Failure to grasp antisemitism is crippling Pennsylvania’s response to the world’s oldest hate

Despite the evidence, Pennsylvania authorities are still unsure as to whether to charge Cody Balmer, the man who police said torched Gov. Josh Shapiro’s home while the governor’s wife and four children were asleep, with a hate crime. This is appalling. This was a blatant act of antisemitism. Law enforcement, however, is sputtering because it lacks an understanding of the world’s oldest hate.

Let’s start with the facts. The suspected perpetrator attacked on the first day of Passover, just hours after Shapiro posted a photo of himself and his family enjoying their seder in the very room that was set ablaze. The suspect told 911 operators following the attack that he targeted Shapiro because he is a “monster” for his views on Palestine, and “for his plans for what he wants to do to the Palestinian people.”

Shapiro, however, has been less outspoken and less pro-Israel than several Pennsylvania legislators. No one is torching Sen. John Fetterman’s house. Among Pennsylvania Democrats, Fetterman is the stronger voice for Israel. But Shapiro is the Jew.

And as if one attack wasn’t enough, people are rushing to criticize Shapiro for not clearly identifying this as antisemitism. But it shouldn’t be on him. He’s the victim. It should be on his colleagues and on law enforcement. And herein lies the problem.

First, it has become so politically difficult for decision-makers, especially Democrats, and particularly many Jewish Democrats, to call out antisemitism.

Some do occasionally, as Sen. Chuck Schumer belatedly did here. But it is generally inconsistent, which is a big part of the problem. There has developed a characteristic progressive reluctance to call antisemitism by its name — and a tendency instead to blur such incidents by describing them as mere episodes of political violence.

All of this came up during Kamala Harris’ vice presidential selection process. Shapiro’s Democratic critics basically did to their party what Balmer did to the governor’s mansion: torching it over Shapiro’s Jewish identity, and likely eliminating the stronger running mate, while purporting to be angry over a political difference.

The second problem lies in the frustrating fact that Pennsylvania has no working definition of antisemitism. While a bill is pending, Pennsylvania remains in the minority of states that have not embraced the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. The IHRA is the international gold standard for defining antisemitism. It has been embraced by more than 1,000 entities, most major countries (including the U.S., Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and France), the federal government, and the majority of U.S. states.

Some states, like Pennsylvania, however, have been slow to catch on, leaving law enforcement hamstrung. And while our nation’s oldest university, Harvard, and even the University of Pennsylvania, in Shapiro’s backyard, have recently embraced this uniform definition, far too many institutions are flying blind. And others, like Columbia, are using their own diluted versions.

With regard to antisemitism, there is often confusion surrounding the relationship between Jew-hatred and animosity toward Israel. Clarification is critical.

Shapiro was undoubtedly targeted for his perceived connection to Israel because of his Judaism.

According to the IHRA, a criminal act is antisemitic “when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property — such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries — are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.”

Shapiro was undoubtedly targeted for his perceived connection to Israel because of his Judaism. But without one definition of antisemitism, authorities will continue to drag their feet on identifying crimes as antisemitic, confused about what constitutes a hate crime.

This incident in Pennsylvania did not take place in a vacuum; the surge of antisemitism is unprecedented in our lifetime. As the number of antisemitic attacks — up 340% in the last two years alone — continues to skyrocket, defining hate crimes is increasingly important. Without a clear definition of antisemitism, perpetrators are not being held to the standards of hate crimes — which carry stiff penalties — and instead face lesser sentences or charges for lower-level offenses.

While victims are suffering from physical and emotional attacks, perpetrators are evading justice because of inaction.

If we want to help stop this wave of bigotry, we need to adopt one, universal, working definition of antisemitism — something we should have done years ago. Every state in the U.S. must adopt the same, universal definition of antisemitism.

Until we align on what antisemitism is, authorities and courts will not be able to hold perpetrators accountable. If we don’t, how can we expect to hold the real monsters accountable?

Kenneth L. Marcus is the chairman and CEO of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and the former U.S. assistant secretary of education under two administrations. Ten years ago, he wrote “The Definition of Anti-Semitism.”

Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this essay misidentified Gov. Josh Shapiro’s children. The governor has three sons and one daughter.