We are witnessing a modern day red scare
Close - the difference is that in this red scare we’re the reds and McCarthy is neither a senator nor even an American… They’re Isreali lobbyists.
I really, really do not want to be lumped in with Zionists.
I don’t agree at all with what’s happened to the Palestinians at Israel’s hands, and I have no trouble saying both Zionists and Israeli govt are wrong here.
I have never visited Israel for how toxic Zionists ironically sounded, considering our history in Germany, and I’m damn glad I never will. You’re making us all look bad, you fucking idiots.
I don’t agree at all with what’s happened to the Palestinians at Israel’s hands, and I have no trouble saying both Zionists and Israeli govt are wrong here.
That right there, you are going to be engaging in hate speech if this bill becomes law.
Agreed. I’m Jewish but I’m American. I’m not Israeli. I don’t support Israel’s apartheid or its genocide. I’ve never cared much about Israel in terms of my “heritage” and I’ve never even been especially interested in visiting beyond wanting to see some of the archaeology.
I am so tired of being associated with Israel and it’s Israel’s fault.
So criticizing a country that has assassinated American citizens is now a crime. Fucking wow
A bill so bad that even the ADL is opposed to it.
The article says:
The measure passed in a 320-91 vote. Twenty-one Republicans and 70 Democrats voted against the legislation.
The bill, titled the Antisemitism Awareness Act, would mandate that the Education Department adopt the broad definition of antisemitism used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, an intergovernmental group, to enforce anti-discrimination laws.
The international group defines antisemitism as a “certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” The group adds that “rhetorical and physical manifestations” of antisemitism include such things as calling for the killing or harming of Jews or holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by the state of Israel.
This seems good at first glance, as it clearly separates Israel and Judaism, which would be very clearly against the views of Netanyahu and his conservative government. My only issue is that it could be interpreted differently to give IHRA the agency to change their definitions, and they’re not generally unbiased when dealing with Israel. They had a highly controversial list of “examples of antisemitism” which defended Israel with fervor.
as it clearly separates Israel and Judaism
What are you talking about? The definition CLEARLY combines Israel and Judaism into one category, as in, any criticism of Israel becomes antisemitic hate speech.
Have you even actually read the definition?
You seem to have trouble reading the text you’re replying to. I’ll paste if a few more times to make it easier for you.
The international group defines antisemitism as a “certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” The group adds that “rhetorical and physical manifestations” of antisemitism include such things as calling for the killing or harming of Jews or holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by the state of Israel.
The group adds that “rhetorical and physical manifestations” of antisemitism include such things as calling for the killing or harming of Jews or holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by the state of Israel.
holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by the state of Israel.
holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by the state of Israel.
The key text:
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 where the slight of hand happens. The problem with self determination is that we don’t live in an empty world. My right to self determination can’t impinge on your right to self determination. So this definition doesn’t take into account competing political projects, agendas etc. This is about Israel, but notice they start with denying the Jewish people the right to self determination, then the example they give is claiming that the state of Israel is a racist endeavor. Now Judaism is conflated with political Zionism. These two things are not the same. And people have a right to believe that creating Israel is ok. But I have a right and you have a right to disagree that the formation of Israel was morally OK, politically acceptable. I can say that creating Israel came at the expense, of the Palestinian people. And that the creation of an ethnostate as such affords Israelis different rights whether or not you’re Jewish. And I don’t have to support the principal of an ethnostate. I dont belive in kurdish ethnostates, I don’t believe in white nationlist ethnostates, I dont believe in Arab or Islamic ethnostates, and I don’t believe in Jewish ethnostates.
I can say that. Unless we follow this definition.
for reference: the actual definition (if you can get it to load its getting the internet hug of death): https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
and the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7921
That’s actually not the correct bill, it’s https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7921
fixed, thanks for that catch.
I read your text 3 times to follow it. Your explanation is working VERY hard working with VERY NARROW definitions with your introduction of some possible logical leaps to make the connections. Not that I think you’re being disingenuous, but it looks like a weak argument. Yes, its possible but all the stars have to align for your reading to be true. Its just not likely.
