Should the IHRA defition of antisemitism become US law?

[Churchill]

Sometimes yes, but sometimes no.

The text does not say "sometimes", it has no exclusions, it reads as any comparison not some.

Moreover the paragraph before the bullet list says

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

Which can't be reconciled with point 10 because people routinely compare this or that country to the Nazis, for example many people here have compared policies in Iran and China etc to the Nazis, why should comparison of Israeli policies to the Nazis be singled out from other countries?

And why single out the Nazis for outlawing a comparison?

Remember this is the kind of Orwellian system that could land a person in prison or worse. How can anyone object to a comparsion of Israeli policy to Nazism if that comparison is accurate? How can one inists that it is impossible for the Israeli government to ever instigate a system that is comparable to the Nazis?

That is the very thing the Nazis did, regulated what people could and couldn't say, I'd expect the United States to repudiate such draconian control over it's population, especially all the magats here who routinely decry "big government".

The IHRA would make these statements a crime, just making a post on X like these, would land you in prison:

"That Jewish speaker said ten million Jews died in the Holocaust, but I think it was six million". (Rule 5)

"Brian Mast is more concerned about Israel than he is about this country". (Rule 6)

"That new death penalty law that targets only non-Jews is like something the Nazis would have done". (Rule 10)

Why would any American want to agree to subject all of its citizens to such rules? I mean WTF?

 

[rosends]

The text does not say "sometimes", it has no exclusions, it reads as any comparison not some.

Moreover the paragraph before the bullet list says



Which can't be reconciled with point 10 because people routinely compare this or that country to the Nazis, for example many people here have compared policies in Iran and China etc to the Nazis, why should comparison of Israeli policies to the Nazis be singled out from other countries?

And why single out the Nazis for outlawing a comparison?

Remember this is the kind of Orwellian system that could land a person in prison or worse. How can anyone object to a comparsion of Israeli policy to Nazism if that comparison is accurate? How can one inists that it is impossible for the Israeli government to ever instigate a system that is comparable to the Nazis?

That is the very thing the Nazis did, regulated what people could and couldn't say, I'd expect the United States to repudiate such draconian control over it's population, especially all the magats here who routinely decry "big government".

I think you should go back and reread your source document. There is a text of a proposed law, and a set of examples that might be problematic.

The website reads, "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:"

So these examples "could, taking into account the overall context" be anti Semitic. Not "are." You are confusing the examples with the actual text and then forgetting about what it really says.

 

[Churchill]

I think you should go back and reread your source document. There is a text of a proposed law, and a set of examples that might be problematic.

The website reads, "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:"

So these examples "could, taking into account the overall context" be anti Semitic. Not "are." You are confusing the examples with the actual text and then forgetting about what it really says.

The act says:

"To provide for the consideration of a definition of antisemitism" and references the IHRA text as that definition.

Therefore that text would (by extension) become a part of US law.

It also leads to the ludicrous outcome that Jews could be formally accused and even charged with comitting antisemitism simply becuase of their opinions about the state of Israel. On that basis alone the entire excercise should be regarded as a joke.

So, I think you should now answer my questions, something you regulalry seem keen to avoid, I wonder why that might be...

 

[rosends]

The act says:

"To provide for the consideration of a definition of antisemitism" and references the IHRA text as that definition.

Therefore that text would (by extension) become a part of US law.

It also leads to the ludicrous outcome that Jews could be formally accused and even charged with comitting antisemitism simply becuase of their opinions about the state of Israel. On that basis alone the entire excercise should be regarded as a joke.

So, I think you should now answer my questions, something you regulalry seem keen to avoid, I wonder why that might be...

I don't think you understand how laws work. This is the definition:

“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.”

That's what would be on the books. The committee that drafted it also created examples of situations which COULD be actionable. You want to argue the examples or the text of the definition?

 

[Zincwarrior]

What if the state guidelines are the IHRA definition? Is your concern about making it federal, or about using it as a measuring rod on any level?

Criminal no, but if thats their code of conduct, ok.

 

[Churchill]

I don't think you understand how laws work. This is the definition:

“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.”

That's what would be on the books. The committee that drafted it also created examples of situations which COULD be actionable.

