Antisemitism is no longer an abstract national headline. It is a local reality.
According to the Anti-Defamation League, antisemitic incidents in Ohio have risen sharply since October 7, 2023, with Ohio reporting a 42% increase. In recent years we have witnessed vandalized cemeteries, antisemitic propaganda placed in neighborhoods, physical assaults of Jewish students and threats directed at public officials because they are Jewish. These are not political disagreements. They are expressions of hatred directed at Jewish identity.
Last week, members of the Cincinnati Coalition for Israel (CCFI) moved from being bystanders to upstanders in the fight against anti-semitism by testifying before the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee in support of Senate Bill 87. This legislation would adopt the working definition of antisemitism established by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) as a guiding framework for the state.
The purpose of SB 87 is straightforward: to provide clarity about the motivation for crimes that are motivated by antisemitism or hatred towards Jews. Ohio law already criminalizes assault, harassment, vandalism and ethnic intimidation. What it lacks is a uniform definition of antisemitism to help law enforcement, courts and educational institutions determine when an act crosses the line from protected speech into unlawful, bias-motivated conduct against Jewish people.
CCFI’s testimony, presented by Ben Rodriquez before the committee, detailed several troubling incidents. Jewish cemeteries in Cincinnati and Cleveland have been desecrated, with nearly 200 gravestones toppled or damaged at Tiferet Israel and Beth Hamidrash cemeteries. Jewish students have been physically assaulted and hospitalized. Antisemitic materials have been distributed in residential neighborhoods. In June 2025, Congressman Max Miller was run off the road while being subjected to explicit antisemitic slurs. These events were presented to the Judicial Committee not as isolated episodes, but as part of a broader pattern of escalating hostility.
Supporters of SB 87 argue that adopting the IHRA definition would not create new crimes or restrict First Amendment protections. Rather, it would serve as an interpretive tool when applying existing statutes. The federal government, including the U.S. State Department and Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, already relies on this framework. Thirty seven of U.S. states have endorsed or adopted it in some form. Scores of countries throughout the world also adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism in their legal systems. Ohio lags behind the international and national trends of legally recognizing antisemitism.
SB 87 provides guidance for identifying antisemitic intent when prosecuting conduct that is already illegal. Clear definitions, properly applied, can protect both civil liberties and vulnerable communities.
The hearing also reflected a broader moral awakening within our community. Rosalind E. Fultz, a Black Christian member of CCFI, offered a powerful reminder that antisemitism is not solely a Jewish concern.
“As a Black Christian,” she testified, “I cannot remain silent when I see hatred rising against the Jewish community. There is no comfort zone in denial for any of us. When I look at what is happening today, I am reminded of the long rise of the Nazi Party in Germany—how small acts of hate were tolerated until they became something much larger. Jewish people need allies who will not place partisan politics above moral responsibility. Antisemitism and racism are twin evils, and we must confront both.”
Her words reframed the issue not as partisan legislation, but as a shared civic responsibility. That spirit has inspired support for “Upstander” educational initiatives at the Nancy & David Wolf Holocaust & Humanity Center, emphasizing that education and coalition-building must accompany legislation.
David Soffer of the Combat Antisemitism Movement and Marc Ashed of the Jewish Federation of Cleveland echoed a central theme: defining the problem is the first step toward addressing it effectively. Without clarity, enforcement becomes inconsistent. With clarity, institutions are better equipped to distinguish between constitutionally protected speech and targeted, bias-motivated harm.
According to David Bernstein, co-founder of CCFI, “combating antisemitism cannot be left to a handful of advocates. Legislative efforts alone are insufficient without sustained civic engagement.” David encourages all moral Ohio citizens who agree that people of any race, religion or creed should not be victims of targeted discrimination to support SB 87. It is time for moral Ohio citizens to be upstanders and not bystanders.
The adoption of SB 87 would signal that Ohio is prepared to confront antisemitism with seriousness, legal precision and moral resolve.
At moments like this, communities face a choice: to assume that rising hostility will subside on its own, or to respond thoughtfully and proactively. Moving from bystanders to upstanders requires more than rhetoric. It requires education, coalition-building, and, when appropriate, legislative clarity. Robert Kraft took action with a $15 million antisemitism advertisement in the Super Bowl. It stated that 2 out of every 3 teenagers in America experienced antisemitism. Do we want our Jewish community of the future to be weak and timid or strong and responsive? Responsible adults need to lead by action.
The question before Ohio lawmakers is not whether antisemitism exists. It is how clearly and effectively the state chooses to name it and respond to it.
