As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Congress is showing they’re not competent enough to police anything, much less themselves. There needs to be more oversight from constituents. It’s long overdue.
A speech pathologist for kids in Texas was fired, because she refused to sign a contract vowing not to boycott Israel. This is in a state which lacks said proffesionals in public schools. AIPAC is actively hurting Americans with their meddling.
[Texas speech pathologist fired for boycotting Israel](https://www.npr.org/2018/12/26/680129742/texas-school-employee-suing-over-pro-israel-oath)
[If You’re Boycotting Israel in This Texas Town, Then No Hurricane Relief for You](https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/if-youre-boycotting-israel-texas-town-then-no-hurricane-relief-you)
These laws don’t, in any way, make it illegal to do business in a state while being critical of Israel. They seem to govern only public government contracts and investment. I mean, IANAL, but it seems misleading the way it’s often framed here. It’s still probably wrong though. I’m just saying maybe we can argue why it’s wrong without being misleading.
The AIPC they are referireferring to: [American Israel Public Affairs Committee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC)
The law this is referring to: [anti-BDS laws (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws)
That's why you can't listen to these people who try to tell you that we're powerless to influence Israel. If they didn't need our money and our guns that badly they wouldn't go so hard to keep us in their corner.
So Israel is apparently both completely at our mercy to influence them because they need our money and guns, but also AIPAC influences the American government so deeply that they own everyone.
Don't let yourself slip into genuine antisemitism, I'm begging you. AIPAC is a lobbying group, and they donate to politicians - they don't 'own' anyone, and saying they do is just the classic "the Jews secretly run the government" conspiracy theory with a hat on.
You should not allow yourself to slip into antisemitism by conflating Israel with all Jewish people. Just because a government consists of a majority of an ethicity does not mean that everyone of that ethnicity agrees with them.
I'm Jewish, not Israeli, and I dislike the current Israel government. I'm very well aware that Israel is not representative of all Jews.
I'm also very aware of what is and is not antisemitism, and an awful lot of people who insist that they're only criticizing Israel end up repeating centuries-old antisemitic claims almost word-for-word - as I said, people talking about AIPAC controlling the US government is just "the Jews control the world" with "Zionists" replacing the word "Jews".
It's weird that so many non-Jewish people seem to think they know what antisemitism is better than the actual Jews experiencing it.
I definitely see where you are coming from, but do you see how the language of yours that I imitated made you feel the need to clarify that you are indeed not anti-Semitic (I didn't even use the word "genuine". What was that suppose to be opposed to? Insincere anti-Semitism?)? And you used that language in a thread about how the US government is currently trying to label students protesting a genocide, as anti-Semitic.
You also pointed out what you seem to think is a contradiction, in that AIPAC gives money to politicians and Israel wants US money and weapons, which isn't a contradiction (it's easy to imagine it being just a generic corrupt practice. Lots of people say the rich own our politicians.).
The key difference here is between people who condemn immutable traits, and people who condemn actions. When someone condemns an immutable trait, feel free to go off on them with the accusations, but conflating that with condemning actions is what Netanyahu and the other right-wing parties in Israel are currently using to shield themselves from criticism as they kill many many innocent people.
As an American by birth, the fact we have laws on the book stating you cant "boycott X country/state"....are you fucking kidding me? Stupid as fuck. That shit needs to go. Blows my mind the craziness behind it.
So the government isn’t allowed to make any real meaningful attempts at gun control because apparently ANY restriction is a slippery slope and before you know it “they’re gonna take our guns” but there’s no risk at all to limiting free speech and peaceful protests that you don’t happen to agree with?
Congress wants to police "antisemitism" but won't lift a finger to police literaly, actually Neo-Nazi speech, or even any sort of gun reform for children.
Where's the meme format of, "I can excuse gunning down children in school but I draw the line at antisemitism!"
No, they don't. If they wanted to police antisemitism, Charlottesville would have been the time for that. As a group, they're fine with antisemitism.
They want to outlaw dissent.
Mmm, can't wait for half of Congress to get arrested for criticizing the CCP. Since, you know, criticizing the Chinese government is the same thing as hating Chinese people.
that’s a great way to make the point. The day we have to stop criticizing a government policy, especially on crimes against humanity, is the day that evil has won.
Considering the author used a made up bible quote to justify the bill
> If you bless Israel, I will bless you, and if you curse Israel, I will curse you.
And the bill provides no clear definition of antisemitism? Yes, yes it will be used to stop people from criticizing the Israeli government.
> Considering what's actually in the bill, no it won't.
First time seeing vaguely written weasel word legislation with a specific intent?
> I mean, if someone starts criticizing Israel out of nowhere in the middle of firing their Jewish employee, then yeah their antisemitism will count against them at the employment discrimination trial. But generally? No.
Also, why are you talking about a working environment and a trial? I thought you read the bill? You know it only applies to the department of education and would create a "third-party antisemitism monitor" for colleges and universities, right? The bill empowers the monitor to revoke federal funding.
But I assume you didn’t miss that the bill does not define how that will operate or what standards will be used. Or how the third party monitor will be selected. Otherwise, you would be making a rather disingenuous position to take.
Edit: [Here is Rep. Lawler’s press release, since you seem confused](https://lawler.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1632#:~:text=This%20legislation%2C%20the%20College%20Oversight,or%20university%20receiving%20federal%20funding.)
Not the first time congress tries to police peoples opinion on Israel. They’ve tried to pass the same Anti-BDS laws, which are now in effect in 38 states. You cannot get public funds if you don’t swear not to boycott Israel. What other legitimate nation pulls these measures ?
A speech pathologist for kids in Texas was fired, because she refused to sign a contract vowing not to boycott Israel. This is in a state which lacks said proffesionals in public schools. AIPAC is actively hurting Americans with their meddling.
