World News

22081 readers

220 users here now

Breaking news from around the world.

News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

For US News, see the US News community.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

When Zionists redefine ‘antisemitism’ into a political cudgel (therealnews.com)

submitted 1 year ago by jimmydoreisalefty@lemmus.org to c/news@beehaw.org

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] vashti 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I thought that was it. The definition is clear that criticism of the Israeli government that's comparable to criticisms aimed at other governments isn't antisemitism. You should be able to criticise Israel in the same terms you criticise (e.g.) Russia and China, or for that matter America and the UK. But if you exclusively criticise Israel in virulent terms, or say that Israel is some sort of uniquely evil entity comparable to the Nazis, or imply that all Jews worldwide are agents of the Israeli state, or say Israel as a nation state should be wiped off the map—that's antisemitic.

This should all be pretty uncontroversial.

[–] derbis@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's "clear" in the sense that it pays lip service to the concept. In practice, as this article discusses, it is used as a cudgel to over-apply the accusation of antisemitism and shield Israel from discussion of its apartheid policies. Some allegedly antisemitic organizations, under this definition, have included Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

The letter said the first example can be used to suppress claims that Israel is breaching international laws against apartheid and is violating conventions to end racial discrimination. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have both been accused of antisemitism under the IHRA definition over detailed reports saying that Israel practises a form of apartheid, an accusation also levelled by Israeli human rights groups.

“The example on ‘applying double standards’ opens the door to labeling as antisemitic anyone who focuses on Israeli abuses as long as worse abuses are deemed to be occurring elsewhere,” the letter said.

“By that logic, a person dedicated to defending the rights of Tibetans could be accused of anti-Chinese racism, or a group dedicated to promoting democracy and minority rights in Saudi Arabia could be accused of Islamophobia.”

Anyone who actually cares about antisemitism rather than just cheerleading for the Israeli state should oppose this because it cheapens the accusation in its overapplication, and casts doubt on the legitimacy of real incidences of antisemitism.

[–] vashti 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So your position (besides implying that I'm a cheerleader for Netanyahu) is that a good working definition of antisemitism is bad because people misuse it? What's your take on how to counter the very real antisemitism that exists in parts of the anti-Israel movement? Also, I'm sorry, but your quotation is obviously bullshit:

applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation

China is a democratic nation now? Saudi Arabia is a democratic nation? Come on. It's obvious what that means, and it should be obvious why holding Israel to a uniquely high standard among democratic nations, as the definition says, is antisemitic.

[–] derbis@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

My position is that it is not a good definition, and that it has been selected because it provides cover for this "mis-"use. I make no claim to know anything about you nor did I mention Netanyahu.