That argument is build upon the foundation of the 11th bulletpoint example. You skipped (I believe unintentionally) over the HUGE carve out in the IHRA has before those examples. That text is this:
“Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
Source is the May 2016 definition as citing in the legislation
To me this looks like it leaves the door fully open to criticize the State of Israel for its treatment of minority groups inside its borders and out.
its possible but all the stars have to align for your reading to be true. Its just not likely.
I mean people are being accused of anti-semitism right now because they don’t want the Israeli government to finish its extermination of the Palestinian people. Its not a stretch or leap because it is happening right now. Its just not considered hate speech today to criticize the Israeli government.
Also, I don’t care to put things like this up to likely or unlikely given the current make up of the Supreme Court, which is where this would end up.
I mean people are being accused of anti-semitism right now because they don’t want the Israeli government to finish its extermination of the Palestinian people.
“People saying” doesn’t carry the weight of law, and thank goodness. Thats the difference.
Its not a stretch or leap because it is happening right now.
Where is someone being accused of criticizing Israel facing criminal charges right now? Thats a leap you’re making. You’re saying that because some rando is accusing someone criticizing Israel’s attacks on the Palestinian people that they’re facing criminal chargers, that just isn’t happening anywhere I’ve seen. If you have evidence of that I’m interested in it.
Well let’s put a flag in this and keep track of it. There is a clear train if conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism with the mainstream media’s coverage of the genocide, in what I hear coming out Congress critters mouths, the banning of toktok, and in all of the coverage I see regarding the student protests.
I expect this current crackdown if free speech to be explicitly based in the conflation of Israel with Judaism and I see the passage of this law as a direct step in that direction. I hope I’m seriously wrong, but I’m too cynical to out it aside as being explicitly for this purpose.
No one really knows how if this bull becomes a law, and we don’t know how that will be enforced or adjudicated.
The danger is that by introducing the threat of civil or even criminal charges against those who are accused of being antisemitic under this strict definition, it will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and academic debate/inquiry.
You should read this opinion piece by the lead drafter of the IHRA definition itself, talking about the dangers of Trump’s 2021 executive order (essentially what this latest bill is proposing to enforce by law). In it he warns about the definition being weaponized, saying:
Starting in 2010, rightwing Jewish groups took the “working definition”, which had some examples about Israel (such as holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of Israel, and denying Jews the right to self-determination), and decided to weaponize it with title VI cases. While some allegations were about acts, mostly they complained about speakers, assigned texts and protests they said violated the definition. All these cases lost, so then these same groups asked the University of California to adopt the definition and apply it to its campuses. When that failed, they asked Congress, and when those efforts stalled, the president.
The real purpose of the executive order isn’t to tip the scales in a few title VI cases, but rather the chilling effect. ZOA and other groups will hunt political speech with which they disagree, and threaten to bring legal cases. I’m worried administrators will now have a strong motivation to suppress, or at least condemn, political speech for fear of litigation. I’m worried that faculty, who can just as easily teach about Jewish life in 19th-century Poland or about modern Israel, will probably choose the former as safer. I’m worried that pro-Israel Jewish students and groups, who rightly complain when an occasional pro-Israel speaker is heckled, will get the reputation for using instruments of state to suppress their political opponents.
I assume “calling for the killing or harming of Jews” is meant in the general sense. But what happens if it’s directed at one person, who happens to be Jewish. Let’s say the individual is a criminal and people wish harm upon them. Would that count?
I feel like the illegality of threatening to murder a specific person was never really in question regardless of legislature waiting on the Senate’s approval,
But Fuck Netanyahu
Calling for the killing or harming of someone is not the same as threatening someone.
For example, I would never say “I’m going to kill Netanyahu”, but I AM aware of the FACT that the world would become a better place if someone, for example himself, did.
Likewise, it’s always been illegal to threaten Jewish people, just like anyone else, but this law is at the very least a step towards criminalizing all criticism of the actions of a fascist apartheid regime by equating Israel and by extension its government with all Jewish people, which is itself a very antisemitic thing to do.
Even Bernie is against this bill. ( He’s a Jew, btw.)
Saying someone is “a Jew” rather than saying that they’re “Jewish” often comes off as vaguely antisemitic. I’m not saying that it’s wrong, just something subtle I’ve noticed over the years.
Eh. I’m a Jew.