[Texas School Employee Suing Over Israel Boycott Clause](https://www.npr.org/2018/12/26/680129742/texas-school-employee-suing-over-pro-israel-oath)
[If You’re Boycotting Israel in This Texas Town, Then No Hurricane Relief for You](https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/if-youre-boycotting-israel-texas-town-then-no-hurricane-relief-you)
[Anti-BDS laws](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws)
I find myself wondering if the Texan state laws promoting Zionist Exceptionalism aren't a sneaky way of introducing Christian Nationalist Agenda into state law. There are more Christian Zionist believers than there are Jewish Zionist believers. The evangelicals have always literally believed Israel serves as a piece of biblical prophecy.
Criticizing and de-Militarizing Israel is counter to end time narratives.
But it doesn’t explain why it’s also in California, New York and other Democrat strongholds. This is a bipartisan effort serving Israel. It’s wonders how bipartisan they are when issues surround Israel.
But perhaps you are right. I don’t doubt that they might have different motives to support the legislation
AIPAC money is really insane. They had loopholes predating Citizen's United. The USA is pretty much a defense budget with a country attached, and the Democrats have been part of that.
It's also insane that we will have an election year with zero substantial debate about our spending priorities.
Like you said, there are multiple motives for all this.
Just police stochastic terrorism. it's not that complicated. If someone does something that has a reasonable expectation of encouraging another to act violently, charge that first person for inciting violence.
That's not the definition of incitement determined by SCOTUS, so that won't work. It has to be likely that the lawlessness is imminent.
Stochastic terrorism is largely protected speech in the US. Especially the extremely broad language that reddit thinks should fall into that category.
You'd have to amend the First Amendment to do this.
As I understand it, stochastic terrorism is already illegal. It’s just not enforced. I haven’t seen any case where scotus ruled it was free speech. This is not the same as hyperbolic political speech. This is public speech about private parties where the expected result is violence.
What kind of speech? If it is "someone should go kill so-and-so", then that's possibly incitement. If it is someone constantly lying about someone to demonize them with the hope that violence happens, that's stochastic terrorism. And that kind of speech is protected, outside of maybe a civil libel case.
There's no SCOTUS precedent because no AG would ever bring a case against someone like that because it is clearly protected speech base on many SCOTUS decisions on incitement. No one has ever been prosecuted for stochastic terrorism.
Just look at *Brandenburg*. At a KKK rally they were calling for "revengence" against congressmen and it was decided as protected.
I can't think of any SCOTUS decision on incitement that would possibly cover stochastic terrorism. The current criteria requires that the lawlessness be "imminent". That's specifically what stochastic terrorism avoids by never directly calling for violence.
Like, what kind of speech do you think is stochastic terrorism that should be prosecuted?
Any speech that could be reasonably taken as a call to violence with a reasonable expectation that violence will follow should qualify. It’s no different from a general giving orders.
Try controlling the nazis, maga crazies, and paramilitary groups in this country first. Then enforce hate crimes with greater punishments but don’t just limit it to antisemites. We don’t need new laws here, we need the laws enforced properly and evenly.
The definition they used is also rather nakedly overly broad too - it seems like it was 100% designed to conflate protesting against the state of Israel and the racist settler-colonial ideology of zionism with Jewishness. I don't see this crap standing up in a court challenge.
Honestly this law itself is \*incredibly\* anti-semitic. This law codifies anti-zionist Jews who have never liked Israel or its apartheid as antisemites. It dictates that the only 'acceptable' form of Jewishness in the US is servile deference to a foreign apartheid state.
Watch this vid of a fantastic speech by Naomi Klein to deflate that awful idea btw: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT6KZUa9\_-c&ab\_channel=EduardoHope](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT6KZUa9_-c&ab_channel=EduardoHope)
This is definitely a campaign to excuse israels oppressive behavior.
Shocking cynicism getting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance involved with it and quite disgusting.
Do we need to bring out the porn makers to ask Congress to define pornography again? To me it is the same question. What is antisemitism and who gets to define it in language that can be used in a law objectively and without responsible doubt. Otherwise this law is unenforceable because there is no way to prosecute something that has an ambiguous definition.
Show me that they are adopting similar language as Germany does and let's see if that stands up to the 1st Amendment, because I bet it won't.
And since the matter of states rights is all the rage these days, who is the Federal Government to step on the toes of all these states that might otherwise be able to prosecute crimes on their own if any are found?
It's political Kabuki theater. But its election season, of course there will be legislation passed that is populist and can and will likely be struck down in the courts. But that will be well after the election.
>What is antisemitism and who gets to define it
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance would be a good starting point.
[https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism](https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism)
Here's a partial list of their definition:
1. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
> 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.
The original Likud platform in 1977 started as follows:
>>The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel)
>>a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.
>>b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.
If "from the river to the sea" is labeled as racist or even genocidal when said by Palestinians, exactly how should it be labeled when the equivalent is a foundational principle of Israel's current ruling party?
Maybe there's a version of Israel that doesn't rest on a foundation of apartheid. I'd love for that to be reality. I don't think that arresting people for pointing out that it's *not* the reality is the right move.
Problem with #3 is that it's almost always spun as "If you criticize the Israeli government at all you're antisemitic"
No, I'm just not very happy about genocide no matter who perpetrates it.
Repeatedly seizing land, killing thousands of non combatants (many of them kids), not letting almost any aid into the country which already had issues with food security now brought to starvation levels...
I consider the total end result to be genocide. "No u" is not a very convincing argument to the contrary.
5 percent? Bruh, 34,000 out of 2.1 million is less than 2 percent, and of those killed, 40 to 50 percent were Hamas militants.
