More people should know about the JDA definition of antisemitism, it is much clearer, much more sensible and not as self-contradictory as the deeply flawed IHRA definition: https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/
This is certainly better, but it’s unclear to me whether this item:
Denying the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in accordance with the principle of equality.
…implies that denying the legitimacy of the state of Israel is antisemitic. While I would have been in favor of a two state solution in the past, the genocidal mania of the apartheid state has led me to conclude that two states alone is insufficient, even with monetary reparations, and justice after the recent level of atrocity perpetrated by Israel might require granting Palestinians full government control of the land.
Ah! When we go to the questions further down:
Guideline 10 says it is antisemitic to deny the right of Jews in the State of Israel “to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews”. Isn’t this contradicted by guidelines 12 and 13?
There is no contradiction. The rights mentioned in guideline 10 attach to Jewish inhabitants of the state, whatever its constitution or name. Guidelines 12 and 13 clarify that it is not antisemitic, on the face of it, to propose a different set of political or constitutional arrangements.
Ok, this is a MUCH better definition. Thank you for sharing it.
To clarify, in 2016 they adapted definition, but it was still non-binding.
This year, they are trying to make it official and binding. So far it passed the House, but still needs to pass the Senate and be signed by the president.
Adding IHRA’s definition to the law would allow the federal Department of Education to restrict funding and other resources to campuses perceived as tolerating anti-Semitism.
It says “would” because as the other guy said it still needs to pass the Senate and the White House.
I’m aware of the current bill before the Senate but was thinking you meant there were laws currently on the books that had punitive measures against antisemitism. Sorry for the confusion!
Careful, per the IHRA definition of antisemitism, when one says:
they might be antisemitic:
This is the definition adopted by the United States.
More people should know about the JDA definition of antisemitism, it is much clearer, much more sensible and not as self-contradictory as the deeply flawed IHRA definition: https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/
This is certainly better, but it’s unclear to me whether this item:
…implies that denying the legitimacy of the state of Israel is antisemitic. While I would have been in favor of a two state solution in the past, the genocidal mania of the apartheid state has led me to conclude that two states alone is insufficient, even with monetary reparations, and justice after the recent level of atrocity perpetrated by Israel might require granting Palestinians full government control of the land.
Ah! When we go to the questions further down:
Ok, this is a MUCH better definition. Thank you for sharing it.
To clarify, in 2016 they adapted definition, but it was still non-binding.
This year, they are trying to make it official and binding. So far it passed the House, but still needs to pass the Senate and be signed by the president.
US House passes controversial bill that expands definition of anti-Semitism
That’s alarming…I did not know the US had even that as part of their antisemitic laws.
When you say laws, does this mean there are penalties for this kind of speech? I was under the impression it just defined the term antisemitism.
It says “would” because as the other guy said it still needs to pass the Senate and the White House.
I’m aware of the current bill before the Senate but was thinking you meant there were laws currently on the books that had punitive measures against antisemitism. Sorry for the confusion!
They didn’t until after this genocide got extremely obvious