Our job, as the great salad bowl of the world and as the country that is home to the most diverse group of individuals in the world, should be to promote peace and equality for all people. We should not force these ideals down anyone’s throat, as we are doing in the Middle East, but we should condemn racism and hatred of any people.

On Oct. 16, President Bush signed into law the Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2004. This act would establish in the Department of State, “an office to monitor and combat anti-Semitism” and would “require inclusion in annual Department of State reports of information concerning acts of anti-Semitism around the world.”

But it seems that Congress and the president have a different method of fighting racism and hatred. They are doing it through a group-by-group method. One group will be the focus for a few years; then another; and then another. At least this is the optimistic way of looking at things.

I say this with optimism because I really hope this is what is happening. Of course, in the back of my mind, I know it is not going to happen.

I have to applaud the efforts of Congress and the president on their attempt to rid the world of hatred and racism, but this act only focuses on one group of people. Why isn’t it possible to monitor human rights violations of all people, regardless of ethnicity, nationality or religion? Why must there be a focus? Is that not the job of a special-interest group or a non-governmental organization?

Something else interesting with this act is the definition of “Semitic.”

A.L. von Scholzer, a 18th-century German scholar, defined “Semitic” as a family of related languages – Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic. So, according to this definition, Hebrew-speaking, Arabic-speaking and Aramaic-speaking people are Semites.

If we were to follow this definition: Salma Hayek and Shakira would be considered Semites because they have Arabic-speaking parents. Jamie Farr, the man who is famous for wearing women’s clothing on “M.A.S.H.,” is of Arab descent as well.

As some may have guessed, we do not use the older definition. We use a more modern definition of Semitic, which focuses on followers of Judaism.

One can even go further and say that at times one is accused of being anti-Semitic if something is said against Zionism (which is a political ideology) or something against Israel.

I don’t know what to make of this bill. On the surface, it seems like such a great thing because it’s fighting an illogical kind of hate. However, this bill will extend officially “anti-Semitic” to mean “anti-Israeli” or “anti-Zionist.” This is what stumps the bill.

The United States already has Israel as an ally, and Israel would not do anything to jeopardize this interesting relationship. The passing of this act is just another sign of this unexplainable relationship.

Instead of focusing on racism in a general sense, or even racism within our own borders, our wonderful government is always working hard improving ties between Israel and us.

It just doesn’t make any sense.

Columns reflect the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the Northern Star staff.