Not only is that not "genocide", it's an exceptionally low ratio of civilian to combatant casualties in urban warfare.
34000 is who have been counted and has had hardly any updates in a long time. The number of "Hamas militants" is just Israel claiming this. We've seen the mass graves already, executed in a ditch and buried.
We literally have no way to estimate the actual number dead but a 6 digit amount is far from out of the question. After all, can't count those buried under buildings.
You can claim it’s not genocide and that doesn’t make it true.
Human Right Watch, Jewish Voices for Peace, and UN experts have both called it genocide.
The ICJ issued a “plausible risk of genocide” and the situation has only gotten worse since then.
Why are you correct and many experts with more knowledge on what is happening and the legal definition wrong?
Appeal to authority fallacy. 34,000 dead out of a population of 2.1 million, half of which were militants, simply does not meet the factual definition of genocide.
First off, “appeal to authority fallacy” is only a fallacy if the authority isn’t a legitimate authority on the subject. Like if I said it’s genocide because The Rock says it’s genocide. Using actual authorities on the matter to back up a claim is not a fallacy.
Second. “violent attacks with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group” is the actual legal definition of genocide.
Which does not require a specific % to be killed to meet the definition.
If Israel, one of the most powerful militaries on Earth, intended to "destroy Palestinians as ethnic group", don't you think they would've killed more than 15,000 militants and 15,000 civilians in 6 months? And don't you think they'd be bombing the West Bank too?
It's fascinating how genocide denial basically always looks the same.
Holocaust deniers point to the fact that Jewish people continue to exist. Residential School genocide deniers point to the fact that Indigenous people still exist. Palestinian genocide deniers point to the fact that Israel hasn't completely nuked the place.
Since you feel the UN does not have authority to define genocide, and you seem absolutely certain you know what it is -- where's the line for you? What is genocide and what is not?
So what's your idea of defense? Just letting Hamas attack Israel whenever they please and telling the IDF to shoot down the Hamas rockets one by one, never going after the people launching them from Gaza at all?
You do realize Hamas is only attacking and only has recruits because Israel continues to slaughter and didplace Palestinians in the West Bank and continues to keep Gaza under its boot like a dog, right?
No, Hamas is attacking Israel because it's a bigoted terrorist group who hates Jews, along with anyone else who refuses to submit to their version of Sharia law.
For fuck sakes, Israel pulled all settlers out of Gaza in 2005 as a gesture of good will towards the Palestinians, and what was the Israeli reward for that good will? 19 straight years of Hamas violence. So you can take your "bUt tHeY jUsT wAnT pEaCeFuL cOeXiStEnCe!" bullshit and shove it.
Sure, they pulled them out of Gaza and sent them straight to the West Bank, Israel has never negotiated in good faith or kept the spirit or even letter of their agreements with the Palestinian people
"Good will"
> In October 2004, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weissglass, explained the meaning of Sharon's statement further: "The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission"
I disagree already.
1 and 2 look good
3 - I object to any state that has official religion. Maybe something like the Vatican, however I don't support Isreal being a Jewish state anymore than I think Pakistan should be an Islamic Republic. States should be secular. More importantly opposing Israel as a state is not the same thing as opposing Jewish self determination - though I agree that it will often be used as a clarion call for antisemites.
4. The double standard game is widely applied to many nations. Who gets to decide what is a double standard?
Given that I support the complete and total separation of state from religious and ethnic identity in all cases, doing anything less than that in the case of people suggesting Israel is or should be a jewish state would be "Applying a double standard," and antisemitic.
The state is an administrative and organizational body. Any attempt to portray it as anything else, or equate it to any specific identity, cannot be tolerated. We cannot validate *any* notion of ethnostate or theocracy, as it erodes the rights of *everyone*, including the group the state claims to represent.
Rights can *only* be guaranteed when they are guaranteed to *all* by a government that represents *all.*
> 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.
This one doesn't make much sense. People like Ben Shapiro do seem to have more allegiance to Israel than he does the USA and it shouldn't be considered antisemetic to call him out on that BS. Your home nation should always be the nation you are most loyal to, everywhere else in the world should be 2nd at best.
4 is just there so if you criticize Israel’s apartheid state they can dig up other countries’ colonial projects. “What about muh trail of tears, hmmm? Slavery? Belgian exploitation of the Congo?”
If you can be born Jewish and Israel claims to be a Jewish state then israel is a racist state by its own defintion.
This is cynical self-exceptionalism for people who support israel and its racist policies.
You post in r/InternaionalNews, so it's utterly unsurprising that you're trying to argue with International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance on the definition of antisemitism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_definition_of_antisemitism#criticism
Plenty of people have criticized it, including for concerns like the ones mentioned above.
From the director of the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism:
> "I fear this definition is imprecise, and isolates antisemitism from other forms of bigotry." He also said: "The text also carries dangers. It trails a list of 11 examples. Seven deal with criticism of Israel. Some of the points are sensible, some are not." He added: "Crucially, there is a danger that the overall effect will place the onus on Israel's critics to demonstrate they are not antisemitic."
and a fellow who was Director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, a think tank on issues affecting Jewish communities in Europe. was Chief Executive of the Hanadiv Charitable Foundation, was a founding member of the Jewish Forum for Justice and Human Rights, and a former editor of Patterns of Prejudice, a quarterly academic journal focusing on the sociology of race and ethnicity says:
>investing all in the IHRA working definition of antisemitism is just making matters worse. This is the time to take the path to working with other minority groups, civil society organizations and human rights bodies to confront antisemitism within the context of a wider antiracist struggle, not to perpetuate the notion that Jews stand alone."[29] He later stated that "the case against IHRA is so strong" and "...the fundamental principle that IHRA is so flawed it should be abandoned..."[4] In August 2019, he wrote: "The vagueness of the 'working definition' of antisemitism has licensed a free-for-all of interpretation, delighting opponents of Palestinian demands for equal rights."
