To the Editor:

In the wake of the recent incident involving the cutting down of an Israeli flag being displayed on a private residential property in Sandy Hook, it’s crucial to examine what does and does not constitute an act of antisemitism and the commission of a hate crime.

Central to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism (which is used by the US State Dept) is applying double standards requiring Israel to behave in ways not expected or demanded of any other nation. Criticizing the state of Israel and its political leadership is not antisemitic, unless doing so involves the use of flagrant double standards, perpetrating antisemitic conspiracy myths, or demonizing the Jewish people.

One example: It’s acceptable to accuse Israel of human rights violations. But it’s unacceptable (and hypocritical) to single out Israel while refusing to point out far worse human rights abuses in countries including Syria, Iran, North Korea, and China.

Another example: It’s acceptable to defend campus speech that may be hurtful to Jews. But it’s unacceptable (and hypocritical) for colleges and universities that have spent the last decade dedicating themselves to the construction of “safe spaces” and strict censorship of speech that can be construed as racist, misogynist, homophobic or transphobic to suddenly discover the virtue of free expression when it comes to antisemitic speech.

By definition, a hate crime is motivated by prejudice against a group based on their ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds — and typically involves violence. Sarah Stofko appears to be guilty of trespassing, vandalism, and destruction of private property (all against the law) and of holding wrongheaded political views (which isn’t).

I applaud First Selectman Jeff Capeci and Chief of Police David Kullgren for recognizing the danger posed by antisemitism. There is no excuse or rationale for harassing, intimidating, threatening Jews or vandalizing Jewish institutions, Jewish-owned businesses or the homes of Jews.

But in charging Sarah Stofko with a hate crime potentially punishable by three years of imprisonment, it’s reasonable to ask if there’s been a rush to judgement in which the authorities, like antisemites, have relied on double standards.

If Sarah Stofko had instead cut down the American flag instead of the Israeli flag, would that have been a “hate crime”? If they cut down a Palestinian flag, a Ukrainian flag, or a Russian flag would that constitute a “hate crime?” It’s unlikely — unless it could be readily shown that the vandalizer was also harassing, intimidating, threatening, or attacking people of Russian, Ukrainian or Palestinian origin.

In these tumultuous times, we will all be better off if cooler heads prevail — which includes the ability to distinguish between actions that are motivated by hate vs actions that are merely reprehensible.

Arnie Berman

Sandy Hook