ForumGarden

I'll take the unusual step of quoting an entire letter, less its many signatories, from today's Guardian, which I commend.You report that the government is going to adopt a “new definition of antisemitism in order to prevent an “over-sweeping condemnation of Israel (Britain to pioneer new antisemitism definition, 12 December). The new definition has nothing to do with opposing antisemitism, it is merely designed to silence public debate on Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians. Antisemitic incidents comprise about 2% of all hate crime. Why then the concentration on antisemitism and not on Islamophobia, which is far more widespread? The suspicion must be that the real concern is not with antisemitism but with Britain’s support for Israel.

Israel claims to be “the only democracy in the Middle East. Palestinians who live under Israeli occupation are governed by a wholly different set of laws than Jewish settlers. This makes Israel the world’s only apartheid state and thus deserving of strong condemnation and the target of boycott, divestment and sanctions. We agree that it is antisemitic to associate Jews with the actions of the Israeli state. Unfortunately this is precisely what the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition will achieve through perpetuating the stereotype that all Jews support the Israeli state. The IHRA will strengthen not weaken antisemitism. There is a very simple definition of antisemitism from Oxford University’s Brian Klug. Antisemitism is “a form of hostility towards Jews as ‘Jews’. The IHRA definition smuggles in anti-Zionism, in the guise of antisemitism, as a means of protecting the Israeli state and thus western foreign policy.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ls-critics





I'll also quote the definition now being adopted into UK law. I'm not at this stage sure that I'm prepared to discuss the matter since, in this country, discussing it may well soon entail illegality.

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.

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

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. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it

is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong. It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms

and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/si ... mitism.pdf







I do not think there is any other country on earth currently operating a system of apartheid, which makes "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country" somewhat moot.

I'm ignoring you (because of your ridiculous 'apartheid' nonsense, don't argue, I won't answer) but before I do, IF such a law as you described is passed in the UK, THEN it is a Big Shame (or shonda in the vernacular) on the UK for silencing freedom of speech, as the language described is too vague to be hateful, which, btw, free speech covers hate speech. You should be free to hate whomever your overworked heart desires, but be prepared, as that hate can swell & result in a fatal heart attack.

If you look closely, the revised definition of antisemitism which is being incorporated into UK law was drawn up by the Committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance - we didn't invent it within the UK, we were called upon to adopt it.

Also, if you look closely, the term "apartheid" is central to the letter itself, not something introduced by me. The signatories wrote Palestinians who live under Israeli occupation are governed by a wholly different set of laws than Jewish settlers. This makes Israel the world’s only apartheid state and thus deserving of strong condemnation and the target of boycott, divestment and sanctions. I have no idea how that statement could be honestly denied by anyone. I also think you'll find most of the signatories are Jews. And before you suggest it, I find the term "self-haters" offensive.

"I find the term "self-haters" offensive."

So do I.

If adopted into your laws, it is the same as if you wrote it.

On the other hand, there's the Royal Court theatre this week, and the most ridiculous claim I've seen in decades.

The Royal Court said: “We are grateful to the members of the Jewish community who got in touch with the Royal Court to communicate the name of one of the characters in Rare Earth Mettle is antisemitic.

“For clarification, the character is not Jewish and there is no reference to being Jewish in the play. We acknowledge that this is an example of unconscious bias and we will reflect deeply on how this has happened in the coming days. We and the writer are deeply sorry for harm caused. In response to our learning the writer has changed the name, as of last night.”

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2021/ ... -character

The original criticism was that the writer had named the bogeyman billionaire Bond-style villain "Hershel Fink". The theatre and playwright now claim they had no idea that the name could be mistaken for flagging a Jewish identity. I think the quoted statement above is itself even more of a racial insult than the original naming, it's so blatantly false and mocking.

spot wrote: Sat Nov 06, 2021 8:52 pm On the other hand, there's the Royal Court theatre this week, and the most ridiculous claim I've seen in decades.

The Royal Court said: “We are grateful to the members of the Jewish community who got in touch with the Royal Court to communicate the name of one of the characters in Rare Earth Mettle is antisemitic.

“For clarification, the character is not Jewish and there is no reference to being Jewish in the play. We acknowledge that this is an example of unconscious bias and we will reflect deeply on how this has happened in the coming days. We and the writer are deeply sorry for harm caused. In response to our learning the writer has changed the name, as of last night.”

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2021/ ... -character

The original criticism was that the writer had named the bogeyman billionaire Bond-style villain "Hershel Fink". The theatre and playwright now claim they had no idea that the name could be mistaken for flagging a Jewish identity. I think the quoted statement above is itself even more of a racial insult than the original naming, it's so blatantly false and mocking.

To be fair, Hershel is a glaringly obvious Jewish name, so if it is a name that struck him as being appropriate for a Billionaire Banker then besically he is admitting to his own subconcious stereotyping. The fact remains, though, that throughout history, the most successful Bankers have been Jewish. That is not an Anti-Semitic statement. If anything it is the entire opposite. It is an acknowledgement of respect for a particular talent for Business held by a culture. The Negative side of Stereotyping is that of immediately associating Bankers as being Greedy & Evil and, by association, by being Jewish.

