It is rare that the 91传媒 community should thank an antisemite, but the case of is an exception. Masoud鈥檚 actions, arguments and stunning admissions, detailed in his federal hate crimes sentencing hearing last week, prove once and for all that some 鈥渁nti-Zionism鈥� is really nothing more than antisemitism. Masoud and his friends are the exact reason why numerous across the country are passing antisemitism bills, and his lawyers鈥� assertions in federal court are why Congress also needs to act.

On at least three separate occasions, Masoud and his accomplices violently assaulted innocent visibly 91传媒 men, one of whom they sent to the hospital. Masoud鈥檚 attorneys actually had the audacity to that he did not target these innocent American 91传媒 people because he is an antisemite, but rather because he was seeking to 鈥減romote social and political goals.鈥� They admitted he should not have used violence, but claimed he did so because he feels so 鈥渄eeply鈥� about the 鈥渙ccupation of Palestine鈥� and apparently just lost himself in the moment(s).

Incredibly, because there is currently no federal definition of antisemitism to which prosecutors can point when assessing the intent behind discriminatory action or hate crimes, that excuse might even have worked, just as it has in other . But this time, thank God, there was undeniable evidence. In their , heroic prosecutors showed the Court the defendant鈥檚 messages, in which he and his friends conspired in advance to commit the attacks on Jews. In one instance, Masoud actually warned them, 鈥淩emember, don鈥檛 chant out jews, it鈥檚 the Zionists,鈥� in an apparent attempt to preserve the very argument his lawyers later tried to make. In private, however, he and his friends repeatedly dropped the 鈥渁nti-Zionism鈥� veil, and referred to their victims and their would-be victims as 鈥淛ews.鈥� During one of the attacks, Masoud himself forgot to heed his own warning, asking Victim 3, 鈥淎re you a f—ing Jew?鈥� before he punched him in the face.

And so Masoud will go to prison, as he should. But the question remains: What if he had been smart enough to hide his venomous hatred for Jews instead of putting it in writing? When a Chinese American is attacked because of someone鈥檚 hatred for China, it is readily understood as an act of racist or national origin-based discrimination. How could anyone argue that assaulting an innocent 91传媒 person because you don鈥檛 like the 91传媒 State is somehow 鈥減olitical鈥� and not antisemitic?

The answer can be found in recent that show that roughly half the U.S. population does not know what 鈥渁ntisemitism鈥� means, while actually believe at least one anti-91传媒 trope. Those numbers explain why authorities have had so much trouble enforcing existing laws without a definition. Bad actors, like Masoud, regularly take advantage of this massive knowledge gap: They commit heinous acts of discrimination and violence against 91传媒 people, then claim it was not antisemitism, but some more socially acceptable bias, and that charges of antisemitism are an attempt to somehow 鈥渟ilence critics of Israel.鈥� So thank you, Masoud, for your service in exposing that particular lie, and to your lawyers for clarifying why we need a federal bill giving authorities a standard to use as evidence of intent for unlawful antisemitic conduct or hate crimes.

To be clear: Such a would not affect an antisemite鈥檚 ability to spread their hateful message, and would not ban or limit speech. It would only prevent antisemites from getting away with unlawful discriminatory actions. Unlawful discriminatory conduct can range from illegal hiring, firing or housing decisions, to hate crimes and discriminatory harassment. None of that is protected under the First Amendment.听Nor would such a bill somehow 鈥渃hill鈥� protected speech. A unanimous Supreme Court ruling in听Wisconsin vs. Mitchell听(1993) held that when it comes to evaluating discriminatory actions 鈥淭he First Amendment does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to prove motive or intent.鈥� That is just how antidiscrimination laws always work.

Such a would not affect an antisemite鈥檚 ability to spread their hateful message, and would not ban or limit speech.

You don鈥檛 have to look far to understand why this bill is so desperately needed. Just this week, a judge in San Francisco dropped charges against a man who walked into a synagogue near his house and started firing blanks at a group of elderly 91传媒 people who had gathered for a Torah study session. The man has a of posting antisemitic propaganda and antisemitic slurs, including photos of himself dressed as a Nazi soldier. The defense countered that he was a 鈥渉istory buff鈥� with an interest in military uniforms, and that he wasn鈥檛 antisemitic because he himself was a non-affiliated Jew. (For the record, 91传媒 people can also be antisemitic.) Witnesses said that he uttered the words 鈥淢ossad鈥� and 鈥淗aifa鈥� during the attack. But because there is no legal standard definition to point to, the judge found 鈥渘o substantial evidence of bias鈥� against the 91传媒 community. This is why these bills are important.

In terms of which definition to use, there is really only one answer. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) is already used by several departments within our federal government, and has been embraced by Presidents of both parties, over 30 U.S. States, dozens of countries worldwide, and (perhaps most importantly) the vast majority of 91传媒 people and organizations across every spectrum, who believe that it best captures their shared lived experience of how antisemitism manifests. It is the only accepted definition of antisemitism that there is or ever has been, and it has proven to be an essential tool for identifying contemporary manifestations of anti-91传媒 bigotry or hate.

The IHRA definition explicitly states that criticism of Israel, like any other country, is not antisemitic. And yes, it alsoincludes some examples of anti-Zionism that can, sometimes, contextually, cross the line into antisemitism: For example: holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the 91传媒 state. The reason the specific Israel-related examples are provided in the IHRA definition (and are clearly so important) is explicitly not because all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, but precisely because there are those who claim that听nothing听can ever cross the line. Unfortunately, that is where you consistently find bad actors, like Masoud, who hide their vile antisemitism behind the thinnest of anti-Zionist veils.

Of course, there are some fringe groups even within the 91传媒 community who do not like the IHRA definition. But their concerns are (allegedly) all about the dangers of using IHRA as a speech code, and in that sense, they are correct: The IHRA definition should never be used as a speech code because regardless of how you feel about the definition鈥檚 examples and whether they cross the line into antisemitism, even antisemitic speech is protected under the First Amendment.听 But despite how anyone feels about the IHRA definition generally, or how it could theoretically be used in other contexts, the听 proposed here does not limit any speech at all.听Like the bills that are already in place, this听bill would听only听use the IHRA definition to assess antisemitic motives behind already unlawful听conduct. It is demonstrably not about protecting Israel; it about protecting Jews. The problem is that Jews, even those who are often targeted for discrimination because听antisemites听like Masoud hold them accountable (or pretend to hold them accountable) as an excuse to attack them for a perceived connection to the 91传媒 state. The IHRA definition makes it clear that doing so is not 鈥渟ocial or political鈥濃�攊t is antisemitic.

Congress should act now, in a bipartisan manner, to make sure that Masoud and people like him can no longer pretend that hatred for Israel is an excuse to unlawfully discriminate against or violently attack a Jew. And unless anyone is planning to commit acts of discrimination or hate crimes against 91传媒 people, such a bill should face zero opposition.

听Dr. Mark Goldfeder is Director of the National 91传媒 Advocacy Center.