Read on Twitter
Thanks @Zelo_Street for reminding me of the thoroughly dishonest IHRA Non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism. The one rejected by the EU but then adopted by its most antisemitic governments, Hungary and Poland. It fits nicely into a tweet so:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical & physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals &/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions & religious facilities.
That's the definition part. That isn't controversial. It's meaningless but not controversial. It also doesn't actually define anything. Check this out. I perceive Jews to be an ethno-religious society. In fact I'm certain. Is that antisemitic? But consider the examples:
1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Now here's a problem. Israel is a democracy according to IHRA. It has a Jewish majority thanks to ethnic cleansing. Now, would it not be antisemitic to call for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from a democracy given that, of itself, democracy is neither radical nor extreme?
We can see Kenneth Stern's obsession with Israel. "Radical ideology" and "extremist view of religion" are dog whistle words for Palestinian resistance. So now according to the IHRA it's not antisemitic to call for, aid or justify the killing of Jews for democracy, the idiots!
2. This is the one about monolithic Jewish power and collective Jewish aims and objectives. 3 is closely related and deals with holding Jews as a people responsible for the wrongdoing of one or some. Zionists do this all the time, as did the EHRC just recently.
4. Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Yeah that seems reasonable.
Yeah that seems reasonable.
5. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing the Jews as a people of anything is antisemitic but Zionists do tend to say that the Holocaust is so worse than other genocides, it absolves Israel of anything.
Accusing the Jews as a people of anything is antisemitic but Zionists do tend to say that the Holocaust is so worse than other genocides, it absolves Israel of anything.
6. 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.
Some Jews are more loyal to Israel than their own country and Zionist orgs say as much. People shouldn't make assumptions though.
Some Jews are more loyal to Israel than their own country and Zionist orgs say as much. People shouldn't make assumptions though.
In 6 above, the wording should be "Assuming (not accusing) Jewish citizens are (not of)". So assuming Jews are more loyal to Israel than their own countries is antisemitic but once one or some Jews have made their loyalty to Israel clear, then why shouldn't people say so?
7. 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.
Jews do not have the right to self-determination. It is a right for the people of a country like the French or the Irish or the Iranians
Jews do not have the right to self-determination. It is a right for the people of a country like the French or the Irish or the Iranians
The idea of Jews as a nation as distinct from other nations is contradicted in 6 where Jewish citizens have their own nations. Jews are entitled to participate in the self-determination of their own nations. Jews are not entitled to keep self-determination all to themselves.
8. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Wrong. Israel is a state for people who do not necessarily come from there (Jews) and not necessarily for people who definitely do come from there (Palestinians)
Wrong. Israel is a state for people who do not necessarily come from there (Jews) and not necessarily for people who definitely do come from there (Palestinians)
And of course no-one benefits from double standards like Israel. It's the ultimate rogue state and it hasn't been sanctioned since the 1980s.
9. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Tricky this. OK, leave Jesus out of it but Israel does kill a disproportionate number of children and it looks deliberate.
Tricky this. OK, leave Jesus out of it but Israel does kill a disproportionate number of children and it looks deliberate.
10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
This contradicts the idea that you can criticise Israel like you can other democracies all of which including the UK do get compared to the nazis from time to time and Israel is more nazi-like than most
This contradicts the idea that you can criticise Israel like you can other democracies all of which including the UK do get compared to the nazis from time to time and Israel is more nazi-like than most
11. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Again it's usually Zionists (including this stupid definition) that do that but yes it is antisemitic.
Again it's usually Zionists (including this stupid definition) that do that but yes it is antisemitic.
