Defeated

This antisemitism redefinition bill requires the use of a distorted definition of antisemitism in hate crimes reporting and sentencing. Criticism of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights could be used as evidence of a hate crime or result in more severe sentences. 

The bill amends Arizona law to include antisemitism as one of the categories of discrimination for which the state must collect bias crime statistics, but adopts the IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its problematic contemporary examples, which include “[a]pplying double standards [to Israel] by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” and “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” The bill requires courts to consider criticism of Israel that falls within the IHRA definition as an aggravating factor for sentencing in criminal convictions. Civil rights groups and advocates raised concerns over how the definition could be used to chill protected speech, and the bill failed to pass both houses before the end of the session. Related bill: SB 1143.

This non-binding resolution targets UN-related accountability efforts with regard to Israel’s ongoing violations of international law, repeating Israel’s claim that UN Security Council Resolution 2334 will lead to increased BDS efforts and “will provide a ‘tailwind for terror.’”UN Security Council Resolution 2334 reaffirmed that Israel’s illegal settlements constitute a flagrant violation of international law. The US broke from its practice of blocking UN accountability measures focused on Israel and abstained rather than vetoing the resolution, causing consternation among pro-Israel groups.  

This antisemitism redefinition bill requires the use of a distorted definition of antisemitism in hate crimes reporting and sentencing. Criticism of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights could be used as evidence of a hate crime or result in more severe sentences. 

The bill amends Arizona law to include antisemitism as one of the categories of discrimination for which the state must collect bias crime statistics, but adopts the IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its problematic contemporary examples, which include “[a]pplying double standards [to Israel] by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” and “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” The bill requires courts to consider criticism of Israel that falls within the IHRA definition as an aggravating factor for sentencing in criminal convictions. Civil rights groups and advocates raised concerns over how the definition could be used to chill protected speech, and the bill failed to pass both houses before the end of the session. Related bill: HB 2683.

This antisemitism redefinition bill requires state entities to consider the IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its examples related to Israel, in determining whether an alleged act of discrimination “was motivated by discriminatory antisemitic intent.” This distorted definition could encompass almost any criticism of Israel, and its adoption thereby encourages censorship of constitutionally protected advocacy for Palestinian rights. Related bills: HF 2303.

This antisemitism redefinition bill requires state entities to consider the IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its examples related to Israel, in determining whether an alleged act of discrimination “was motivated by discriminatory antisemitic intent.” This distorted definition could encompass almost any criticism of Israel, and its adoption thereby encourages censorship of constitutionally protected advocacy for Palestinian rights. This bill was withdrawn and replaced by the substantially similar bill HF 2504.

This anti-boycott bill requires state entities to create a blacklist of “businesses and business entities that are publicly traded and not based in the United States” that boycott Israel and territories it occupies. The law prohibits state entities from investing in or contracting with blacklisted entities for contracts of $1,000 or more. It also requires state funds to divest from blacklisted companies. Blacklisted companies can be removed from the blacklist upon written notification that they no longer boycott Israel. SF 2281’s companion bill, HF 2331, was passed into law.

This antisemitism redefinition bill amends provisions of the state’s Human Rights Act applicable to public schools and universities to adopt a distorted definition of antisemitism that could encompass any and all criticism of Israel, circumscribing protected political speech activities. The bill makes it a civil rights violation for schools to fail to treat antisemitic discrimination in the same way as race discrimination, and defines antisemitism to include criticism of Israel, such as: “Applying a double standard to the State of Israel by requiring behavior of the State of Israel that is not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, or focusing peace or human rights investigations only on the State of Israel.”

This anti-boycott bill prohibits state agencies from entering into or renewing contracts with entities that boycott Israel or other jurisdictions with which Illinois is not prohibited from doing business. Contractors must provide a written certification that they do not and will not engage in boycotts for the duration of the contract. 

This anti-boycott bill requires state contracts to include a written certification that the contractor is not and will not for the duration of the contract engage in a boycott of Israel or companies doing business in Israel. The bill applies to companies, including non-profits, with 10 or more employees and contracts of $100,000 or more. Related Bills: SB 739 (signed into law), SB 544, SB 594, HB 1344, HB 1738.

This senate joint resolution condemns academic boycotts of Israeli institutions, stating they unfairly single out Israel and raise questions of antisemitism. The resolution calls on university presidents to condemn academic boycotts as a threat to academic freedom.