FOR SHAME: Jewish Gubernatorial Candidate Steve Fulop Rejects Antisemitism Bill, Sides With Anti-Israel Activists

Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop, a Democratic candidate for governor who happens to be Jewish, has come out in opposition to a proposed New Jersey bill that would codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism—a move that puts him at odds with mainstream Jewish organizations and raises serious doubts about his commitment to fighting antisemitism.

At a recent event, Fulop dismissed the bill outright, later doubling down on social media, where he cast doubt on the IHRA definition itself, a definition that has been widely adopted by dozens of countries, including the United States, and major Jewish organizations across the political spectrum.

“I’ve done lots of reading about this to come to the conclusion why I think that specific definition is counter-productive,” Fulop wrote. He went on to cite his Jewish background and Holocaust survivor lineage in a feeble attempt to shield himself from the obvious question: Why is a candidate who claims to fight antisemitism opposing a bill that strengthens protections against it?

While Fulop touts his support for Israel and opposition to the BDS movement, his stance on the IHRA definition is eerily similar to the very groups that demonize the Jewish state. His reasoning? He believes the bill “will at best not have any effect on antisemitism and at worst increase it.”

This claim, bordering on the absurd, directly contradicts the position of Agudath Israel, the Orthodox Union, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, and other major Jewish organizations, all of whom have backed the IHRA definition as a critical tool in identifying and combating antisemitism.

Fulop argues that New Jersey’s existing hate crimes laws are enough—despite overwhelming evidence that antisemitic incidents have skyrocketed nationwide, particularly in the wake of the October 7 Hamas massacre. He also claims that defining antisemitism without defining other forms of hate “will only further anti-Semitic sentiment.”

This false equivalency is a straw man argument, ignoring the fact that antisemitism is a unique and specific form of hatred, often masked as criticism of Israel but rooted in centuries-old prejudices.

Even more concerning is Fulop’s claim that codifying the IHRA definition would infringe on free speech and legitimate criticism of Israel. This talking point is a favorite among anti-Israel activists who insist on blurring the line between political discourse and outright Jew-hatred.

Fulop insists “you can’t legislate your way out of antisemitism,” dismissing legal protections as mere “false hope.” This defeatist rhetoric is not only irresponsible but dangerous, as it undermines real, tangible efforts to combat the explosion of antisemitism in public institutions, college campuses, and beyond.

Fulop’s latest controversy comes at a time when his associations with anti-Israel figures have already raised eyebrows. While he brands himself as a supporter of Israel, his willingness to align with individuals who have openly attacked the Jewish state calls his sincerity into question.

By rejecting the IHRA definition, Fulop is sending a message to the far-left activists who seek to delegitimize Israel—a calculated political move that should alarm anyone concerned about the rising tide of antisemitism in New Jersey and nationwide.