Hezbollah is now a terrorist organisation according to Australia now.
We've also named some right wing American group a terrorist org as well. Ive foŕgotten the name now.

"The Base"

magentaflame wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:38 pm We've also named some right wing American group a terrorist org as well. Ive foŕgotten the name now.

MAGA?

FourPart wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 1:35 pm

magentaflame wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:38 pm We've also named some right wing American group a terrorist org as well. Ive foŕgotten the name now.

MAGA?

No, I believe they call themselves "The GOP"

LarsMac wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:07 pm

FourPart wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 1:35 pm

magentaflame wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:38 pm We've also named some right wing American group a terrorist org as well. Ive foŕgotten the name now.

MAGA?

No, I believe they call themselves "The GOP"

I thought when they did it they called it “Shock and Awe” rather than terrorism

The definition of antisemitism that initiated the thread has roared into prominence again in newspaper coverage of what professors in UK universities are allowed or not allowed to say.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... ccusations

I'll quote two lines from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)'s declaration, you can see the full working definition of antisemitism at https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/re ... tisemitism

• 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.

The delicate word "it" at the second bullet point is a carried forward reference to "State of Israel". The problem, very often unspoken, is these double standards are clearly only a one-way affair. The flip side of the requirement, that Israel should behave in a way expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, is left unacknowledged.

That it would obviously be antisemitic to require Israel to behave in a way not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, every reasonable person would agree.

I'd suggest it is equally legitimate to complete the circle and declare Israel should behave in a way expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, but to say so appears to be contentious. Or perhaps it's not, I would need to be guided on that point. Nothing in the full text of the declaration, as far as I can see, suggests it would be antisemitic to make such a suggestion, but this half of the circle is where the friction originates.

Is it legitimate to declare Israel should behave in a way expected or demanded of any other democratic nation? Or is it antisemitic to make such a suggestion?

Until there is a pronouncement on that by an organization with the moral authority to speak on behalf of Holocaust Remembrance, any discussion of the State of Israel conforming to the behavior expected or demanded of any democratic nation is immediately going to explode into whether it is antisemitic to request Israel's conformity. This is what makes discussion of the policies of Israel's government, legislation, judiciary and armed forces a current impossibility. The question needs settling.

well, I hope you all get that settled, soon.
It seems that the Rethuglican Party here in the Good Ol' US of A is thinking of coming up with something similar.

It could make a nice diversion for the MAGA folks, though I am not entirely sure how they have arrived at that particular fork in the Road.

If I can find the article, again, I'll post it here.

Badenoch complains about about too many immigrants 'who hate Israel' coming to UK

In an article for the Sunday Telegraph today Badenoch complains that too many immigrants don’t like Israel. She says:

We cannot be naïve and assume immigrants will automatically abandon ancestral ethnic hostilities at the border

[...] I’m very careful when I speak. I’ve met many Muslim people who love Israel.

[...] She says she does not want immigrants coming to the UK bringing with them conflicts from abroad.

[...]Of course, not all cultures are equally valid. I don’t believe in cultural relativism. I believe in western values, the principles which have made this country great, and I think that we need to make sure that we continue to abide by those principles, to keep the society that we have now.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... op-of-blog

Actually, Badenoch, "ancestral ethnic hostilities" against Jews (since you mention ethnicity) isn't a Muslim issue at all. Perhaps you'd be more on the mark to accuse Ukrainians, with their Western values, of ancestral ethnic hostilities against Jews (alongside "coming to the UK bringing with them conflicts from abroad"!) - perhaps we could discuss pogroms. Not liking Israel is nothing to do with ancestral ethnic hostilities whether you're Muslim, Arab, Iranian or any other onlooker, it has to do with the Geneva Conventions, Human Rights relating to collective punishments, and the preposterous supremacist behaviour of the current Israeli leadership which has no parallel anywhere else in the world. Anyone dismissively killing walled-in defenceless civilians in such asymmetric circumstances clearly has to be despised for it, and in the case of the current Israeli leadership eventually jailed for it too given the staggering numbers involved.

The idea you might end up Prime Minister makes you as scary as any of the other contenders for leadership of the Conservative Party this autumn, every one of you has the same foot in mouth tendency as your recent predecessors.

As it happens I strongly believe in cultural relativism. You may argue for a monoculture in Britain or Israel but not even that could excuse vengeful or tactical genocide.

And, for good measure, "the principles which have made this country great" primarily rest on theft.

Her comment that it is "excessive" to give taxpayers money to others :-

"We’re taking from one group of people and giving to another. This, in my view, is excessive.

"Businesses are closing, businesses are not starting in the UK, because they say that the burden of regulation is too high."

undermines the whole welfare state - today maternity pay, tomorrow sick pay, then unemployment benefit?