Совет Сан-Диего принял определение антисемитизма ИХРА для борьбы с ростом вражды

For San Diego’s Jewish community, the City Council’s 8-1 vote adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism on March 17 was a moment of validation, relief and long-overdue recognition. But the real test begins now. For years, Jewish residents, community leaders, educators and advocates have sounded the alarm about rising antisemitism. They have documented incidents, reported harassment, attended public meetings and pushed for elected officials to acknowledge a reality that many Jews have experienced firsthand: Antisemitism is not a relic of the past. It is a growing and evolving threat in the present. The adoption of the IHRA definition by the city council was achieved due to the work of the Antisemitism Task Force at StandWithUs San Diego, which, through months of education, coalition-building, advocacy and public engagement helped to ensure that elected officials understood why adopting a clear definition of antisemitism was both necessary and overdue. The new definition offers institutions, policymakers, educators and law enforcement a common framework for recognizing antisemitism in its many forms. It acknowledges that hatred toward Jews can manifest not only through traditional stereotypes and discrimination, but also through newer expressions that often hide behind political rhetoric. Yet adopting a definition is not the same as solving a problem. If anything, the vote raises a more urgent question: What happens next? Over the past year, antisemitic incidents in San Diego have risen dramatically. Jewish students have reported feeling targeted on college campuses. Community members have experienced harassment online and in public spaces. Synagogues and Jewish institutions continue to invest heavily in security measures that many other communities take for granted. Intimidation, vandalism and hate-filled rhetoric have become increasingly common. These incidents are not isolated. They are connected by a broader environment in which antisemitism has become normalized, excused or ignored. The six-hour city council meeting leading up to the March vote offered a stark illustration of that reality. Hundreds of people came to speak. Members of the Jewish community shared personal stories, fears and experiences. They described what it means to watch antisemitism spread in schools and workplaces, and via online platforms. But perhaps more telling was the response from those opposed to the vote. Hateful and vitriolic statements were shouted at the Jewish community members, including “Look at these well-dressed Jews with money in their pockets,” while another speaker remarked, “Your Jewish children deserve to be spat on.” The hearing also exposed how much misinformation has surrounded the definition itself. Opponents repeatedly claimed that adopting it would violate free speech, make it impossible to criticize Israel or discuss the suffering of Palestinians. Those claims are simply false. The IHRA definition does not criminalize speech or prohibit political debate. Rather, it provides guidance for recognizing when criticism crosses the line into antisemitism by applying double standards, denying the Jewish people's right to self-determination or using classic antisemitic tropes. Ironically, the very hearing intended to address antisemitism became, at times, an example of why action was necessary. For many Jewish residents in attendance, the experience was both painful and clarifying. The vote that followed sent the message that the city was ready to listen. Now, the city must demonstrate that it is willing to act. That means ensuring the IHRA definition does not simply sit on a shelf as a symbolic statement. It should become a practical tool that informs policy, training and decision-making. City departments should understand how antisemitism manifests today. Public officials should be equipped to recognize it when it occurs. Educational institutions should have access to resources that help identify and address anti-Jewish bias. Accountability also matters; when incidents occur, there should be clear mechanisms for reporting them and responding appropriately. Community members deserve to know how concerns will be addressed and who is responsible for taking action. Transparency builds trust, and trust is essential if communities are expected to believe that commitments against hate are more than words. The responsibility goes far beyond the boundaries of government. Schools, universities, nonprofits, businesses and civic organizations all have a role to play. Too often, antisemitism is treated as an exception among forms of hate rather than as part of the broader fight against bigotry and discrimination. That mindset must change. Supporting Jewish safety and inclusion should not be controversial. It should be a basic expectation of any institution committed to civil rights and human dignity. Finally, it is up to individuals—yes, you and I—to take a stand. Most people will never attend a city council meeting or testify before elected officials. But everyone has opportunities to challenge misinformation, speak out against hateful rhetoric and support neighbors who feel vulnerable. Combating antisemitism cannot be the responsibility of Jews alone. The burden of confronting hate belongs to all of us. The Jewish community, led by the Antisemitism Task Force, worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. Advocates organized, educated and persisted through setbacks. They showed up again and again because they believed recognition was necessary. March 17 wasn’t just the end of a successful campaign; it was the start of a new one. The adoption of the IHRA definition was a milestone worth celebrating. Now comes the harder work of turning that into meaningful change. The measure of success will not be found in the text of the resolution itself. It will be found in whether Jewish students feel safer on campus; whether families feel comfortable expressing their identity in public; whether antisemitic incidents are taken seriously when they occur; and whether leaders respond with consistency and courage when faced with hate. The San Diego City Council has made a statement. But now, it’s time for action.