You're wrong. From the top of Section 4:

For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘definition of antisemitism’’ means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has •HR 6090 EH 25 been adopted by the Department of State; and 1 5 (2) includes the ‘‘[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism’’ identified in the IHRA definition

Since antisemitism is illegal under the Civil Rights Act, you'll now have to refer to the International Holocaust Rememberance Alliance (if that's not dystopian enough) definition on their website, which contains such hits as:

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group

So if you think circumcision is wrong, then you're accusing Jews, as a people, of real wrongdoing, because Jews, as a people, are pro-circumcision. It's right in their books.

How about this one:

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations

So accusing BS of what he admits to publicly is now a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

Keep an eye on the page for updates; I'm sure the international jews will expand the definition to "any criticism whatsoever" soon.

Since when has the wording of a bill limited the scope of its tyranny?