With antisemitic incidents rising and college campuses continuing to be flashpoints for antisemitism, the Jewish community has begun organizing to fight organizations that illegally fund terrorist organizations.

“As a community we’ve been rocked back,” said Rabbi Dr. Mark Goldfeder. “Nobody thought it would be this bad or we would have this much hate.”

Goldfeder is CEO and director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center (NJAC), Inc. and scholar-in-residence and adjunct professor of law at the Touro Law Center, where he teaches a new course, “Antisemitism and the Law.”

He made his remarks during a Nov. 19 virtual program sponsored by Touro University, “Taking Hamas Funders to Court,” during which he and Erielle Davidson, an associate attorney with Holtzman Vogel and co-founder of the Center for the Middle East and International Law through the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, spoke about efforts to legally sanction entities who purport to support Palestinian rights but are in fact supporting terrorist organizations in violation of the law.

Goldfeder said initially NJAC focused its attention on defining antisemitism by working to get the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition passed. He testified this past June during a long hearing before the New Jersey Senate, at which the IHRA was advanced out of committee.

“Almost half of all adult Americans don’t know what the word antisemitism means,” he said.

“You can’t fight what you can’t define.”

Through its efforts, 36 states have adopted the IHRA and NJAC has shifted its focus since the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel to combating how antisemitic hate has manifested itself.

As part of that initiative, it has filed five lawsuits against entities accusing them of helping to fund Hamas, which is recognized by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization in violation of the Antiterrorism Act. One suit was filed on behalf of the survivors of the Oct. 7 attack at the Nova Music Festival against the Associated Press; the suit alleges that photos of the attack were taken by paid photographers who were “known agents of Hamas.”

It also filed against the Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation, also known as American Muslims for Palestine, charging it has taken millions from undisclosed donors. The organization has been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League for its “extreme anti-Israel views” and providing “a platform for antisemitism under the guise of educating Americans about ‘the just cause of Palestine and the rights of self-determination.’”

Other suits are against the National Students for Justice in Palestine and UNRWA USA, the United Nations relief agency in Gaza, on behalf of 10 survivors of the Oct. 7 attack accusing it of materially “supporting terrorism” by knowingly using its charity work to operate a “terrorist-financing scheme” in violation of federal law.

Davidson, who has worked on the UNRWA and SJP cases, said some attorneys and law firms are reluctant to join in such actions, considering them “too political.”

“My response is, ‘I didn’t know killing of Jews was too political,’” she said.

Davidson said the UNRWA case was interesting because it is an American-based organization and therefore has none of the protections an international entity would have, yet it donates “millions and millions of dollars” to the parent agency and therefore is paying the salaries of Hamas leaders.

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color and national origin, was passed it did not initially include Jews, but since then has undergone revisions that encompass discrimination against Jews and others. However, Title VI enforcement by the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education and lawsuits against alleged violators have been difficult because of the amount of time needed to investigate and for legal proceedings as well as vague language. Title VI bars an institution receiving federal funding from discriminating and could result in loss of those funds.

Goldfeder noted the imprecise definition surrounding what constitutes disallowed “unreasonable” actions finally came to a head earlier this month when a federal judge overseeing lawsuits accusing Harvard University of antisemitism ruled that “unreasonable has to mean something.”

District Judge Richard Stearns in Boston decided that the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education (JAFE) can pursue a hostile educational environment claim on behalf of students seeking to prove Harvard’s “deliberate indifference” to harassment. JAFE is affiliated with the Brandeis Center, which works to promote justice and civil rights for the Jewish people.

Davidson, whose law firm has taken the lead in the case, said since the plaintiff is JAFE and not individual Harvard students, the students will not be named in legal actions. “The entity is the one that has standing,” she said, adding students will be known to the university, which will be allowed to despose them, but will not be permitted to reveal their identities, offering them protection from harassment. They instead will be referred to in court filings by a number.

Goldfeder said while universities can lose federal funding for violating Title VI, none ever have.

“If we have an incredible case and they know it we’d rather work with them to resolve it,” he said. “In the end I don’t want the university to lose money. I want them to get better.”