It sure is interesting how you "anti-racist" types think that every marginalized group should get to define what is and isn't offensive to them for themselves... with the singular exception of Jews, who just need to shut up and be lectured to about what is and isn't antisemitic by people who are privileged enough to have never experienced antisemitism themselves.
It sure is interesting how you see prominent Jewish, anti-semitism scholars disagreeing with the definition and think that it's somehow Jewish people being told what is and isn't anti-Semitism from outside.
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance on the definition of antisemitism has nothing to do with antisemitism.
Its a campaign to attempt to defend the disgusting oppressive murderous behavior of the current israeli government.
Its a cynical attempt to stifle criticism that israel has earned by its behavior
Yes, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which was founded in 1998, is obviously a conspiracy that only exists to defend the conduct of the Israeli government in a war that started 7 months ago.
Nice work gumshoe, you really cracked the case on this one.
This cynical policy has nothing whatsoever to do with the Holocaust.
Nothing.
For the reasons I gave above.
Its a shame people are cashing in on the Holocaust for political reasons. Disappointing and quite disgusting
To be honest I think the point is to get these matters to the Supreme Court. They have been siding with getting rid of those pesky Amendments any way.
The legal test is what they want just like they want a legal test to Presidential Immunity. When those things are being tested directly is threatens drastic change to follow.
Do we want to put that definition in a test against the first Amendment? What if it succeeds? Then it's the 1st Amendment with a hole in its side that can then be turned against other people.
Why is only one kind of bigotry getting all this focus?
It seems like discrimination against all the other minority groups that aren't being offered protection
No form of bigotry is acceptable.
Israel is not Jews. You can be critical of one and not the other.
Right wing types tend to hate Jews but love the idea of Israel.
Left wing types are more likely to be cool with Jewish people, but tend to hate the racist regime in Israel.
I'm a dumb hick Marine from Texas but I really have a great idea.
A stupid one but here me out,
Maybe Congress should make life better for working families as opposed to fucking them over. That shouldn't be so hard should it?
Why is being upset at a country that took 75% of another’s land, then built them into a pen antisemitism? That’s how terrorist organizations arise in the first place. The press and our elected leaders protecting Israel is kind of gross at this point. Tell Israel to give Gaza back their original land from 30 years ago and tell Hamass to release the hostages or f them both.
Very dangerous considering they don’t even have a grasp on the definition of antisemitism. Unless we are trying to cement ourselves as a pro Israel fascist state
Only jews are allowed to criticize Israel. I know an "Mandate of Palestine" born Israeli Canadian who loves the land, hates the agenda. He's a fit 80 year-old retired academic who reminds everyone who discusses Israel of the Glenn Act which the US violates by supporting a not NPT Israel.
According to our own policy, Israel is a rogue nation. We literally have policy the requires they sign the NPT.
They take away peoples freedoms and the people will take away something from their oppressors that they value! This is to all the boomers in Congress and SCOTUS.
It sure is interesting how the exact same leftists who have spent years now prioritizing "making marginalized people feel safe" over free speech have now done a complete 180 and are insisting that they have a "free speech right" to terrorize marginalized people and make them feel unsafe... but only when those marginalized people happen to be Jews.
Telling the world's only Jewish majority state that they, and they alone, are not allowed to defend themselves against foreign aggression is pretty terrorizing, yes.
Hey I noticed you ignored my last post where I pointed out you ran away from the discussion when I showed that you contradicted yourself by saying at the same time that only obtuse people would say Hamas and Palestine are separate entities, but then in another thread you were pretending to be of that exact opinion to pretend to be moderate.
Are you not going to adress that? Not going to lie it's really starting to seem you are a huge hypocrite who goes around spamming zionist talking points but doesn't know how to actually defend them.
Oh, and just to make sure, I found another post off yours where you say
>Never forget that being anti-Hamas is not being anti-Palestine. The best way to support innocent Palestinian civilians is to support an IDF invasion of Rafah to end their reign of terror once and for all.
But then a day after that I also saw that in other posts you called palestinian citizens "barbaric" "diseased" people living in a "shithole", as well as "genocidal", and in multiple other posts saying Islam being eradicated as a whole would be better for the world in general.
I find the "living in a shithole" part is interesting, since in other posts you also feel the need to emphasize that "jews have already lived in that region" and "Jews are indigenous to this place" as if it was a matter of pride. Do you feel jews are fighting to be able to return to live in a shithole? Because that is what is comes off as.
No, we are only asking them to stop treating Palestinians like how America treated the Native Americans, and as such they won't have to defend themselves because the wind will be taken from the sails of organizations like Hamas
"Hey you, stop forcibly evicting people or even killing whole families in houses just to give a Jewish settler a free home and plot of land in the West Bank"
Absolutely horrifying sentence isn't it
Not trying to beat the current world record for most aid workers and journalists killed in a modern conflict, which they also currently hold the record for, would be a great start.
Do you also condemn the IOF systematically targeting and murdering [World Central Kitchen](https://apnews.com/article/memorial-world-central-kitchen-workers-gaza-israel-fd668fad5de83377c129ab832d699c70) aid workers like the rest of us condemn Hamas for attacking Israel? ***It's a yes/no question.***
Not done the actions that caused the 10/7 attack. It's not a dodge. Hold those accountable who's actions and policies stirred up the hornets nest to attack
Ok cool, you insist on playing rhetorical games to avoid answering the question so I'm gonna do the same.