If the text was sufficient a definition there'd be no need for examples. Moreover the examples are implicitly interpreting the text, they imply that the text logically proves that certain statements or opinions are antisemitic but it does not.

Only a court of law can interpret these things.

e.g. the text alone does not suppor the claim that this is antisemitic, yet one of the "examples" says precisely that:

"John Fetterman is more concerned about Israel than he is about this country" (example 5)

Consider if the statememt were true, should one be convicted of commiting a crime by stating a truth? This runs through several of the examples, statements that could potentially be true are criminalized.

Another example, if the Israeli government did enact a law that was similar to some law the Nazis once enacted, why would it be criminal to state that?

These example make it a crime to make such statements whether they be true or false, that is Orwellian and no amount of sugar coating or dog and pony show is going to make that palatable.

You want to argue the examples or the text or the definition?

Some examples are bad because the text does not in any way support the claim those examples are at odds with the text.

Stating a defintion of antisemtism and then manufacturing examples that do not fit said defintion is troubling, insidious.

So tell me, justify if you can why a statement like "John Fetterman is more concerned about Israel than he is about this country" (example 5) is antisemitic? I mean what if he was more concerned? what if he even admited he was? how is it not Kafkaesque to say that stating a truth is a crime?

Perhaps we need laws that make it a crime to falsely call someone an antisemite...

Have you ever read Kafka's The Trial? or seen Orson Welles' depiction of it? unfortunately Kafka (a Czech Jew) never lived to see the rise and fruits of Aryan nationalism in Germany or the contemporaneous rise and fruits of Jewish nationalism in Palestine, I suspect he'd have been appalled at both.

 

[rosends]

If the text was sufficient a definition there'd be no need for examples. Moreover the examples are implicitly interpreting the text, they imply that the text logically proves that certain statements or opinions are antisemitic but it does not.

Only a court of law can interpret these things.

e.g. the text alone does not suppor the claim that this is antisemitic, yet one of the "examples" says precisely that:

"John Fetterman is more concerned about Israel than he is about this country" (example 5)

Consider if the statememt were true, should one be convicted of commiting a crime by stating a truth? This runs through several of the examples, statements that could potentially be true are criminalized.

Another example, if the Israeli government did enact a law that was similar to some law the Nazis once enacted, why would it be criminal to state that?

These example make it a crime to make such statements whether they be true or false, that is Orwellian and no amount of sugar coating or dog and pony show is going to make that palatable.

Some examples are bad because the text does not in any way support the claim those examples are at odds with the text.

Stating a defintion of antisemtism and then manufacturing examples that do not fit said defintion is troubling, insidious.

So tell me, justify if you can why a statement like "John Fetterman is more concerned about Israel than he is about this country" (example 5) is antisemitic? I mean what if he was more concerned? what if he even admited he was? how is it not Kafkaesque to say that stating a truth is a crime?

Perhaps we need laws that make it a crime to falsely call someone an antisemite...

Have you ever read Kafka's The Trial? or seen Orson Welles' depiction of it? unfortunately Kafka (a Czech Jew) never lived to see the rise and fruits of Aryan nationalism in Germany or the contemporaneous rise and fruits of Jewish nationalism in Palestine, I suspect he'd have been appalled at both.

Again, you didn't read. These are examples of things that "Could, taking into account the overall context," be determined to be anti Semitic. The page, itself says that. Unless your point is that an example can, in no way, ever be anti-semitic, you are in error.

 

[Churchill]

Again, you didn't read. These are examples of things that "Could, taking into account the overall context," be determined to be anti Semitic. The page, itself says that. Unless your point is that an example can, in no way, ever be anti-semitic, you are in error.

Be determined by whom? Any abstract statement could be determined to be antisemitic by someone.

Now answer the question please, is this - in your determination - antisemitic, yes or no?

"John Fetterman is more concerned about Israel than he is about this country"

 

[rosends]

Be determined by whom? Any abstract statement could be determined to be antisemitic by someone.

The courts. The same way everything else is determined.

Now answer the question please, is this - in your determination - antisemitic, yes or no?

"John Fetterman is more concerned about Israel than he is about this country"

In the vacuum of context or facts, and on its own the answer is "sometimes."

 

[Churchill]

The courts. The same way everything else is determined.

