Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop, left, and Rep. Josh Gottheimer are among the six Democrats vying to be our next governor. (Photos by Reena Rose Sibayan/Danielle Richards)
TENAFLY — It was Tuesday night at Elks Lodge No. 2271 in this Bergen County borough, and Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop was defending his views on antisemitism.
With dozens on hand to hear from Fulop, who is one of two Democrats running to be New Jersey’s first Jewish governor, the first person to raise their hand quizzed him about his opposition to a bill before the New Jersey Legislature that would codify a specific definition of antisemitism.
The three-term mayor said a bill targeting hate crimes against the Jewish community but no other group plays into stereotypes that Jewish people “think that they’re better than others, or they’re unique, or they’re different, or they have a different set of standards.”
“Now I’m not going to say that that’s true, but that’s what people say about Jewish people,” he said, adding, “And I do not think that is a productive place for the Jewish community to be. I don’t think it’s healthy. I think it encourages more antisemitism.”
Tuesday’s event was not the first time even this week that Fulop was confronted about the legislation, known as the IHRA bill, short for the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Speaking to voters in Montclair Monday, Fulop told another voter that the measure would limit criticism of Israel.
“If you read the IHRA legislation — and I know most people in the Jewish community haven’t read it, OK? — you get to the point where it speaks specifically about what you can and can’t say with regards to Israel,” Fulop said. “I feel that that is a dangerous place to be.”
The bill would approve a state definition of antisemitism that mirrors the definition provided by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The measure cites what the group considers contemporary examples of antisemitism, like claiming the existence of Israel is a racist endeavor, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, and holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s actions, among other things. Critics say this kind of language improperly conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
The American Jewish Committee says as of August, 35 states plus D.C. are using or have recognized the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
One of the New Jersey bill’s chief sponsors, Assemblyman Gary Schaer (D-Passaic), has expressed frustration that more than a year after its introduction, it has not moved in the Assembly, even though it has 56 sponsors, enough to guarantee its passage. The Senate version of the bill, with 16 sponsors, has not moved since it was approved by a committee in June following a four-hearing hearing. That version was amended to say the bill should not be construed “to diminish or infringe upon any right to criticize the government of the State of Israel in a manner similar to that leveled against any other country.”
Fulop noted in Tenafly Tuesday that the Assembly bill does not have that line.
“Whether you agree or disagree with what Israel does, you should be able to criticize Ukraine, to criticize Russia, to criticize the United States, and you should be able to criticize Israel,” he said.
Fulop has painted himself as the progressive darling in the six-person race for the Democratic nomination for governor — he’s anti-county line, pro-congestion pricing, and a favorite of college Dems — so his position on the antisemitism bill is not a surprise. Though codifying this definition of antisemitism has broad, bipartisan support in the Assembly, the idea is loathed by progressives.
But not by Rep. Josh Gottheimer, the other Jewish Democrat running for governor. After hearing Fulop’s comments about the IHRA bill, I asked Gottheimer, who is decidedly not a progressive darling, to weigh in.
Gottheimer, a Tenafly resident, is on the opposite side of this divide. This should not be shocking. Not only is he a leading sponsor of a federal bill called the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2025 that would use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism to guide federal antidiscrimination enforcement, but Gottheimer has been staunch in his support of Israel.
Gottheimer said Fulop’s comments about the state bill display “a deep sign of ignorance,” and he chided Fulop for repeating the “deeply offensive and antisemitic trope” that Jewish people feel they should live by a different set of standards.
“For some reason, he’s decided that he wants to proactively alienate the Jewish community. I don’t understand,” Gottheimer told me.
Gottheimer said the Holocaust alliance created a definition for antisemitism because governing bodies, schools, and other organizations asked for a clear explanation of what antisemitism is and isn’t. He denied that the state or federal bill would limit First Amendment protections of people who want to criticize Israel.
“You can’t say it may not exist, it should be eliminated. You can’t call for the destruction or elimination of Israel, but, of course, you can criticize — it allows for criticism of Israel all day long if you’d like,” he said.
Regarding Fulop’s contention that the state legislation would bar some criticism of Israel, Gottheimer in a statement from his campaign said, “Steve should get his eyes checked, because this bill clearly protects the Jewish community from record levels of antisemitism and upholds First Amendment rights.”
Asked to comment on Gottheimer’s characterization of Fulop as ignorant on the state bill, Fulop in a statement from his campaign said, “I’m not going to attack Josh, but to say that I’m ignorant on this issue is laughable.”
“I give an honest and thoughtful response that doesn’t pander to anyone but protects the Jewish community and is cognizant of how legislation works in Trenton, unlike Josh,” he said.
The two Democrats’ spat about the bill comes as their party remains split by the nation’s response to the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel. State Sen. Jon Bramnick — a Union County Republican who is also vying to become the state’s first Jewish governor — thinks this split is the reason the Assembly version of the bill has yet to get a committee hearing, even with its long list of sponsors (Bramnick is sponsoring the bill on the Senate side). A spokeswoman for Assembly Democrats declined to comment.
“There must be a concern within the Democratic caucus, expressed somehow by Steve Fulop, that expanding the definition is not good for them politically,” Bramnick said. “I don’t think that policy-wise they have any problem with limiting antisemitism. I think their problem is they must have a political entity or political group that doesn’t want them to move the bill.”
I find the Fulop/Gottheimer debate on the IHRA bill fascinating because it represents just one of the divides in the Democratic Party, schisms that will become more dramatic as the crowded race for the party’s gubernatorial nomination gets closer to June 10, the day of the primary.
For Fulop, the bill is bad legislation, something that could end up harming Jews. For Gottheimer, the uptick in antisemitism following the Oct. 7 attacks is the reason the state needs to pass it.
“New Jersey needs a governor who is willing to take a strong stand, in my opinion, against hate and doing everything in their power to protect our communities from bigotry and hatred. And if there are other definitions that would be helpful to other communities that are discriminated against, and there’s high rates of discrimination, I would, of course, be open to that,” he said.
The 2025 governor’s race
The New Jersey Monitor is providing extensive coverage of the race for our next governor. You can help us with a donation to support robust local news.