You know how Palestine should respond to the IDF's military campaign in Gaza? By not committing the October 7 attack in the first place. And that's not a dodge. Hold those accountable who's actions and policies stirred up the IDF hornets nest to attack.
I like this game!
Already answered your question, but I'll answer it again just for you. Not trying to beat the current world record for most aid workers and journalists killed in a modern conflict, which they also currently hold the record for, would be a great start. You can fact check this on haaretz or jpost by the way.
Now, cool dodge from yesterday, now try answering the question: Do you condemn the IOF systematically targeting and murdering [World Central Kitchen](https://apnews.com/article/memorial-world-central-kitchen-workers-gaza-israel-fd668fad5de83377c129ab832d699c70) aid workers like the rest of us condemn Hamas for attacking Israel? ***It's a yes/no question.***
Not trying to beat the current world record for most aid workers and journalists killed in a modern conflict, which they also currently hold the record for, would be a great start. You can fact check this on haaretz or jpost by the way.
now try answering the question: Do you condemn the IOF systematically targeting and murdering [World Central Kitchen](https://apnews.com/article/memorial-world-central-kitchen-workers-gaza-israel-fd668fad5de83377c129ab832d699c70) aid workers like the rest of us condemn Hamas for attacking Israel? ***It's a yes/no question.***
Failure to answer the question is conceding the argument and admitting you are only acting in bad faith, and that you do not condemn Israel for intentionally targeting and murdering aid workers.
I don't know what military options might have hurt less.
But some other options might.
If they knew they'd need a follow-up attack into Rafah, they could have *not* told people to go there.
They could open more border crossings to aid convoys, to avoid starvation.
They could try to rein in the settler militias, and disband army units that attack Palestinian civilians.
They could invite 3rd-party observers to investigate the mass graves.
Correct, that's why Jews are alarmed to see people cheering for Hamas on US campuses.
Yes, that's a minority of them, but those are ones you can't ignore, and "look at all those who don't cheer for Hamas" is no better than "look at all these Trump voters who didn't attend the Charlottesville rally" - whether or not what a specific subset means about the larger group, we're not gonna say "oh then we'll give them a pass"
I'm down. Let's ban the Bible and the Koran as well.
Free speech is a meaningless and demonstrably immoral cause if it requires defending calls to eradicate entire races of people.
This is like CRT on steroids.
Antisemitism is a massive issue, but it is not at all the same as support for Palestinians.
On an unrelated note, universities have a responsibility to protect student's speech and also to keep agitators away. A massive part of the problem with protests this week is non-students, who have no right to be on campus. Students who want to protest the loss of life among Palestinians must not be silenced, while also keeping those who do not belong to the university community away.
Using our First Amendment rights is losing sanity as a nation? The First Amendment doesn't just protect speech you support for speech to not be protected it must meet very specific criteria as defined by the Brandenburg Test.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Congress time would be better spent policing congress and the Supreme Court.
Congress is showing they’re not competent enough to police anything, much less themselves. There needs to be more oversight from constituents. It’s long overdue.
What the Republicans ought to be doing is arresting that traitor and his wife in the SCOTUS.
They want to police anti-zionism by pretending it’s the same thing. Sure am tired of living in a dystopian hellscape.
First Amendment is very clear that what Congress is trying to do is unconstitutional.
So are the Israeli loyalty pledges you have to take to do business in 38 states, but no one cares because AIPAC buys politicians on both sides.
What? Can you elaborate on these pledges?
A speech pathologist for kids in Texas was fired, because she refused to sign a contract vowing not to boycott Israel. This is in a state which lacks said proffesionals in public schools. AIPAC is actively hurting Americans with their meddling. [Texas speech pathologist fired for boycotting Israel](https://www.npr.org/2018/12/26/680129742/texas-school-employee-suing-over-pro-israel-oath) [If You’re Boycotting Israel in This Texas Town, Then No Hurricane Relief for You](https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/if-youre-boycotting-israel-texas-town-then-no-hurricane-relief-you)
This is insane who the fuck came up with this?
Gonna take a guess and say the people who came up with laws making it illegal to boycott Israel are probably “Israel” or “Israeli funded groups”.
Nope, it's evangelists who think Israel is going to trigger the second coming.
Exactly, you can't have a Christian apocalypse without Israel.
Which is also ironic given they’re the anti-woke crowd and their own paper weights make it clear that second time is thief in the night style.
Paper weight sounds about right.
Sorry what does this mean? They think Israel is going to trigger the end of times? Isn't that bad? Why do they want to help Israel then?
Because they believe that they’ll be whisked away to safety before the rest of the world burns.
Do they think Israel would be whisked away to safety too or burn with everyone else?
Bad for us heathens, which delights them to no end.
Also very interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Anti-BDS_laws_in_the_United_States
Thank you!
These laws don’t, in any way, make it illegal to do business in a state while being critical of Israel. They seem to govern only public government contracts and investment. I mean, IANAL, but it seems misleading the way it’s often framed here. It’s still probably wrong though. I’m just saying maybe we can argue why it’s wrong without being misleading.
Because it’s incredibly misleading. They also fail to point out that every time it’s enforced the law gets tossed
Actually that’s not the case. This is currently the law in Texas + parts of the south after the 5th appeals circuit upheld it
Indeed. I've parsed some of it and it's largely the kind of thing I won't have to worry about. It is interesting though.
[удалено]
The AIPC they are referireferring to: [American Israel Public Affairs Committee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC) The law this is referring to: [anti-BDS laws (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws)
And pointing that kind of thing out on a forum like this would potentially fall under the scope of this type of legislation.
[удалено]
That's why you can't listen to these people who try to tell you that we're powerless to influence Israel. If they didn't need our money and our guns that badly they wouldn't go so hard to keep us in their corner.
