Will President Biden blow it again? That’s the question as he heads to Capitol Hill Tuesday to address antisemitism. The event, part of the Holocaust Museum’s Days of Remembrance, comes amid an outbreak of hostility against Jewish students, along with denunciations of Israel, on American campuses, it’s important to gain clarity on where stand Mr. Biden, his  administration, and the American government. It’s a significant moment.

All the more so because a year ago, when Mr. Biden tried to address the question of antisemitism, he — in the phrasing of the New York Post — blew it.  The administration issued a milquetoast, 60-page “national strategy to combat antisemitism.” It was signed by Mr. Biden but failed to mark anti-Zionism as one of its targets. It shrank from embracing the definition of antisemitism put forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

The IHRA website puts at 43 the number of countries that have endorsed or adopted its definition of antisemitism. It says: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

On top of that, the IHRA includes a description of “manifestations” of antisemitism. They “might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” It notes that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” Antisemitism, it says, “frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for ‘why things go wrong.’”

The full list of manifestations is long — and more inclusive than that which Mr. Biden had articulated a year ago. Mr. Biden’s default last year  infuriated Jewish institutions. Legislation to adopt a more expansive definition is now before Congress. The House has just passed it by a bipartisan vote of 320 to 91. The legislation would, as the AP puts it, codify the IHRA definition of antisemitism in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Title VI bars discrimination in any federally-funded program or activity based on “race, color, or national origin.” Senator Schumer sought to get the upper chamber to pass the measure by unanimous consent, but was unsuccessful and the matter will have to work its way through the Senate. No doubt there will be some lively debate by those, in both parties, who worry that writing the IHRA definition into law could lead to violations of the First Amendment.

The opposition is not insignificant. The measure passed by the House was opposed by 70 Democrats, or a third of their caucus, and by 21 Republicans, or just under 10 percent of the GOP caucus. We share many of their First Amendment concerns. Yet, in our view, that particular bridge can be crossed when we get to it. In the meantime, if Congress is going to use Title VI to protect Jews then it would be logical to have a definition, and the right one, of antisemitism.

We like the way Bernard-Henri Lévy has put the point: “The problem is not how to determine, as you hear in the media, whether you have ‘the right’ to criticize Israel or whether it is possible to be ‘anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic.’ The truth is that one can now be anti-Semitic only by being anti-Zionist; anti-Zionism is the required path for any anti-Semitism that wishes to expand its recruiting pool beyond those still nostalgic for the discredited brotherhoods.”

So all eyes will be on Mr. Biden next week. He has a chance now to correct the record and set the stage for ridding our campuses of what has been called the oldest hatred. This is not about the Palestinian Arabs or any other minority. It is about the particular problem of antisemitism, which is not about Jewish — or Israeli — behavior. It is about an animosity that existed for millennia before the arrival of political Zionism. It’s a moment for Mr. Biden to step up.