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.”
"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.
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.
(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.
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.
"Welcome to university, where we teach you to be the leaders of tomorrow, think for yourself, and pursue truth regardless of the consequences."
"Wait no, not like that. Shut up. Stop expressing yourself. There will he consequences for all of those who express the wrong truth. Now please, disperse and sign this form proclaiming obedience and asserting that you commit to never disrupting any entity with your speech or actions."
Kind of. I'm not sure if it was specifically planned or just typical of courts being slow. In any case, the likely forced confessions shouldn't be a reason to sentence anyone to death, especially for non-violent crimes. The death penalty should be abolished everywhere.
EDIT: Well, that's a bad typo to make. It previously said "shouldn't" instead of " should".
The death penalty shouldn’t be abolished everywhere.
The only case the death penalty seems socially useful is when it's used for major white-collar crimes (eg, faking emissions, reducing testing for asbestos in talc products, reducing testing for listeria in baby formula, mass predatory lending resulting in millions of foreclosures, knowingly lying to promote war), since very few murders are doing cost-benefit analysis of murder, whereas these guys absolutely do consider potential consequences.
I meant should. I don't think there are any scenarios where death penalty should exist. But I agree that financial crimes should be punished on the same or higher level than homicides, since the harm they do are exponentially higher.
This is pretty interesting. Americans seem to be convinced that their president is the king of earth and they can, with a wave of their finger change anything. This is total bullshit
Presidential power inside the country is extremely limited by the constitution and they rarely have an opportunity to “just do what they said they were going to do”.
Outside our borders… it’s so fucking complicated that no one person really understands the global web of power and influence. At the bottom of the pyramid though, always force of arms. If America is willing to fight you, then you do what they say.
So… should we start a war in every place on earth that genocide is occurring? Really channel our inner dick Cheney and waste life and treasure in regime changes? Should we really cede all power in the Middle East to Iran so that we can stop our (fucking asshole of an) ally Israel from using those weapons on a highly immoral war? Should we start WWIII with china to save the Uighurs? How many African nations should we currently be bombing?
Which of those wars do you want to fight? Have you enlisted yet? What are you waiting for?
It's the natural result of decades of the only standard being "I like the letter by their name".
Shitty people will always win in a race where cheating is legal. And as the DNC loves to point out: primaries aren't real elections and they can just ignore results if they want, so cheating is fine.
They stopped short of saying "only an idiot would think primaries matter" but unfortunately I don't think we're that far away from it.
Me too. Shame is that doing that would empower Iran, which isn’t great. It’s all tough choices and I’m pretty tired of listening to idiots pretend they have all the answers.
No one is saying Iran needs zero foils to counter and control them, you assuming dingdong.
We just want the US funded foil to not also be committing a genocide. The fact you conflate, "no genocide" with "eliminate Israel" shows that you are not capable of honestly engaging on this topic.
So… should we start a war in every place on earth that genocide is occurring? Really channel our inner dick Cheney and waste life and treasure in regime changes?
No one here is advocating for that. “Stop funding genocide” is a far cry for “Channel your inner Dick Cheney”
Interesting Global News
Hot
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago). Subscribe to start receiving updates.