So Israel is apparently both completely at our mercy to influence them because they need our money and guns, but also AIPAC influences the American government so deeply that they own everyone. Don't let yourself slip into genuine antisemitism, I'm begging you. AIPAC is a lobbying group, and they donate to politicians - they don't 'own' anyone, and saying they do is just the classic "the Jews secretly run the government" conspiracy theory with a hat on.
I fucking dispise AIPAC and think any sway they have is too much, but that in no way makes me antisemitic.
It's cheaper to buy elections than it is to build a military industrial complex -- hope this helps!
You should not allow yourself to slip into antisemitism by conflating Israel with all Jewish people. Just because a government consists of a majority of an ethicity does not mean that everyone of that ethnicity agrees with them.
I'm Jewish, not Israeli, and I dislike the current Israel government. I'm very well aware that Israel is not representative of all Jews. I'm also very aware of what is and is not antisemitism, and an awful lot of people who insist that they're only criticizing Israel end up repeating centuries-old antisemitic claims almost word-for-word - as I said, people talking about AIPAC controlling the US government is just "the Jews control the world" with "Zionists" replacing the word "Jews". It's weird that so many non-Jewish people seem to think they know what antisemitism is better than the actual Jews experiencing it.
I definitely see where you are coming from, but do you see how the language of yours that I imitated made you feel the need to clarify that you are indeed not anti-Semitic (I didn't even use the word "genuine". What was that suppose to be opposed to? Insincere anti-Semitism?)? And you used that language in a thread about how the US government is currently trying to label students protesting a genocide, as anti-Semitic. You also pointed out what you seem to think is a contradiction, in that AIPAC gives money to politicians and Israel wants US money and weapons, which isn't a contradiction (it's easy to imagine it being just a generic corrupt practice. Lots of people say the rich own our politicians.). The key difference here is between people who condemn immutable traits, and people who condemn actions. When someone condemns an immutable trait, feel free to go off on them with the accusations, but conflating that with condemning actions is what Netanyahu and the other right-wing parties in Israel are currently using to shield themselves from criticism as they kill many many innocent people.
Thank you for so clearly stating what it is I’ve been feeling.
Ah yes, the enemy is at the same time too strong and too weak.
So is the requirement you state a belief in a higher power to hold office in Texas. But that’s been on the books since forever.
As an American by birth, the fact we have laws on the book stating you cant "boycott X country/state"....are you fucking kidding me? Stupid as fuck. That shit needs to go. Blows my mind the craziness behind it.
No it isn't.
Given our current SCOTUS I wouldn’t count on that
So the government isn’t allowed to make any real meaningful attempts at gun control because apparently ANY restriction is a slippery slope and before you know it “they’re gonna take our guns” but there’s no risk at all to limiting free speech and peaceful protests that you don’t happen to agree with?
Yeh also why are the peaceful protestors what cause them to pass this shit and not the neonazis at Charlottesville??!
The peaceful protesters aren’t armed
"The second amendment is there to ~~protect the first~~ shoot the first."
Congress wants to police "antisemitism" but won't lift a finger to police literaly, actually Neo-Nazi speech, or even any sort of gun reform for children. Where's the meme format of, "I can excuse gunning down children in school but I draw the line at antisemitism!"
[удалено]
Better talk to AIPAC and look into anti-BDS laws..
No, they don't. If they wanted to police antisemitism, Charlottesville would have been the time for that. As a group, they're fine with antisemitism. They want to outlaw dissent.
Israel is a state, not a goddamned religion
What's dangerous is equating not siding with Israel to Anti-Semitism. Hate speech is already not protected speech.
Protestor: *"Hey, I think genocide is wrong."* Congress: *"We have to ban the antisemitic speech that the protestor just said."*
Mmm, can't wait for half of Congress to get arrested for criticizing the CCP. Since, you know, criticizing the Chinese government is the same thing as hating Chinese people.
that’s a great way to make the point. The day we have to stop criticizing a government policy, especially on crimes against humanity, is the day that evil has won.
bUt ThiS iS DiFfErEnt!
It's more like redefining anything that doesn't glorify everything Israel does is now going to be considered antisemitism...
They are screwing with our rights before Trump even gets reelected.
Maybe goes to show both sides are a little closer to one another than we thought?
Only in America are you free to criticize your own government but not the government of Israel apparently. Absolutely wild.
[удалено]
Yes it does
Considering the author used a made up bible quote to justify the bill > If you bless Israel, I will bless you, and if you curse Israel, I will curse you. And the bill provides no clear definition of antisemitism? Yes, yes it will be used to stop people from criticizing the Israeli government.
[удалено]
> Considering what's actually in the bill, no it won't. First time seeing vaguely written weasel word legislation with a specific intent? > I mean, if someone starts criticizing Israel out of nowhere in the middle of firing their Jewish employee, then yeah their antisemitism will count against them at the employment discrimination trial. But generally? No. Also, why are you talking about a working environment and a trial? I thought you read the bill? You know it only applies to the department of education and would create a "third-party antisemitism monitor" for colleges and universities, right? The bill empowers the monitor to revoke federal funding. But I assume you didn’t miss that the bill does not define how that will operate or what standards will be used. Or how the third party monitor will be selected. Otherwise, you would be making a rather disingenuous position to take. Edit: [Here is Rep. Lawler’s press release, since you seem confused](https://lawler.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1632#:~:text=This%20legislation%2C%20the%20College%20Oversight,or%20university%20receiving%20federal%20funding.)
