INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — State lawmakers on Thursday remained deadlocked over how to define antisemitism as the 2024 legislative session entered what are expected to be its final two days.

The House in mid-January unanimously approved a bill classifying antisemitism as a form of religious discrimination. That version of the bill included the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of “antisemitism” and specifically cited the organization’s examples.

In addition to Holocaust denial and calling for or justifying the killing of Jews, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition includes claiming the state of Israel is a racist endeavor and comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis.

The bill’s critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have raised concerns that those examples could be used to silence supporters of Palestine.

The Senate’s version of the bill kept the wording of the House’s definition of antisemitism but removed any references to IHRA or its list of examples.

Sen. Greg Taylor, a Democrat from Indianapolis, said Indiana’s children need to be taught antisemitism is wrong but didn’t think it’s a good idea to allow outside groups to write legal definitions.

“Giving a group of organizers the authority to define what you say is not how we do things in the United States of America,” he said.

That argument didn’t satisfy House members, including Rep. Ed DeLaney, another Indianapolis Democrat. DeLaney, who voted for the bill this year and nearly identical legislation last year, said he doesn’t understand why the Senate changed the bill.

“It has no protections and no definitions. Otherwise, the Senate bill is brilliant,” he said.

The Senate’s version didn’t satisfy Jacob Markey, the executive director of the Indianapolis Jewish Community Relations Council, either. Markey said IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism, codified in 2016, is the result of years of work by experts on antisemitism and the Holocaust. Forty-three countries, including Israel and the United States, have officially adopted it. Markey said state law needs to specifically reference IHRA’s examples of antisemitism because doing so helps define what antisemitism is. He noted the bill’s original language specifically exempted “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country.”

“Criticism of Israel is allowed but criticism that offers a double standard that throws out words and definitions that are not true against Israel, that’s not OK,” he said. “In antisemitism, people use this double standard and say things about Israel they wouldn’t say about any other country.”

Bill author Rep. Chris Jeter, a Republican from Fishers, has floated a compromise proposal that would restore IHRA’s definition of antisemitism but not make any mention of the organization’s examples. Markey said that still wouldn’t be enough for the bill to accomplish Jeter’s goals.

If lawmakers agree on the bill’s language, it would still need a final floor vote in both chambers. Lawmakers have said they expect to wrap up the session Friday.