Jewish-led groups slammed the legislation as a tool for silencing the movement for Palestinian rights.

Jewish-led groups slammed the legislation as a tool for silencing the movement for Palestinian rights.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/kVkfI

  • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPMEnglish
    16·
    2 months ago

    (2) includes the “[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism” identified in the IHRA definition.

    Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

    • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
    • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
    • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
    • 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).
    • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
    • 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.
    • 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.

    All of these examples are part of the definition. So under this law, saying that Israel is an apartheid state or saying Israel is committing a genocide would be against the law.

    ACLU gives a few more examples of how fucked up this is if you are interested in reading.

    • a lil bee 🐝@lemmy.world
      71·
      2 months ago

      I don’t believe it would be, actually? Both of your examples do not resemble any of the listed sub-items. Holding all Jewish people responsible for those items would be antisemitic, but they do also explicitly mention that any criticism that could be leveled at another state is valid. Comparing them to the Nazis is a no go, but it sounds as if you can accuse the state of Israel of apartheid or genocide and that is still not antisemitism under this bill.

      To be clear, I am opposed to this law and believe it will have a chilling effect on speech. I just don’t think your examples above would be in violation.

      • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPMEnglish
        7·
        2 months ago

        they do also explicitly mention that any criticism that could be leveled at another state is valid

        That explicit mention is not part of the definition.

        I just don’t think your examples above would be in violation.

        I’m no legal expert, so take everything I say as an opinion based on my understanding, but actual legal experts also say that it would be a violation.

        • a lil bee 🐝@lemmy.world
          2·
          2 months ago

          Sorry, that “explicit” was referring to another page from the same source I saw referenced elsewhere in regards to this bill. I’ll retract that unless I can find it again.

          Are the legal experts saying your examples above would be a violation? Do you have a link to that? If you are referring to the linked article, I’m not sure I’m seeing these two examples listed. Again, just want to emphasize I’m with yall on the bill here. I just want to actually understand and discuss the limits that might be applied here.

          • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPMEnglish
            4·
            2 months ago

            The list of “[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to” that exact wording is part of the law now. So anything the government decides works for them, they can use. And it might get struck down in the end, but random college students don’t have the capital to fight it out in courts. So it will 100% chill speech that criticizes the Israeli government.

            Under “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” example, Israel can’t be an apartheid state. So anything that counters that is antisemitic under this law.

            Under “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” example Israel can’t be committing a genocide because it would compare it to the Nazi Germany and their policy justifications used for killing Jews.

            The whole list is made up of highly curated examples to create the best shield and sword Israel can use to label anyone that criticizes them as an antisemite.

            • a lil bee 🐝@lemmy.world
              3·
              2 months ago

              I’m with you that the primary purpose of this bill is to chill speech. It could have been useful in less charged times but there is zero possibility of passing anything like this without the current zeitgeist interfering in either direction. Regardless, I just cannot agree with your interpretation here. In the current landscape, the hypothetical arguments you presented don’t follow logic that a court would follow.

              Accusing Israel of apartheid is not the same as the wording of the text, which is to assert that the existence of Israel itself is racist. Saying Israel did something that Nazi Germany did is not drawing a comparison in the same way that me saying you breathe air is not comparing you to Hitler. I would have to assert “you are like Hitler because you breathe air like he did” to draw a comparison.

              I also cannot get down with “they said ‘but not limited to’ so it could literally be anything”. That’s standard boilerplate stuff that is only saying the definition cannot explicitly list every example of antisemitic behavior. It’s not meant to stretch the definition out.

              Frankly, I think this bill is dumb. It’s obviously meant as a deterrent for pro-Palestinian voices. The danger in this bill will be in the implementation and enforcement. However, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with the definition of antisemitism used by the bill.

              • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPMEnglish
                4·
                2 months ago

                That’s the beauty of a discussion, we don’t have to agree on everything. Thank you for a civil discussion, and time will tell which one of was correct.