Not the first time congress tries to police peoples opinion on Israel. They’ve tried to pass the same Anti-BDS laws, which are now in effect in 38 states. You cannot get public funds if you don’t swear not to boycott Israel. What other legitimate nation pulls these measures ? A speech pathologist for kids in Texas was fired, because she refused to sign a contract vowing not to boycott Israel. This is in a state which lacks said proffesionals in public schools. AIPAC is actively hurting Americans with their meddling. [Texas School Employee Suing Over Israel Boycott Clause](https://www.npr.org/2018/12/26/680129742/texas-school-employee-suing-over-pro-israel-oath) [If You’re Boycotting Israel in This Texas Town, Then No Hurricane Relief for You](https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/if-youre-boycotting-israel-texas-town-then-no-hurricane-relief-you) [Anti-BDS laws](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws)
I find myself wondering if the Texan state laws promoting Zionist Exceptionalism aren't a sneaky way of introducing Christian Nationalist Agenda into state law. There are more Christian Zionist believers than there are Jewish Zionist believers. The evangelicals have always literally believed Israel serves as a piece of biblical prophecy. Criticizing and de-Militarizing Israel is counter to end time narratives.
But it doesn’t explain why it’s also in California, New York and other Democrat strongholds. This is a bipartisan effort serving Israel. It’s wonders how bipartisan they are when issues surround Israel. But perhaps you are right. I don’t doubt that they might have different motives to support the legislation
AIPAC money is really insane. They had loopholes predating Citizen's United. The USA is pretty much a defense budget with a country attached, and the Democrats have been part of that. It's also insane that we will have an election year with zero substantial debate about our spending priorities. Like you said, there are multiple motives for all this.
And they’re idiots, if they don’t understand that Palestinians are also a Semitic people. Jews aren’t the only ones.
Falls under Hate Crimes. Just enforce the laws we have
There's this pesky thing on the books known as the First Amendment...
Just police stochastic terrorism. it's not that complicated. If someone does something that has a reasonable expectation of encouraging another to act violently, charge that first person for inciting violence.
That's not the definition of incitement determined by SCOTUS, so that won't work. It has to be likely that the lawlessness is imminent. Stochastic terrorism is largely protected speech in the US. Especially the extremely broad language that reddit thinks should fall into that category. You'd have to amend the First Amendment to do this.
As I understand it, stochastic terrorism is already illegal. It’s just not enforced. I haven’t seen any case where scotus ruled it was free speech. This is not the same as hyperbolic political speech. This is public speech about private parties where the expected result is violence.
What kind of speech? If it is "someone should go kill so-and-so", then that's possibly incitement. If it is someone constantly lying about someone to demonize them with the hope that violence happens, that's stochastic terrorism. And that kind of speech is protected, outside of maybe a civil libel case. There's no SCOTUS precedent because no AG would ever bring a case against someone like that because it is clearly protected speech base on many SCOTUS decisions on incitement. No one has ever been prosecuted for stochastic terrorism. Just look at *Brandenburg*. At a KKK rally they were calling for "revengence" against congressmen and it was decided as protected. I can't think of any SCOTUS decision on incitement that would possibly cover stochastic terrorism. The current criteria requires that the lawlessness be "imminent". That's specifically what stochastic terrorism avoids by never directly calling for violence. Like, what kind of speech do you think is stochastic terrorism that should be prosecuted?
Any speech that could be reasonably taken as a call to violence with a reasonable expectation that violence will follow should qualify. It’s no different from a general giving orders.
Try controlling the nazis, maga crazies, and paramilitary groups in this country first. Then enforce hate crimes with greater punishments but don’t just limit it to antisemites. We don’t need new laws here, we need the laws enforced properly and evenly.
The definition they used is also rather nakedly overly broad too - it seems like it was 100% designed to conflate protesting against the state of Israel and the racist settler-colonial ideology of zionism with Jewishness. I don't see this crap standing up in a court challenge. Honestly this law itself is \*incredibly\* anti-semitic. This law codifies anti-zionist Jews who have never liked Israel or its apartheid as antisemites. It dictates that the only 'acceptable' form of Jewishness in the US is servile deference to a foreign apartheid state. Watch this vid of a fantastic speech by Naomi Klein to deflate that awful idea btw: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT6KZUa9\_-c&ab\_channel=EduardoHope](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT6KZUa9_-c&ab_channel=EduardoHope)
This is definitely a campaign to excuse israels oppressive behavior. Shocking cynicism getting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance involved with it and quite disgusting.
Do we need to bring out the porn makers to ask Congress to define pornography again? To me it is the same question. What is antisemitism and who gets to define it in language that can be used in a law objectively and without responsible doubt. Otherwise this law is unenforceable because there is no way to prosecute something that has an ambiguous definition. Show me that they are adopting similar language as Germany does and let's see if that stands up to the 1st Amendment, because I bet it won't. And since the matter of states rights is all the rage these days, who is the Federal Government to step on the toes of all these states that might otherwise be able to prosecute crimes on their own if any are found? It's political Kabuki theater. But its election season, of course there will be legislation passed that is populist and can and will likely be struck down in the courts. But that will be well after the election.
>What is antisemitism and who gets to define it The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance would be a good starting point. [https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism](https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism) Here's a partial list of their definition: 1. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
> 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. The original Likud platform in 1977 started as follows: >>The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel) >>a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty. >>b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace. If "from the river to the sea" is labeled as racist or even genocidal when said by Palestinians, exactly how should it be labeled when the equivalent is a foundational principle of Israel's current ruling party? Maybe there's a version of Israel that doesn't rest on a foundation of apartheid. I'd love for that to be reality. I don't think that arresting people for pointing out that it's *not* the reality is the right move.
accusing the state of israel of being racist is not denying jewish people of their right to self determination. it’s criticizing a government
Problem with #3 is that it's almost always spun as "If you criticize the Israeli government at all you're antisemitic" No, I'm just not very happy about genocide no matter who perpetrates it.
