The Antisemitism Awareness Act would require the Education Department to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism.
The measure passed in a 320-91 vote. Twenty-one Republicans and 70 Democrats voted against the legislation.
The bill, titled the Antisemitism Awareness Act, would mandate that the Education Department adopt the broad definition of antisemitism used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, an intergovernmental group, to enforce anti-discrimination laws.
The international group defines antisemitism as a “certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” The group adds that “rhetorical and physical manifestations” of antisemitism include such things as calling for the killing or harming of Jews or holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by the state of Israel.
This seems good at first glance, as it clearly separates Israel and Judaism, which would be very clearly against the views of Netanyahu and his conservative government. My only issue is that it could be interpreted differently to give IHRA the agency to change their definitions, and they’re not generally unbiased when dealing with Israel. They had a highly controversial list of “examples of antisemitism” which defended Israel with fervor.
What are you talking about? The definition CLEARLY combines Israel and Judaism into one category, as in, any criticism of Israel becomes antisemitic hate speech.
You seem to have trouble reading the text you’re replying to. I’ll paste if a few more times to make it easier for you.
The international group defines antisemitism as a “certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” The group adds that “rhetorical and physical manifestations” of antisemitism include such things as calling for the killing or harming of Jews or holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by the state of Israel.
The group adds that “rhetorical and physical manifestations” of antisemitism include such things as calling for the killing or harming of Jews or holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by the state of Israel.
holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by the state of Israel.
holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by the state of Israel.
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.
This is where the slight of hand happens. The problem with self determination is that we don’t live in an empty world. My right to self determination can’t impinge on your right to self determination. So this definition doesn’t take into account competing political projects, agendas etc. This is about Israel, but notice they start with denying the Jewish people the right to self determination, then the example they give is claiming that the state of Israel is a racist endeavor. Now Judaism is conflated with political Zionism. These two things are not the same. And people have a right to believe that creating Israel is ok. But I have a right and you have a right to disagree that the formation of Israel was morally OK, politically acceptable. I can say that creating Israel came at the expense, of the Palestinian people. And that the creation of an ethnostate as such affords Israelis different rights whether or not you’re Jewish. And I don’t have to support the principal of an ethnostate. I dont belive in kurdish ethnostates, I don’t believe in white nationlist ethnostates, I dont believe in Arab or Islamic ethnostates, and I don’t believe in Jewish ethnostates.
I read your text 3 times to follow it. Your explanation is working VERY hard working with VERY NARROW definitions with your introduction of some possible logical leaps to make the connections. Not that I think you’re being disingenuous, but it looks like a weak argument. Yes, its possible but all the stars have to align for your reading to be true. Its just not likely.
That argument is build upon the foundation of the 11th bulletpoint example. You skipped (I believe unintentionally) over the HUGE carve out in the IHRA has before those examples. That text is this:
“Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
its possible but all the stars have to align for your reading to be true. Its just not likely.
I mean people are being accused of anti-semitism right now because they don’t want the Israeli government to finish its extermination of the Palestinian people. Its not a stretch or leap because it is happening right now. Its just not considered hate speech today to criticize the Israeli government.
Also, I don’t care to put things like this up to likely or unlikely given the current make up of the Supreme Court, which is where this would end up.
I mean people are being accused of anti-semitism right now because they don’t want the Israeli government to finish its extermination of the Palestinian people.
“People saying” doesn’t carry the weight of law, and thank goodness. Thats the difference.
Its not a stretch or leap because it is happening right now.
Where is someone being accused of criticizing Israel facing criminal charges right now? Thats a leap you’re making. You’re saying that because some rando is accusing someone criticizing Israel’s attacks on the Palestinian people that they’re facing criminal chargers, that just isn’t happening anywhere I’ve seen. If you have evidence of that I’m interested in it.