In the vacuum of context or facts, and on its own the answer is "sometimes."

Very good, so the statement in and of itself, is not antisemitic, glad we can agree on that.

Just as this would not be racist:

"Ilhan Ommar is more concerned about Somalia than she is about this country"

 

[rosends]

Very good, so the statement in and of itself, is not antisemitic, glad we can agree on that.

Just as this would not be racist:

"Ilhan Ommar is more concerned about Somalia than she is about this country"

I can't judge that but my gut tells me that it, in and of itself, is not racist.

 

[Shusha]

I would suggest that there is a difference of significance between the "dual-loyalty" accusation when directed at Jews than when directed at other cultural collectives. Objectively, I agree that there should be no difference. However, the history of how this accusation has been used against Jews to create an unease and distrust and a sense of malice should lead us to be more sensitive to the accusation in modern times.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There are those in US government who seek to pass the Antisemitism Awareness Act (H.R. 1007, S. 558) and make it US law, what do you think of the act and why.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1007/text

The bill seeks to mandate the IHRA into law

What is antisemitism? | IHRA working definition

What is antisemitism? The IHRA working definition helps governments, educators, and institutions identify and counter antisemitism all over the world.

holocaustremembrance.com

Either make a law that covers EVERY race/religion whatever. Or don't.

 

[Churchill]

I would suggest that there is a difference of significance between the "dual-loyalty" accusation when directed at Jews than when directed at other cultural collectives. Objectively, I agree that there should be no difference. However, the history of how this accusation has been used against Jews to create an unease and distrust and a sense of malice should lead us to be more sensitive to the accusation in modern times.

How can such an argument hold water when the state of Israel has only existed since 1948? I don't think there were many accustions of a Jew being more loyal to Israel than their country of residence before 1948. Feeel free to correct me, show me historic records of Jews being accused of that and I'll review my position.

Your argument is vacuous, imaginary and Jews as a group should not be granted privileged protection under our laws (I'm speaking of the US and UK and EU) more than any other group, such inequity can and would likely lead to even more antisemtisim too, groups granted special privileges often generate resentment in others who have less privilege.

Any Jew demanding special privileged protection regarding the spoken word is effectively demanding that non-Jews be given less protection, it is demanding something be given up by non-Jews, that non-Jews in their own country be given less protection than Jews, why would any sane population allow that to happen? allow their government to do that to them? why would any sane population be endeared to individuals who make such a demand of them?

With views like yours being common in Israel one can see how Israel can never be an egalitarian society, it is taken as axiomatic that Jews must be granted special privileges and once that sets in (as it has in Israel) the hope for a society for all is doomed, that's why we see what we see in Palestine.

Now take a long hard look around this forum and you will see accusations against Arabs/Palestinians, implicitly all Arabs/Palestinians. It is common here far far more common than accusations against all Jews. The Zionists here who rightly decry antisemitism are often hypocrites because they say or tolerate stuff like this.

To insinuate that it's quite OK to speak this way about some social group but only if that group isn't Jews, is hypocrisy, a demand for privileges.

You get the picture. Now read every one of those posts but replace Arab and Palestinian with Jew and imagine how a Jew reading those would feel?

Are there any posts like this about Jews? I don't think so, you won't find many if you search, I tried.

 

[Shusha]

How can such an argument hold water when the state of Israel has only existed since 1948? I don't think there were many accustions of a Jew being more loyal to Israel than their country of residence before 1948. Feeel free to correct me, show me historic records of Jews being accused of that and I'll review my position.

The "dual-loyalty" accusation isn't simply about loyalty to Israel. That is merely the latest modern spin on it. The "dual-loyalty" or "disloyalty" accusation is broadly the trope that Jews are inherently untrustworthy because they have a hidden agenda that serves themselves. It has been widely used in modern times, especially with respect to economics with America. In previous times, it manifested as political or religious disloyalty.

Any Jew demanding special privileged protection regarding the spoken word is effectively demanding that non-Jews be given less protection, it is demanding something be given up by non-Jews, that non-Jews in their own country be given less protection than Jews,

Wow. That was quite a leap from a request for care and sensitivity for how certain accusations have historically been used against a particular group to the demand for special privileges. There is no such demand.

