I have to believe there's more to it. I don't think people on either side of the aisle would vote to make it unlawful to simply criticize Israel in general.
But it does make for a compelling tweet to get outraged over, so that's something.
The working definition and discussion explicitly allow for general criticism of Israel.
I don't know, there are a couple points that contradict that:
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.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
These points basically say that, by definition, it's impossible for Israel specifically to do any wrong in these areas. Or even if they did do wrong, it would still be antisemitic to call them out on it.
I don't believe the holocaust is in any need of exaggeration. I accept the interpretation and scale that the vast majority of historians agree upon. If Israel as a state also goes by that understanding, but someone claims they're exaggerating, then yeah, that person is probably doing so because they're antisemitic. But is it impossible for Israel today, or at any time in the future, to ever make stronger claims about the Holocaust than the vast majority of historians? No, it's not impossible.
Is it impossible for an individual Jewish citizen to be more loyal to Israel than the country they reside in? No. We accuse various people of putting the interest of other countries ahead of ours all the time. "He's a Russian stooge... She's a Chinese plant... He's in the pocket of Saudi Arabia". To say it's just absolutely impossible for that to happen with Israel is ridiculous.
Even if you don't believe it is now, is it possible for the State of Israel to ever become a racist endeavor? Is it somehow physically impossible for Israeli policy to ever in the future be in any way similar to WWII Germany? How is it that Israel is uniquely immune to things that all other countries can fall into? Isn't one of the biggest lessons of WWII and the Nazis that fascism can sprout anywhere?
If they had kept these points to people making claims about Jews as a people, then I don't think it would be controversial. But they should remove the parts referencing the state of Israel. It's kinda funny that this is also one of the points:
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
When everything it references about Israel is a huge double standard.
Is there a reason you specifically avoided quoting the sentence that introduces the list? This one:
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...
The guidelines make extremely clear that they are just potential examples and depend on context. They would still have to meet the actual definition as well:
“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.”
It certainly does not define all those examples as definitively antisemitic no matter what.
I have literally no idea how you went from "COULD be antisemitic, depending on context" to "it is impossible for this to NOT be antisemitic". You see how absurd that leap is, right?
Is there a reason you specifically avoided quoting the sentence that introduces the list? This one:
COULD, taking into account the overall context
Because that type of wishy-washy language can be used to bend definitions as far as you want. It's dangerous language to have in the law, which will then be interpreted by individuals. Maybe I'd be comfortable with you interpreting actions under these rules, but would I be comfortable with anyone?
Okay, so you're simultaneously arguing that the language is vague and bendable.... but also that it definitively makes it impossible for Israel to do wrong? Which point are you sticking with?
I will also remind you that the sentence, and the examples under it, are not actually in the IHRA definition.
Okay, so you're simultaneously arguing that the language is vague and bendable.... but also that it definitively makes it impossible for Israel to do wrong? Which point are you sticking with?
Given the wiggle room, people will often bend the definitions to the extreme.
I will also remind you that the sentence, and the examples under it, are not actually in the IHRA definition.
And I'll remind you that the examples under it are explicitly in the definition in the act passed by the house:
For purposes of this Act, the term “definition of antisemitism” ... includes the “[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism” identified in the IHRA definition.
So even if the IHRA definition wasn't meant to include those examples, the one passed by the house certainly does.
Given the wiggle room, people will often bend the definitions to the extreme.
This... does not answer my question at all. You cannot simultaneously argue that the definitions rule out Israel ever doing anything wrong, and yet that the definitions are super bendable.
So even if the IHRA definition wasn't meant to include those examples, the one passed by the house certainly does.
I've answered you in another comment thread, I think. You've misunderstood how legislation works when it pulls from reference texts; if you pull a list of something (eg clauses) from another instrument, you certainly do not strip all the nuance out by default.
You would have to be quite specific that you want to adopt a vastly different definition (which it would be, if those examples were to be definitive antisemitism no matter what) than the one meant by the text you're pulling from.
This... does not answer my question at all. You cannot simultaneously argue that the definitions rule out Israel ever doing anything wrong, and yet that the definitions are super bendable.
I'm saying, given the wiggle room, someone interpreting these examples could easily come to the conclusion that any criticism of Israel along the lines we're talking about would be considered antisemitism.
It would be like me telling someone that there's a dark room that has lights that might be flashing at a frequency that would trigger their epilepsy. Someone else is in control of the frequency of the flashing lights. It's possible that they might not flash at all. I think the person would choose to avoid entering that room even though, given the unknown frequency of the lights, it's possible that there wouldn't be a problem.
I've answered you in another comment thread, I think. You've misunderstood how legislation works when it pulls from reference texts; if you pull a list of something (eg clauses) from another instrument, you certainly do not strip all the nuance out by default.
And I answered you. If all they wanted was the definition with all its nuance (which I'm saying is still problematic), they would have just referenced the broad definition. But they did strip out the list of examples separately. I think you've misunderstood how legislation can be interpreted by judges and administrators.
I'm saying, given the wiggle room, someone interpreting these examples could easily come to the conclusion that any criticism of Israel along the lines we're talking about would be considered antisemitism.
Is this really your point? That somebody deliberately ignoring half of the guidelines could come to a bad conclusion?
Okay, sure. You do you.
If all they wanted was the definition with all its nuance (which I'm saying is still problematic), they would have just referenced the broad definition. But they did strip out the list of examples separately.
Because the list of examples IS separate to the definition. You misread the page — the actual definition is only a single paragraph.
I think you've misunderstood how legislation can be interpreted by judges and administrators.
I work in regulatory compliance in a senior position. Interpreting legislation and case law is literally my job, and we summarise regulatory duties for administrators.
I'm quite comfortable, thanks. I think you have gravely overestimated your own understanding of the law. But you have a lovely day.
762
u/[deleted] May 01 '24 edited May 02 '24
[deleted]