Really? (Really asking)
It’s not considered offensive for other religions as far as I know… “Peter is a Christian” has zero derogatory connotation
I mean the first point is that there’s not much history of widespread systematic anti-christian sentiment in the western world. Secondly, I’ve noticed antisemitic people tend to say “… is a jew” with a particular intonation even when they’re not speaking negatively about someone. In text format where tone isn’t able to be conveyed, I’ve noticed that people are more likely to react negatively.
Maybe I’m wrong, though. 🤷♂️ I’m a stranger on the internet, and you probably shouldn’t take my word at face value.
“even”?
What a rare W
The group adds that “rhetorical and physical manifestations” of antisemitism include such things as calling for the killing or harming of Jews or holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by Israel.
This is actually really good and a point I’ve tried to make to lukewarm success. The Israelis are not always in favor of the actions of their government much like we Americans aren’t. Making this distinction is important so that we remember who we’re actually angry at and who we demand action from regarding the clear genocide of the Palestinians.
Context: I’m an American Jew who is furious with Bibi’s actions and the IDF.
This is not a W… This boils down to conflating zionists with all Jews. Under these definitions there is basically no differentiation anymore. Which is fine if you’re a Zionist, but otherwise just lumps you in with them. It removes the distinction.
It’s like saying because the German government was run by Nazis, that all Germans were Nazis, even those against the government.
There’s a comment thread below yours that I’d love for you to read. This isn’t a “hey fuck off” but an actual ask since one of the comments is very similar to my mindset of the bill and I believe we can have a pretty good convo once you read the mindset a bit.
I agree that it has potential for misuse, but read the thread and let’s discuss (also it’s bedtime here so expect a delay in response from me please)
This is a disaster of a bill. It’s basically expanding any criticism of Israel to be considered antisemitism.
Live breakdown of its contents here:
This is a disaster of a bill. It’s basically expanding any criticism of Israel to be considered antisemitism.
I went to the link but its a livestream which at the time I tuned it didn’t seem to be giving the context you’re describing.
I’m looking at the text of the bill and it looks like the definition is locked to a specific timed definition:
“(1) means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State;” source
Further the May 26, 2016 definition appears to be this:
On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:
“Adopt the following 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.”
I see no mention of Israel being protected from any kind of criticism in either one of these. It looks like criticism of Israel isn’t being restricted here.
What are you seeing that would contradict what I’m seeing the text of the law?
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.
The first one is a rope-a-dope where the definition is about Judaism, but the example is about Israel. The rest don’t even bother with the feint any more and are all about Israel.
If this gets passed into law, any criticism of Israel or Israeli policy is effectively hate-speech under US law. This is happening right now, 100% because of the ongoing protests in support of Palestine, and I guarantee you will be used against those students if made into law.
The first one is a rope-a-dope where the definition is about Judaism, but the example is about Israel.
So you say. This is one of your logical leaps I’m talking about. The text doesn’t say it means that, but you’re claiming does. If I squint and tilt my head, I can barely see how that works, but again, its a “all stars have to align” type thing, and I just don’t think it likely that your reading is right.
The rest don’t even bother with the feint any more and are all about Israel.
Not protecting criticism of the modern state of Israel, but protecting non-Israeli people that are Jewish. (Except the Nazi one. That’s a problem for me too.)
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.
Nothing wrong with the first half. Its not Israel specific. The second half is a bit strange and vague meaning lots of room for defense on both sides.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
You’re going to have to explain your problem with this one to me. Its holding Israel accountable as any other nation state, and open to the same criticisms.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
I had to look up what a “blood libel” even was. This isn’t referring to the modern state of Israel formed in 1948, but instead pre-1948. As in 16th-17th century. All of the “blood libel” references I could fine all pre-date 1948. So this isn’t protecting the modern state of Israel from criticism.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
I don’t like this one. If they are acting like Nazis then they are acting like Nazis. Why the restriction?
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
I have no problem with this one. Are you suggesting you would want to hold Jewish people living in, say, Queens New York responsible for the actions of the modern state of Israel?
If this gets passed into law, any criticism of Israel or Israeli policy is effectively hate-speech under US law.
Again, you’ve made 3 or 4 logical leaps to make that statement true. Each leap makes it less likely and hard to swallow.
I just grabbed each one that used the word Israel. I don’t have an argument for or against each one explicitly and I agree on the Nazi one with what you said. I do have an argument in the first one (I think you saw that).
