point, that's when they decide that
06:50 there is a First Amendment protection of freedom of speech.
06:54 The application of the freedom of speech vis-a-vis speech that they agree with, which is the
07:00 woke agenda, et cetera, with these anti-Semitic remarks and the tolerance for the anti-Semitic
07:06 remarks, that's what shows you the anti-Semitism of these colleges and universities, correct?
07:10 100%.
07:11 I mean, look at Harvard, for God's sakes.
07:15 Thankfully that ship seems to be riding itself a little bit, but there's a lot of work that
07:20 needs to be done.
07:21 I think, unfortunately, these administrators have propped up this culture on their campus
07:27 that it's okay if it's a certain group of people, that you could kind of target them
07:31 and it's kind of a wink, wink, nod, nod.
07:33 I just have a huge problem with that.
07:35 Again, no one's going to argue.
07:36 I've had a problem with some of the conduct of college campuses even before October 7th,
07:43 when you look at freedom of speech issues.
07:45 Now all of a sudden, it's an outcry.
07:46 Well, I'm sorry, you're shutting down schools.
07:49 You're intimidating students, locking them in the library.
07:52 You won't let Jewish professors onto campus.
07:54 You can't protect the safety.
07:56 You're canceling commencements.
07:58 I mean, it is obscene what is happening, and it's not just one school.
08:01 It's a myriad of them.
08:03 So how do you fix that?
08:05 Well, this is one way to do that, that you provide that clarity to the Department of
08:09 Education, who up to this point, at least in this administration, their investigations
08:14 are still ongoing, but they need that clarity.
08:16 I think this is a way to do it.
08:18 Let states lead the way.
08:19 Thirty-five of them have done this, including in mine, on a unanimous vote.
08:23 This is a good step in the right direction.
08:25 I want to thank the witnesses for testifying, and I yield back.

Recommended