Their Rule 4:
No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don’t question the statehood of Israel.
Europe@feddit.org removed my comment for de-tangling the conflation of antisemitism and anti-zionism. A dangerous conflation that is genuinely antisemitic and fuels antisemitic hate as it conflates the actions of Israel and Zionism to all Jewish people and Judaism.
This prioritization of the German definition, the adopted IHRA definition, is promoting antisemtitism and is diametrically opposed to the ‘No antisemitism’ aspect of the rule. The definition has been condemned by the writer of the definition, a multitude of human rights organizations including Human Rights Watch (HRW), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), B’Tselem, Peace Now, and Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), and over 120 leading scholars of anti-semitism.
Germany Is Trying to Combat Antisemitism. Experts Warn a New Resolution May Do the Opposite
Fifteen Israeli nongovernmental organizations, including the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, B’Tselem and Peace Now, issued an open letter in September stating their concern that the resolution, especially the IHRA definition, could be weaponized to “silence public dissent.”
This could also affect Jewish voices speaking out for Palestinian rights and opposing the occupation, they added. “Paradoxically, the resolution may therefore undermine, not protect, the diversity of Jewish life in Germany,” the letter argued.
Rights groups urge UN not to adopt IHRA anti-Semitism definition
"The IHRA definition has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism, including in the US and Europe,” the letter said.
US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Israeli rights group B’Tselem, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) were among the signatories
The letter is the latest attempt by human rights advocates to urge the UN not to adopt the IHRA definition. In November, more than 120 scholars called on the world body to reject the definition, due to its “divisive and polarising” effect.
128 scholars ask UN not to adopt IHRA definition of anti-Semitism
In a statement published on Thursday, the 128 scholars, who include leading Jewish academics at Israeli, European, United Kingdom and United States universities, said the definition has been “hijacked” to protect the Israeli government from international criticism
Why the man who drafted the IHRA definition condemns its use
The drafter of what later became popularly known as the EUMC or IHRA definition of antisemitism,including its associated examples, was the U.S. attorney Kenneth S. Stern. However, in written evidence submitted to the US Congress last year, Stern charged that his original definition had been used for an entirely different purpose to that for which it had been designed. According to Stern it had originally been designed as a ”working definition” for the purpose of trying to standardise data collection about the incidence of antisemitic hate crime in different countries. It had never been intended that it be used as legal or regulatory device to curb academic or political free speech. Yet that is how it has now come to be used. In the same document Stern specifically condemns as inappropriate the use of the definition for such purposes, mentioning in particular the curbing of free speech in UK universities, and referencing Manchester and Bristol universities as examples. Here is what he writes:
The EUMC “working definition” was recently adopted in the United Kingdom, and applied to campus. An “Israel Apartheid Week” event was cancelled as violating the definition. A Holocaust survivor was required to change the title of a campus talk, and the university [Manchester] mandated it be recorded, after an Israeli diplomat [ambassador Regev] complained that the title violated the definition.[See here]. Perhaps most egregious, an off-campus group citing the definition called on a university to conduct an inquiry of a professor (who received her PhD from Columbia) for antisemitism, based on an article she had written years before. The university [Bristol] then conducted the inquiry. And while it ultimately found no basis to discipline the professor, the exercise itself was chilling and McCarthy-like. [square brackets added – GW]
In what way is conflating zionism and judaism leading to “a safe space for the Jewish people”?
This is literally part of the IHRA definition, and I’m not the one doing it, but if you’ll look at the comment sections under a lot of Israel-related or Jewish-related news on there, you’ll quickly understand why people on Lemmy don’t want to accept the common definition of antisemitism…
Great. You picked the one reasonable bit from the definition. /s
Too bad the rest of the definition tries to equate judaism and antisemitism again.
Would you mind pointing me to these comments and stating what you mean by “common definition of antisemitism”? I don’t really get it.
This is one of the first ones if you search “Jews” and sort by latest
https://lemmy.ml/comment/18546783 https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/14356684 I would search more, but I’m pretty busy right now
By common definition I mean the IHRA definition, it’s the definition used by pretty much all Jewish institutions and in Jewish online spaces, and by some countries (Like Germany)
Where is antisemitism in the comment you linked?
I’m not seeing it, that person seems to be a Zionist troll and is labeling things which criticize Israel or zionism as a whole to be antisemitic.
The comment above it requests “Roman methods” to deal with Israel and accuses Jews of having used Genocide for three millenia.
Sorry, I still don’t see the antisemitism.
The IHRA definition is severely flawed and basically only accepted by Germany. The Jerusalem declaration is the more in line with “common sense”.
Look at the comment above that one.
It claims that the genocide we’re seeing right now is one in a long line of genocides perpetrated by Jews and that this proves that Israel is genocidal not because of Zionism, but that Zionism exists because Jews have always been genocidal. That’s pretty blatant antisemitism.
It continues with “The Romans knew what to do.” They sacked Jerusalem and murdered or enslaved it’s inhabitants. This comment got 10 upvotes.
Yeah, that shit is antisemitic. Zionism began in the late 1800’s. Trying to tie it back to thousands of years on the bases of religion or ‘race’ as if fascism is inherent is insane. This is exactly why it’s critical to detangle this conflation of Zionism and Judaism, and discredit any and all ‘race science’.
Ok. Granted. That shit should have been removed by the mods. Gonna report that one right now, actually.
Thanks, that’s actually refreshing to hear.
As a German I both disagree with that proposed definition of antisemitism and my country’s stance on Israel. But I also can’t shake the feeling that actual antisemitism is making a pretty big comeback rn.
I guess some people have a hard time keeping their anger on target… others are glad for the excuse. 🙄
Where does it say that?
Again. This is never “Zionists”, it’s the old trope of (((they))).
And? He is talking about historic genocide during Roman times. It is antisemitic how, exactly?