It was more just showing that the definition clearly includes Israel, the state of Israel and the lower points don’t even mention Jews or Judaism, only israel.
2 and 3 are clearly saying don’t be antisemitic, even if it’s aimed at Israel. Antisemitism is still bad. Although, lots of people deal with double standards outside of protected biases. (Literally anyone taking land from anyone. If anything, Israel has benefited from double standards.)
5 is actually adding a distinction. You can’t blame random people for another country doing stuff. I fail to see how this one is bad at all.
1 and 4 are worrying though. As you said, self-determination is fine. But you should be able to criticize actions. Banning that is a clear violation of the constitution.
My primary point is that they aren’t eleven about Jews or Judaism, but about Israel, and the language explicitly conflates the two.
I’m not against several of the points although I do take issue with a few of them.
But it can’t be said that this definition doesn’t conflate Judaism and Israel. It uses the words independently
I wouldn’t call it a W just yet, the IHRA have defended Israel a lot in the past and I could see this being used to crackdown on the protests against Israel, even those done by Jewish people.
Its not a W whatsoever, its a complete conflation of Judaism with political Zionism.
Removed by mod
So you haven’t actually read the bill or this definitions have you?
You clearly haven’t read any of the bill, how dare you?
/sarcasm
Def not a W. More like an L. Jews and Zionism are not one.
Sit at a passover with a Zionist and you’ll know they are terrible people holding Israel hostage.
I understand that you’re trying to be helpful, but you’re jewplaining my culture to me. Please stop.
I’m fully aware that zionism does not equal judaism .
I’m also aware of some of the more problematic parts of the bill, but none of it directly ties Judaism to Zionism. The closest we get is this section
“Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor”
but even that at the moment is a stretch. The right to self-determination and sovereignty are rights respected by most every country and the UN. What I see as problematic would be potential future law that would define the boundaries of the State of Israel to include Palestine.
Mind helping me see your perspective on what makes this an L?
Edit: I just realized that my attempt to shorthand does not equal got rekt.
@binthinkin
Hopefully you can forgive the typo and we can still discuss
Removed by mod
The definition Democrats just voted for effectively equates Judaism with political Zionism.
If you have a shred of hope that we can turn the ship on the ongoing Israeli genocide, you should be 100% against this bill.
The definition Democrats just voted for effectively equates Judaism with political Zionism.
Where are you seeing that? This is what I see:
On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:
“Adopt the following 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.”
Where are you seeing Zionism or Israel mentioned or protected?
The language I’m taking issue with is:
“Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor”
and I explain why its a problem here:
Also, “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”
Whether you think it’s accurate or not, that’s not antisemitic. The reference isn’t because they’re Jewish. It’s because it’s the most salient example of genocide that we have.
Thank you for replying. I replied in your linked thread so you wouldn’t have to have two discussion on the same topic.
It’s in the part “Accompanying the IHRA Definition are 11 examples that “may serve as illustrations”.
This is probably the major one people would have issue with because you could get convicted of antisemitism for just speaking the truth.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
House passes antisemetism bill so they can jail any one they don’t like by labeling them antisemites, instead of just name-calling them racist, far-right, misogynist, sexist…
It’s pretty interesting to see the influence laid bare.
I’m anti hate , so I’m not going to argue too much with the principle - but the timing is magic in terms of giving Israel cover during while they are committing war crimes.
You’re ‘anti-hate’. So are you saying you don’t hate fascist pigs and orange Nazis? Do you not hate genocide?
Did politician just ban themselves?
many bills dont make it to the law stage, but with everything going on (domestically, internationally) this one likely will
I propose the “Colonization Remembrance Group” and the “Colonization Remembrance Act”. Just replace all mentions of holocaust denial with colonization denial, and all mentions of anti-semitism with pro-colonizer.
Going through it, it seems that most of this is performative, as hate speech laws have more teeth then this bill.
What I don’t like is the broad interpretation of antisemitism, however, I don’t see how this law can hurt protesters. As most of the protests I’ve seen aren’t including hateful message towards the Jewish population, but more of a criticism of colleges/officials donating to a genocide.
Unless… criticizing genocides are anti-semetic… then all hail the god emperor.
deleted by creator
If they’re still providing weapons to commit genocide, nothing has changed.