Well let’s put a flag in this and keep track of it. There is a clear train if conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism with the mainstream media’s coverage of the genocide, in what I hear coming out Congress critters mouths, the banning of toktok, and in all of the coverage I see regarding the student protests.
I expect this current crackdown if free speech to be explicitly based in the conflation of Israel with Judaism and I see the passage of this law as a direct step in that direction. I hope I’m seriously wrong, but I’m too cynical to out it aside as being explicitly for this purpose.
No one really knows how if this bull becomes a law, and we don’t know how that will be enforced or adjudicated.
No one really knows how if this bull becomes a law, and we don’t know how that will be enforced or adjudicated.
This is where I am too. I certainly don’t claim to be a legal scholar, and those that are and those that adjudicate the law in practice will certainly shape it, and any constitutional challenges that follow.
The danger is that by introducing the threat of civil or even criminal charges against those who are accused of being antisemitic under this strict definition, it will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and academic debate/inquiry.
You should read this opinion piece by the lead drafter of the IHRA definition itself, talking about the dangers of Trump’s 2021 executive order (essentially what this latest bill is proposing to enforce by law). In it he warns about the definition being weaponized, saying:
Starting in 2010, rightwing Jewish groups took the “working definition”, which had some examples about Israel (such as holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of Israel, and denying Jews the right to self-determination), and decided to weaponize it with title VI cases. While some allegations were about acts, mostly they complained about speakers, assigned texts and protests they said violated the definition. All these cases lost, so then these same groups asked the University of California to adopt the definition and apply it to its campuses. When that failed, they asked Congress, and when those efforts stalled, the president.
The real purpose of the executive order isn’t to tip the scales in a few title VI cases, but rather the chilling effect. ZOA and other groups will hunt political speech with which they disagree, and threaten to bring legal cases. I’m worried administrators will now have a strong motivation to suppress, or at least condemn, political speech for fear of litigation. I’m worried that faculty, who can just as easily teach about Jewish life in 19th-century Poland or about modern Israel, will probably choose the former as safer. I’m worried that pro-Israel Jewish students and groups, who rightly complain when an occasional pro-Israel speaker is heckled, will get the reputation for using instruments of state to suppress their political opponents.
I assume “calling for the killing or harming of Jews” is meant in the general sense. But what happens if it’s directed at one person, who happens to be Jewish. Let’s say the individual is a criminal and people wish harm upon them. Would that count?
I feel like the illegality of threatening to murder a specific person was never really in question regardless of legislature waiting on the Senate’s approval,
Calling for the killing or harming of someone is not the same as threatening someone.
For example, I would never say “I’m going to kill Netanyahu”, but I AM aware of the FACT that the world would become a better place if someone, for example himself, did.
Likewise, it’s always been illegal to threaten Jewish people, just like anyone else, but this law is at the very least a step towards criminalizing all criticism of the actions of a fascist apartheid regime by equating Israel and by extension its government with all Jewish people, which is itself a very antisemitic thing to do.
The article says:
This seems good at first glance, as it clearly separates Israel and Judaism, which would be very clearly against the views of Netanyahu and his conservative government. My only issue is that it could be interpreted differently to give IHRA the agency to change their definitions, and they’re not generally unbiased when dealing with Israel. They had a highly controversial list of “examples of antisemitism” which defended Israel with fervor.
What are you talking about? The definition CLEARLY combines Israel and Judaism into one category, as in, any criticism of Israel becomes antisemitic hate speech.
Have you even actually read the definition?
You seem to have trouble reading the text you’re replying to. I’ll paste if a few more times to make it easier for you.
