Comparison of November 5 and November 14, 2025 Draft Versions:
Key Deletions and Policy Implications

Executive Summary

The November 14 revision to the Massachusetts Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism report’s prefatory statement defining “The Massachusetts Way” represents a fundamental weakening of protections for Jewish residents. By removing substantive content about Jewish-Israel connections and eliminating recognition that calls for Israel’s destruction constitute antisemitism, the Commission has created a framework that fails to address the primary manifestations of contemporary antisemitism.

Critical Deletions and Their Impact

A. Removal of Israel’s Central Role in Jewish Identity

The Commission deleted: “For many—indeed, likely most—American and Massachusetts Jews, Israel has religious, personal, and spiritual meaning grounded in religious texts, personal ties, and tradition”

This language has been removed, erasing the documented reality that over 80% of American Jews view Israel as important to their Jewish identity. More critically, this deletion completely erases Israeli-American identity—those Massachusetts residents who are Israeli by birth or heritage, for whom Israel is not just spiritually significant but their actual homeland.

The removal of this content denies the lived experience of Israeli-Americans who maintain family, cultural, and national ties to Israel. It creates a policy framework disconnected from both the Jewish community experience and the specific needs of Israeli-Americans who face targeted harassment. The result is insufficient official recognition of mainstream Jewish connection to Israel and added invisibility of Israeli-American residents.

B. Elimination of Anti-Zionism as Antisemitism Recognition

The Commission deleted: “Calls for the elimination of the only Jewish state, where half of the Jews in the world live, is obvious antisemitism to most Jews”

This removes acknowledgment that calling for Israel’s destruction constitutes antisemitism, contradicts the IHRA definition adopted by 35 states and the federal government, and eliminates alignment with mainstream Jewish consensus and international standards. Institutions are now left with no guidance on when anti-Israel rhetoric becomes antisemitic.

C. Erasure of Nuanced Explanations

The original text acknowledged Jews who support Israel while criticizing specific government policies. This protected space for legitimate policy debate. The revision removes even this nuanced acknowledgment of mainstream Jewish positions and creates a false binary between uncritical support and anti-Zionism. The Commission has eliminated any framework for distinguishing legitimate criticism from antisemitic elimination rhetoric.

Problematic Replacements

The Commission added generic language stating: “The Commission reaffirms in the strongest possible terms that all Jewish people are equally deserving of protections under the law.”

This replaces substantive discussion with empty platitudes and creates a strawman argument—no one argued some Jews deserve less protection. It avoids addressing actual mechanisms of contemporary antisemitism and deflects from core issues through performative inclusivity language.

Policy Implications

The revisions lead to three major policy failures:

First, the normalization of anti-Zionism. By removing recognition that most Jews see anti-Zionism as antisemitic, the Commission creates operational space for antisemites under political cover. Institutions are left without guidance on protecting Jewish students from elimination rhetoric.

Second, the erasure of mainstream Jewish views. The Commission literally deletes the majority Jewish perspective on Israel while claiming to protect all Jews. This disconnects policy from the community it claims to serve.

Third, a weakened institutional framework. Without acknowledging the Israel connection, the Commission cannot effectively address campus antisemitism. BDS activities receive implicit protection through omission, and anti-Israel harassment targeting Jewish students lacks clear prohibition.

Suggested Replacement Text for Prefatory Statement

Location: Page 5, Section IV: “Prefatory Statement and Guiding Principles: Combating Antisemitism and Hate ‘The Massachusetts Way'”

Replace the following paragraph currently on page 5:

“Adding to the complexity of the challenge, the diversity of opinions and political ideologies among Jewish people in Massachusetts that is a hallmark and strength of Jewish society has caused ideological fractures among Jews with divergent opinions about how to address antisemitism proactively. Perhaps chief among those differences is starkly contrasting relationships with the modern State of Israel. The Commission reaffirms in the strongest possible terms that all Jewish people are equally deserving of protections under the law, including their rights to free speech. Antisemitism threatens all Jews regardless of ideology. The Commonwealth’s response must be rooted in shared security, mutual respect, and a collective commitment to stand against hate in every form.”

With the following text:

“For the majority of Massachusetts Jews, Israel represents their ancestral homeland with deep ethnic, cultural, historical, and religious significance. This documented reality—that over 80% of American Jews view Israel as important to their identity—must inform any serious effort to combat antisemitism. Calls for the elimination of the only Jewish state, where half the world’s Jews reside, constitute antisemitism as recognized by federal policy, international frameworks, and the mainstream Jewish community. While legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies is protected speech, rhetoric calling for Israel’s destruction or denying Jewish peoplehood targets the core of Jewish identity.”

“Zionism encompasses three fundamental principles that define Jewish self-determination: a Jewish homeland in the Land of Israel where Jews have maintained continuous presence for over 3,000 years; the return to Zion as a safe haven providing all Jews who desire it permanent refuge from persecution; and the revival of Jewish culture, primarily the restoration of Hebrew from a liturgical language to a thriving language of daily life. For the vast majority of Jews worldwide, these pillars of Zionism represent not a political ideology but an integral component of Jewish identity itself. Anti-Zionism, by denying these fundamental aspects of Jewish peoplehood and self-determination, uniquely targets Jewish collective identity and the right that all peoples possess to sovereignty in their indigenous homeland.”

Conclusion

The November 14 revisions in the prefatory statement defining “The Massachusetts Way” represent a dangerous retreat from confronting contemporary antisemitism. By removing recognition of the Jewish-Israel connection and eliminating acknowledgment that elimination rhetoric constitutes antisemitism, the Commission has created a framework that protects antisemites more than Jews. The deletions appear to represent capitulation to anti-Israel or “Israeliphobic” pressure at the expense of Jewish safety and should be reversed.