• partial_accumen
    link
    17 months ago

    The definition Democrats just voted for effectively equates Judaism with political Zionism.

    Where are you seeing that? This is what I see:

    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

    Where are you seeing Zionism or Israel mentioned or protected?

    • @TropicalDingdong
      link
      97 months ago

      The language I’m taking issue with is:

      Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor

      and I explain why its a problem here:

      https://lemmy.world/comment/9797297

      • Omega
        link
        57 months ago

        Also, “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

        Whether you think it’s accurate or not, that’s not antisemitic. The reference isn’t because they’re Jewish. It’s because it’s the most salient example of genocide that we have.

      • partial_accumen
        link
        17 months ago

        Thank you for replying. I replied in your linked thread so you wouldn’t have to have two discussion on the same topic.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -1
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      It’s in the part “Accompanying the IHRA Definition are 11 examples that “may serve as illustrations”.

      This is probably the major one people would have issue with because you could get convicted of antisemitism for just speaking the truth.

      Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.