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]
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?
First: Back then, the Jewish Population was the occupied and oppressed people. Secondly, the beginning of that war was a massacre against the Jews by the Romans and both sides, thought that war, committed ethnic cleansings.
Portraying this as “the Jews massacred people unprovoked” is the same tactic we condemn when used by Zionists. The Romans had taken Jaffa in 66 and killed it’s inhabitants, then did the same to Lydda and advanced onto Jerusalem. They lost the ensuing siege, retreated and got ambushed and destroyed. That prompted a pogrom in Damascus, where the entire Jewish population was sealed in a Gymnasium and killed.
A year later, another force landed in Judea and again, took cities and massacred their inhabitants. The town of Gamla was completely razed and never resettled.
It is then, in late 67, that the “genocide” happened. Zealots couped against the moderate Jewish Government in Jerusalem and started murdering Civilians and rival factions, most of whom were Jewish. The sicarii attacked nearby villages and did the same. The Zealots had been attacking Romans and Greeks before, but never on that scale.
The Romans reinvaded in 68 and 69, laying Siege to Jerusalem in 70. During and after that siege, Romans killed almost every inhabitant of the city above the age of 17, while selling the rest into slavery.
If you give all of that context and your takeaway is “Jews committed a Genocide and the Romans did the right thing”, you A. Ignore the entire history of the conflict and B. Use the same methods Zionists are using right now to justify a Genocide. Claim, that the opponent is inherently genocidal and that cleansing them is the only way to stop the violence.
This is naked antisemitism. Even if we classify this as a genocide, this has nothing to do with modern day Zionists committing a genocide.
This is from memory what he said in his post - it is removed now. I cannot remember anything racist in it.
Irrespectively, is quoting historical facts antisemitic now? Like quoting facts about Israel massacring Palestinians?
Oh he did not.
He recommends we take the same measures as the Romans did.
In the terms of Roman occupation of Israel? I agree with that. Ideal solution would be for Israel to be disarmed and occupied first to start building democratic society, offering equal rights to both Palestinians and Israelis - after all war criminals are in prisons of course.
The same applies to Russia by the way.
Sadly, I cannot see anyone doing that which means sanctions are the best tool.
Imagine me quoting every attack of Palestinians on Israelis, never mentioning once the horrors Israelis have inflicted on them and then saying we should follow the current Israeli example.
Would you not take issue with that?
Again from memory he linked to Wikipedia and described atrocities of both parties. Are facts antisemitic now, sweetie?
If they’re connecting it to Zionists, it’s antisemitic by trying to tie fascism as inherent to Jewish people (either based on religion or ‘race’).
I can’t say I know too much about the history back 3000 years ago, but even if there was a fascist society tied to Judaism back then, that has absolutely nothing to do with Zionism, nor whether they were Jewish or not.
That also side steps that all empires are fascist to some respect, the roman empire being no exception.
The history is, that under the Roman occupation, two groups of radicals developed that wanted to lift said occupation. They attacked Romans and Greeks, those Romans and Greeks retaliated with Progroms, those Progroms led to a revolt and during that revolt, one of the radical factions started a massacre in Jerusalem. The Romans had by that point eradicated entire cities. Which the OC applauds.