Comment

Comment on House Passes Bill That Defines Criticism of Israel as “Antisemitism”

This whole article criticized wording but never gave the words. Did I just miss it? I’m so confused. When I read about this yesterday, I thought the definition specifically separated anti Jewish people and anti Israel. Now I can’t find that.

I believe this is the definition they’re discussing…

IHRA’s non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:

“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.”

source

Sort:hotnew top

BrikoX@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
(2) includes the “[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism” identified in the IHRA definition.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

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.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

All of these examples are part of the definition. So under this law, saying that Israel is an apartheid state or saying Israel is committing a genocide would be against the law. |

ACLU gives a few more examples of how fucked up this is if you are interested in reading.
source
- alilbee@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I don’t believe it would be, actually? Both of your examples do not resemble any of the listed sub-items. Holding all Jewish people responsible for those items would be antisemitic, but they do also explicitly mention that any criticism that could be leveled at another state is valid. Comparing them to the Nazis is a no go, but it sounds as if you can accuse the state of Israel of apartheid or genocide and that is still not antisemitism under this bill.
  
  To be clear, I am opposed to this law and believe it will have a chilling effect on speech. I just don’t think your examples above would be in violation.
  
  source
  - BrikoX@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    they do also explicitly mention that any criticism that could be leveled at another state is valid
    
    That explicit mention is not part of the definition.
    
    I just don’t think your examples above would be in violation.
    
    I’m no legal expert, so take everything I say as an opinion based on my understanding, but actual legal experts also say that it would be a violation.
    
    source
    alilbee@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Sorry, that “explicit” was referring to another page from the same source I saw referenced elsewhere in regards to this bill. I’ll retract that unless I can find it again.
    
    Are the legal experts saying your examples above would be a violation? Do you have a link to that? If you are referring to the linked article, I’m not sure I’m seeing these two examples listed. Again, just want to emphasize I’m with yall on the bill here. I just want to actually understand and discuss the limits that might be applied here.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The big one is right here:

“Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

This is a slight of hand where they conflate judaism and Israel. The definition starts out as explicitely about Judaism and move towards being explicitly about Israel.

Here is a link where I go into more detail: lemmy.world/comment/9797297

source
- rtxn@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  But saying something like “Denying the Muslim people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a sovereign Palestine is a racist endeavor" would get nothing but dropped jaws and racist bleating.
  
  source
  - TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Exactly.
    
    source