The key text:
This is where the slight of hand happens. The problem with self determination is that we don’t live in an empty world. My right to self determination can’t impinge on your right to self determination. So this definition doesn’t take into account competing political projects, agendas etc. This is about Israel, but notice they start with denying the Jewish people the right to self determination, then the example they give is claiming that the state of Israel is a racist endeavor. Now Judaism is conflated with political Zionism. These two things are not the same. And people have a right to believe that creating Israel is ok. But I have a right and you have a right to disagree that the formation of Israel was morally OK, politically acceptable. I can say that creating Israel came at the expense, of the Palestinian people. And that the creation of an ethnostate as such affords Israelis different rights whether or not you’re Jewish. And I don’t have to support the principal of an ethnostate. I dont belive in kurdish ethnostates, I don’t believe in white nationlist ethnostates, I dont believe in Arab or Islamic ethnostates, and I don’t believe in Jewish ethnostates.
I can say that. Unless we follow this definition.
for reference: the actual definition (if you can get it to load its getting the internet hug of death): https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
and the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7921
That’s actually not the correct bill, it’s https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7921
fixed, thanks for that catch.
I read your text 3 times to follow it. Your explanation is working VERY hard working with VERY NARROW definitions with your introduction of some possible logical leaps to make the connections. Not that I think you’re being disingenuous, but it looks like a weak argument. Yes, its possible but all the stars have to align for your reading to be true. Its just not likely.
That argument is build upon the foundation of the 11th bulletpoint example. You skipped (I believe unintentionally) over the HUGE carve out in the IHRA has before those examples. That text is this:
“Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
Source is the May 2016 definition as citing in the legislation
To me this looks like it leaves the door fully open to criticize the State of Israel for its treatment of minority groups inside its borders and out.
I mean people are being accused of anti-semitism right now because they don’t want the Israeli government to finish its extermination of the Palestinian people. Its not a stretch or leap because it is happening right now. Its just not considered hate speech today to criticize the Israeli government.
Also, I don’t care to put things like this up to likely or unlikely given the current make up of the Supreme Court, which is where this would end up.
“People saying” doesn’t carry the weight of law, and thank goodness. Thats the difference.
Where is someone being accused of criticizing Israel facing criminal charges right now? Thats a leap you’re making. You’re saying that because some rando is accusing someone criticizing Israel’s attacks on the Palestinian people that they’re facing criminal chargers, that just isn’t happening anywhere I’ve seen. If you have evidence of that I’m interested in it.
Well let’s put a flag in this and keep track of it. There is a clear train if conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism with the mainstream media’s coverage of the genocide, in what I hear coming out Congress critters mouths, the banning of toktok, and in all of the coverage I see regarding the student protests.
I expect this current crackdown if free speech to be explicitly based in the conflation of Israel with Judaism and I see the passage of this law as a direct step in that direction. I hope I’m seriously wrong, but I’m too cynical to out it aside as being explicitly for this purpose.
No one really knows how if this bull becomes a law, and we don’t know how that will be enforced or adjudicated.
This is where I am too. I certainly don’t claim to be a legal scholar, and those that are and those that adjudicate the law in practice will certainly shape it, and any constitutional challenges that follow.
The danger is that by introducing the threat of civil or even criminal charges against those who are accused of being antisemitic under this strict definition, it will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and academic debate/inquiry.
You should read this opinion piece by the lead drafter of the IHRA definition itself, talking about the dangers of Trump’s 2021 executive order (essentially what this latest bill is proposing to enforce by law). In it he warns about the definition being weaponized, saying:
I assume “calling for the killing or harming of Jews” is meant in the general sense. But what happens if it’s directed at one person, who happens to be Jewish. Let’s say the individual is a criminal and people wish harm upon them. Would that count?
I feel like the illegality of threatening to murder a specific person was never really in question regardless of legislature waiting on the Senate’s approval,
But Fuck Netanyahu
Calling for the killing or harming of someone is not the same as threatening someone.
For example, I would never say “I’m going to kill Netanyahu”, but I AM aware of the FACT that the world would become a better place if someone, for example himself, did.
Likewise, it’s always been illegal to threaten Jewish people, just like anyone else, but this law is at the very least a step towards criminalizing all criticism of the actions of a fascist apartheid regime by equating Israel and by extension its government with all Jewish people, which is itself a very antisemitic thing to do.