The Definition of Bigotry

By Noah Rothman

Tuesday, March 31, 2026

 

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) “working definition” of antisemitism, to which the U.S. government and 30 other nations subscribe, identifies several behavioral patterns that are indicative of anti-Jewish bias. Among them are the “double standards” that are often applied to Israel but are “not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

 

By way of logical inference, then, subscribers to the IHRA’s definition must concede that applying a standard to Jews at an individual level that no one else is compelled to observe must also fit that bill. That’s a corollary that Democrats don’t appear to recognize.

 

Reportedly, the Democratic National Committee will consider a resolution next month that would denounce the American Israel Public Affairs Committee by name — specifically, the money it spends in the effort to scuttle anti-Israel progressives’ campaigns.

 

“At a time when Democratic voters might really not have felt represented or seen when it came to Gaza or seeing their party support Palestinian rights or stand against military conflict,” said Allison Minnerly, the DNC member and activist sponsoring the resolution, “this could be one step toward bringing those voters back into the party.”

 

Increasingly, hostility toward interests that are remotely supportive of Israeli security policy is becoming the price of admission into national Democratic politics. AIPAC is only the most visible feature of this new litmus test. The party’s likeliest 2028 presidential hopefuls are racing to swear off AIPAC dollars, each with more revulsion over the pernicious influence of Israel-tainted money than the last. It seems that denouncing the Jewish State over its mesmeric influence over American politicians and for executing (imaginary) crimes against humanity is the sine qua non for success in the Democratic Party.

 

But AIPAC isn’t a lobby devoted to advancing foreign interests. Its activities are supported by Americans who enjoy a constitutional right to petition their representatives for the redress of grievances, which is all that lobbying is. But as Semafor’s Dave Weigel noted, the distinction that progressives are attempting to make is one that only the least discerning far-left “anti-Zionists” would recognize:

 

 

And the Democratic Party’s leading lights appear to recognize the degree to which the opprobrium heaped on those who benefit from pro-Israel expenditures will never be applied broadly:

 

 

Steyer maintains that tens of millions of dollars in contributions to Democratic candidates and causes over the years come from “disclosed funds,” not from the anonymous donations that constitute so-called “dark money.” But reporting over the years has indicated that Steyer and other prominent Democrats are not above associating with anonymously funded nonprofits and political action committees. Progressives don’t care.

 

Indeed, since the 2018 midterm cycle, Democrats have been the primary beneficiaries of “dark money” contributions. “Overall, dark money groups boosting Democrats put up about $1.2 billion to influence 2024 elections, while groups boosting Republicans accounted for about $664 million,” the Brennan Center reported. Nor are Democrats allergic to the largess provided by other foreign interests, even those with links to America’s adversaries abroad.

 

The Democratic Party is eager to convince progressive activists that its members are not susceptible to the influence associated with Je– rather, Israeli money. After all, those are the only divestments progressives are demanding. It’s a curious monomania, and it seems to fit within IHRA’s rubric.