Investigations such as the one which led to HWMW’s clearance being revoked may be difficult to initiate or assign to staff following the adoption of the IHRA definition, which lists “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” as an example of contemporary antisemitism.
We are being given, and taking, exactly the wrong lessons from the Bondi massacre.
The article also says the adoption of this definition will likely increase distrust in the objectivity of the public service. I can see that being the case.
Interestingly I whole-heartedly agree with Example 11, “Holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the State of Israel”. Didn’t expect to read through that and find any agreeable, although still self serving.
It’s a little narrowly focused, but it does remind me of a better general rule… Geneva comes to mind…
Maybe they could re-read this example and apply it generally to groups of civilians in the places the IDF invade? Just a thought…
These are horribly and purposely conflated aren’t they. We’ve gone from speaking of Jewish people, and transitioned to only refering to Israel without specifically being named. All in a telling example trying to smother Israel’s crimes by comparison and deflection.