My best friend in shul, and still to this day, comes from a long line of anti-Zionist leftists. My own family history is more mixed, but includes several socialists and anti-Zionists.
Interestingly, one of the portions of the IHRA definition of antisemitism enshrined in this law is:
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.
Now, e.g. means “for example” which means it’s not the only example. Might another example be the silencing of anti-Zionist speech? After all, as stated in the article:
The Jewish Bund was the largest Jewish trade union movement and Jewish political party in Europe, and it fought for Jewish liberation alongside the struggle for socialism and international solidarity with other workers and oppressed peoples. […] Against Zionism, the Bund insisted “wherever we are, that’s our homeland.”
Isn’t this Bundism a form of self determination? And wouldn’t denying the anti-Zionism inherent in it be tantamount to denying the self-determination of the Jewish people?
Can I sue Congress under the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Something tells me that Congress isn’t too concerned with protecting the self-determination of Bundists and would be quite irked at any attempt to resurrect the Bund in the US. Though, with the resurgent popularity of labor groups, maybe there’s an opportunity there…
That said, your post got me thinking…
I know there are many varying opinions being shared at the many protests in support of the Palestinians, but I wonder if there’s some appreciable nuance in the IRHA definition where one could claim they aren’t saying any State of Israel is a racist endeavor, but this particular one is.
iirc my history correctly, a lot of Orthodox Jews thought that establishing a Jewish homeland was a bad thing because only The Almighty could return the Chosen People to the Holy Land.