The fact that we give protection against historical wrong-doings for any victimized or oppressed group does not diminish the protections of other groups. It's not pie.

 

[Shusha]

Are there any posts like this about Jews? I don't think so, you won't find many if you search, I tried.

 

[Churchill]

The "dual-loyalty" accusation isn't simply about loyalty to Israel. That is merely the latest modern spin on it. The "dual-loyalty" or "disloyalty" accusation is broadly the trope that Jews are inherently untrustworthy because they have a hidden agenda that serves themselves. It has been widely used in modern times, especially with respect to economics with America. In previous times, it manifested as political or religious disloyalty.

No this is your interpretation not what's actually written. You are the person insinuating that a person who writes:

"John Fetterman is more concerned about Israel than he is about this country"

has a hidden agenda, doesn't mean what is written but means something else. That's a trope right there. You seek to take a straighforward English statement and insist that everyone infers some sinister motive. You choose to interpret plain English as some insidous threat and expect everyone to share that interpretation even a court of law in the USA.

You are the person insinuating a hidden agenda here, you and your ilk demand the right to interpet what people say, demand that only your interpretation be used to attach meaning to what a person says.

Wow. That was quite a leap from a request for care and sensitivity for how certain accusations have historically been used against a particular group to the demand for special privileges. There is no such demand.

The fact that we give protection against historical wrong-doings for any victimized or oppressed group does not diminish the protections of other groups. It's not pie.

Do you defend the action taken against Bahia, below:

Case of a Texas speech pathologist

Consider the extremes to which the laws in 26 states now go in criminalizing criticism of Israel, The Texas case of Bahia Amawi is typical. A children’s speech pathologist who has worked for the past 9 years with developmentally disabled, autistic and speech-impaired elementary school children in Austin, Texas has been told that she can no longer work with the public school district after she refused to sign an oath vowing that she “does not” and “will not” engage in a boycott of Israel, or “otherwise take any action that is intended to inflict economic harm” on that foreign country.

Campaign to Criminalize Criticism of Israel Challenges Both Free Speech and Jewish Values | The American Council for Judaism

Freedom of speech and the right to dissent is under attack by AIPAC, most of the organized American Jewish community and casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, the Republican Party’s single largest contributor. The goal is to make it illegal to advocate a

acjna.org

Because whether you do or you don't this is a very real threat people are confronting, a threat promulgated by the Zionist lobby, hell bent on shaping Western socities to suit the ideological goals of the state of Israel, a foreign government.

 

[Shusha]

No this is your interpretation not what's actually written. You are the person insinuating that a person who writes:

"John Fetterman is more concerned about Israel than he is about this country"

has a hidden agenda, doesn't mean what is written but means something else. That's a trope right there. You seek to take a straighforward English statement and insist that everyone infers some sinister motive. You choose to interpret plain English as some insidous threat and expect everyone to share that interpretation even a court of law in the USA.

You are the person insinuating a hidden agenda here, you and your ilk demand the right to interpet what people say, demand that only your interpretation be used to attach meaning to what a person says.

I interpreted nothing. I addressed no quote. I demanded nothing. I suggested that one should take care and have sensitivity when using such accusations against historically oppressed peoples so as not to cause harm (whether intentional or unintentional).

The requirement for intent is written in the Bill. There are certain tropes which are more sensitive to some collectives because of their historical oppression. It isn't only true for the Jewish people. Comments about being shackled or lynched is going to hit much differently for Black-Americans than it will to other collectives.

 

[Shusha]

Because whether you do or you don't this is a very real threat people are confronting, a threat promulgated by the Zionist lobby, hell bent on shaping Western socities to suit the ideological goals of the state of Israel, a foreign government.

Oh, look. Thank you. Fantastic example of using the dual loyalty/disloyalty trope to create a sense of threat and accusation of the Jewish hidden agenda.

 

[Shusha]

Campaign to Criminalize Criticism of Israel Challenges Both Free Speech and Jewish Values | The American Council for Judaism

Freedom of speech and the right to dissent is under attack by AIPAC, most of the organized American Jewish community and casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, the Republican Party’s single largest contributor. The goal is to make it illegal to advocate a

acjna.org

There is no campaign to criminalize criticism of Israel.