The Antisemitism Awareness Act would require the Education Department to adopt the definition of antisemitism used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.
This is a disaster of a bill. It’s basically expanding any criticism of Israel to be considered antisemitism.
I went to the link but its a livestream which at the time I tuned it didn’t seem to be giving the context you’re describing.
I’m looking at the text of the bill and it looks like the definition is locked to a specific timed definition:
“(1) means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State;”source
Further the May 26, 2016 definition appears to be this:
On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:
“Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism :”
“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.”
I see no mention of Israel being protected from any kind of criticism in either one of these. It looks like criticism of Israel isn’t being restricted here.
What are you seeing that would contradict what I’m seeing the text of the law?
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.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
The first one is a rope-a-dope where the definition is about Judaism, but the example is about Israel. The rest don’t even bother with the feint any more and are all about Israel.
If this gets passed into law, any criticism of Israel or Israeli policy is effectively hate-speech under US law. This is happening right now, 100% because of the ongoing protests in support of Palestine, and I guarantee you will be used against those students if made into law.
The first one is a rope-a-dope where the definition is about Judaism, but the example is about Israel.
So you say. This is one of your logical leaps I’m talking about. The text doesn’t say it means that, but you’re claiming does. If I squint and tilt my head, I can barely see how that works, but again, its a “all stars have to align” type thing, and I just don’t think it likely that your reading is right.
The rest don’t even bother with the feint any more and are all about Israel.
Not protecting criticism of the modern state of Israel, but protecting non-Israeli people that are Jewish. (Except the Nazi one. That’s a problem for me too.)
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.
Nothing wrong with the first half. Its not Israel specific. The second half is a bit strange and vague meaning lots of room for defense on both sides.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
You’re going to have to explain your problem with this one to me. Its holding Israel accountable as any other nation state, and open to the same criticisms.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
I had to look up what a “blood libel” even was. This isn’t referring to the modern state of Israel formed in 1948, but instead pre-1948. As in 16th-17th century. All of the “blood libel” references I could fine all pre-date 1948. So this isn’t protecting the modern state of Israel from criticism.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
I don’t like this one. If they are acting like Nazis then they are acting like Nazis. Why the restriction?
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
I have no problem with this one. Are you suggesting you would want to hold Jewish people living in, say, Queens New York responsible for the actions of the modern state of Israel?
If this gets passed into law, any criticism of Israel or Israeli policy is effectively hate-speech under US law.
Again, you’ve made 3 or 4 logical leaps to make that statement true. Each leap makes it less likely and hard to swallow.
I just grabbed each one that used the word Israel. I don’t have an argument for or against each one explicitly and I agree on the Nazi one with what you said. I do have an argument in the first one (I think you saw that).
It was more just showing that the definition clearly includes Israel, the state of Israel and the lower points don’t even mention Jews or Judaism, only israel.
2 and 3 are clearly saying don’t be antisemitic, even if it’s aimed at Israel. Antisemitism is still bad. Although, lots of people deal with double standards outside of protected biases. (Literally anyone taking land from anyone. If anything, Israel has benefited from double standards.)
5 is actually adding a distinction. You can’t blame random people for another country doing stuff. I fail to see how this one is bad at all.
1 and 4 are worrying though. As you said, self-determination is fine. But you should be able to criticize actions. Banning that is a clear violation of the constitution.
I went to the link but its a livestream which at the time I tuned it didn’t seem to be giving the context you’re describing.
I’m looking at the text of the bill and it looks like the definition is locked to a specific timed definition:
“(1) means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State;” source
Further the May 26, 2016 definition appears to be this:
On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:
“Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism :”
“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.”
source
I see no mention of Israel being protected from any kind of criticism in either one of these. It looks like criticism of Israel isn’t being restricted here.
What are you seeing that would contradict what I’m seeing the text of the law?
The first one is a rope-a-dope where the definition is about Judaism, but the example is about Israel. The rest don’t even bother with the feint any more and are all about Israel.
If this gets passed into law, any criticism of Israel or Israeli policy is effectively hate-speech under US law. This is happening right now, 100% because of the ongoing protests in support of Palestine, and I guarantee you will be used against those students if made into law.
So you say. This is one of your logical leaps I’m talking about. The text doesn’t say it means that, but you’re claiming does. If I squint and tilt my head, I can barely see how that works, but again, its a “all stars have to align” type thing, and I just don’t think it likely that your reading is right.
Not protecting criticism of the modern state of Israel, but protecting non-Israeli people that are Jewish. (Except the Nazi one. That’s a problem for me too.)
Nothing wrong with the first half. Its not Israel specific. The second half is a bit strange and vague meaning lots of room for defense on both sides.
You’re going to have to explain your problem with this one to me. Its holding Israel accountable as any other nation state, and open to the same criticisms.
I had to look up what a “blood libel” even was. This isn’t referring to the modern state of Israel formed in 1948, but instead pre-1948. As in 16th-17th century. All of the “blood libel” references I could fine all pre-date 1948. So this isn’t protecting the modern state of Israel from criticism.
I don’t like this one. If they are acting like Nazis then they are acting like Nazis. Why the restriction?
I have no problem with this one. Are you suggesting you would want to hold Jewish people living in, say, Queens New York responsible for the actions of the modern state of Israel?
Again, you’ve made 3 or 4 logical leaps to make that statement true. Each leap makes it less likely and hard to swallow.
I just grabbed each one that used the word Israel. I don’t have an argument for or against each one explicitly and I agree on the Nazi one with what you said. I do have an argument in the first one (I think you saw that).
It was more just showing that the definition clearly includes Israel, the state of Israel and the lower points don’t even mention Jews or Judaism, only israel.
2 and 3 are clearly saying don’t be antisemitic, even if it’s aimed at Israel. Antisemitism is still bad. Although, lots of people deal with double standards outside of protected biases. (Literally anyone taking land from anyone. If anything, Israel has benefited from double standards.)
5 is actually adding a distinction. You can’t blame random people for another country doing stuff. I fail to see how this one is bad at all.
1 and 4 are worrying though. As you said, self-determination is fine. But you should be able to criticize actions. Banning that is a clear violation of the constitution.
My primary point is that they aren’t eleven about Jews or Judaism, but about Israel, and the language explicitly conflates the two.
I’m not against several of the points although I do take issue with a few of them.
But it can’t be said that this definition doesn’t conflate Judaism and Israel. It uses the words independently