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.
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”?
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.
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
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
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.
Did politician just ban themselves?
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.
Democrats voted for genocide. Surprise.
No. Well, not here, now, with this vote, anyway.
What was voted for, this time, in this bill, was the power to silence dissent over the funding of genocide (or any criticism of related Zionist activities) henceforth. This is, of course, a clear and obvious 1A violation which, given the comportment of the current SCOTUS, might just be meaningless… And this is also glossing over the massive financial influence of the pro-Israel lobby that brought this about.
It’s an importance nuance, but one well worth distinguishing.
