FISHBACK
LIES.

The IHRA definition is a non-legally binding tool adopted by the IHRA on 26 May 2016. The definition itself states explicitly: "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." Florida's HB 741 applies the definition only within existing civil-rights and anti-discrimination law for public educational institutions; it created no new criminal offense. No Florida statute criminalizes criticism of Israel.

Public university students retain full First Amendment protections. Florida's HB 741 did not alter First Amendment jurisprudence. No student has been criminally charged under any Florida statute for criticizing Israel. The IHRA framework is used only as guidance when specific conduct—harassment, intimidation, discriminatory treatment—is alleged, not political speech standing alone. Columbia University's Office of Public Affairs explained this approach: universities must consult the IHRA definition "in ways that do not abridge First Amendment principles" and "expressing political views regarding a particular country's policies standing alone would not constitute discriminatory harassment."

The United States does not have hate speech laws. The First Amendment protects even offensive political speech. HB 741 is an anti-discrimination statute that applies to conduct in public educational institutions—not to political speech. The bill's text explicitly preserves free expression. Calling it a "hate speech law" mischaracterizes both the bill and American constitutional law.

HB 741 was officially signed into Florida law on May 31, 2019. A ceremonial re-signing occurred in Jerusalem during the Governor's trade mission, after the law was already in effect. Such ceremonial signings are standard diplomatic gestures and carry no legal force. The suggestion that American officials act out of loyalty to a foreign power rather than the United States echoes one of the oldest antisemitic accusations—the "dual loyalty" trope—documented for over a century.

Israel Bonds are standard sovereign debt securities—general obligation bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the State of Israel. Since the first bonds were issued in 1951, Israel has never missed a payment of principal or interest. More than 90 U.S. state and municipal pension and treasury funds have invested over $3 billion in Israel Bonds. Sovereign bonds are a normal component of portfolio diversification. A University of Virginia law professor specializing in international debt finance has described the Israel Bonds program as "one of the—if not the—most successful sovereign debt issuance programs in the history of the world."

Alleging that Jews secretly control governments through money is among the most historically documented antisemitic tropes. This narrative was central to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion—a proven forgery first published by the Czarist secret police in 1903, later weaponized by Nazi Germany. Americans of every background, including Jews, have a constitutional right to political participation, campaign donations, and advocacy. Singling out Jewish political activity as uniquely nefarious and illegitimate—while other ethnic, religious, and interest groups engage in identical conduct—applies a double standard rooted in antisemitic tradition.

Arab citizens of Israel—approximately 1.6 million people, or roughly 20% of the population—hold full Israeli citizenship with the right to vote at age 18. Arab-Israeli political parties regularly win seats in the Knesset (Israel's parliament). Arab citizens have served and continue to serve as judges, including on the Supreme Court. Adalah, a Palestinian legal rights group, notes that the Supreme Court has "consistently defended Arab electoral lists and candidates." The Israel Democracy Institute confirmed that as of 2017, the Supreme Court was the only Israeli state institution trusted by a majority of both Jewish and Arab citizens.

No Florida law punishes antisemitic speech. The United States has no hate speech laws; even deeply offensive speech is protected by the First Amendment absent specific threats or harassment. The fact that James Fishback tours campuses and publicly promotes his views is itself evidence that his speech is not legally suppressed. Private criticism, institutional disagreement, or public protest in response to speech is not government censorship—it is the exercise of others' free speech rights.

Free speech protects everyone, including universities and their administrators. When a university leader speaks out, they are exercising their own constitutionally protected expression—not restricting anyone else's. The First Amendment prohibits the government from suppressing speech; it does not prohibit private parties or institutions from expressing disagreement. Moreover, universities that accept federal funding have legal obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to address harassment and discriminatory conduct, including antisemitic harassment.

Antisemitism is a documented and rising crisis. In 2024, the Anti-Defamation League tabulated 9,354 antisemitic incidents across the United States—the highest level ever recorded since the ADL began tracking in 1979, representing a 344% increase over the prior five years and an 893% increase over the prior decade. This figure encompasses physical assaults, synagogue attacks, bomb threats, campus harassment, and vandalism. The ADL explicitly does not count general criticism of Israel in its totals.

Anti-discrimination law in the United States applies equally to all protected groups. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin. A longstanding ambiguity existed as to whether Jewish students were protected under "national origin." Executive Order 13899 (December 2019) clarified that the Department of Education should apply Title VI to antisemitic discrimination, bringing Jewish students into alignment with protections already afforded to other groups—not creating new or superior protections.

Israel Bonds have delivered consistent returns for over 70 years with a perfect payment record. State treasurers who invest in them do so on fiduciary grounds; the Illinois state treasurer noted: "We have been purchasing these Israel bonds for over 20 years. We get a good return." Beyond returns, divestment campaigns focused exclusively on Israel—while not targeting other countries engaged in comparable or greater conflicts—raise serious questions of discriminatory application. Florida and more than 30 other U.S. states have enacted anti-BDS statutes on grounds that boycotts of Israel constitute national-origin discrimination. Courts have reached varying conclusions on the constitutionality of these statutes.