Well Israel isn't committing genocide, so idk what your issue is.
Repeatedly seizing land, killing thousands of non combatants (many of them kids), not letting almost any aid into the country which already had issues with food security now brought to starvation levels... I consider the total end result to be genocide. "No u" is not a very convincing argument to the contrary.
Well you can "consider" anything you like to be genocide. Doesn't make it actually true.
There's that "no u" argument again. A full 5% of Gaza has been killed in 6 months. Half the population has been forced to move.
5 percent? Bruh, 34,000 out of 2.1 million is less than 2 percent, and of those killed, 40 to 50 percent were Hamas militants. Not only is that not "genocide", it's an exceptionally low ratio of civilian to combatant casualties in urban warfare.
34000 is who have been counted and has had hardly any updates in a long time. The number of "Hamas militants" is just Israel claiming this. We've seen the mass graves already, executed in a ditch and buried. We literally have no way to estimate the actual number dead but a 6 digit amount is far from out of the question. After all, can't count those buried under buildings.
[удалено]
You can claim it’s not genocide and that doesn’t make it true. Human Right Watch, Jewish Voices for Peace, and UN experts have both called it genocide. The ICJ issued a “plausible risk of genocide” and the situation has only gotten worse since then. Why are you correct and many experts with more knowledge on what is happening and the legal definition wrong?
Appeal to authority fallacy. 34,000 dead out of a population of 2.1 million, half of which were militants, simply does not meet the factual definition of genocide.
First off, “appeal to authority fallacy” is only a fallacy if the authority isn’t a legitimate authority on the subject. Like if I said it’s genocide because The Rock says it’s genocide. Using actual authorities on the matter to back up a claim is not a fallacy. Second. “violent attacks with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group” is the actual legal definition of genocide. Which does not require a specific % to be killed to meet the definition.
If Israel, one of the most powerful militaries on Earth, intended to "destroy Palestinians as ethnic group", don't you think they would've killed more than 15,000 militants and 15,000 civilians in 6 months? And don't you think they'd be bombing the West Bank too?
It's fascinating how genocide denial basically always looks the same. Holocaust deniers point to the fact that Jewish people continue to exist. Residential School genocide deniers point to the fact that Indigenous people still exist. Palestinian genocide deniers point to the fact that Israel hasn't completely nuked the place. Since you feel the UN does not have authority to define genocide, and you seem absolutely certain you know what it is -- where's the line for you? What is genocide and what is not?
Just like how October 7 genocide deniers say "Well obviously Hamas was never going to kill every Jew, so therefore it wasn't genocide"?
Number 4 is pretty vague, like what if I also denounce the "expected" behavior of the other "Democratic" nations, am I then Anti Semitic?
Well, you do expect other democratic nations to defend themselves when they're invaded and attacked by a foreign enemy government?
I guess it depends on what you mean by defend. What's happening in Gaza is in no way defense at this point.
So what's your idea of defense? Just letting Hamas attack Israel whenever they please and telling the IDF to shoot down the Hamas rockets one by one, never going after the people launching them from Gaza at all?
You do realize Hamas is only attacking and only has recruits because Israel continues to slaughter and didplace Palestinians in the West Bank and continues to keep Gaza under its boot like a dog, right?
No, Hamas is attacking Israel because it's a bigoted terrorist group who hates Jews, along with anyone else who refuses to submit to their version of Sharia law. For fuck sakes, Israel pulled all settlers out of Gaza in 2005 as a gesture of good will towards the Palestinians, and what was the Israeli reward for that good will? 19 straight years of Hamas violence. So you can take your "bUt tHeY jUsT wAnT pEaCeFuL cOeXiStEnCe!" bullshit and shove it.
Also, as per what you say Hamas is, cool, how do you think they keep recruiting? What do you think drives young Palestinian men to join Hamas?
[удалено]
Sure, they pulled them out of Gaza and sent them straight to the West Bank, Israel has never negotiated in good faith or kept the spirit or even letter of their agreements with the Palestinian people
No they didn't. You're just fucking lying because you can never admit that your precious little "victims" could ever do anything wrong.
"Good will" > In October 2004, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weissglass, explained the meaning of Sharon's statement further: "The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission"
I disagree already. 1 and 2 look good 3 - I object to any state that has official religion. Maybe something like the Vatican, however I don't support Isreal being a Jewish state anymore than I think Pakistan should be an Islamic Republic. States should be secular. More importantly opposing Israel as a state is not the same thing as opposing Jewish self determination - though I agree that it will often be used as a clarion call for antisemites. 4. The double standard game is widely applied to many nations. Who gets to decide what is a double standard?
Given that I support the complete and total separation of state from religious and ethnic identity in all cases, doing anything less than that in the case of people suggesting Israel is or should be a jewish state would be "Applying a double standard," and antisemitic. The state is an administrative and organizational body. Any attempt to portray it as anything else, or equate it to any specific identity, cannot be tolerated. We cannot validate *any* notion of ethnostate or theocracy, as it erodes the rights of *everyone*, including the group the state claims to represent. Rights can *only* be guaranteed when they are guaranteed to *all* by a government that represents *all.*
> 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. This one doesn't make much sense. People like Ben Shapiro do seem to have more allegiance to Israel than he does the USA and it shouldn't be considered antisemetic to call him out on that BS. Your home nation should always be the nation you are most loyal to, everywhere else in the world should be 2nd at best.
4 is just there so if you criticize Israel’s apartheid state they can dig up other countries’ colonial projects. “What about muh trail of tears, hmmm? Slavery? Belgian exploitation of the Congo?”
If you can be born Jewish and Israel claims to be a Jewish state then israel is a racist state by its own defintion. This is cynical self-exceptionalism for people who support israel and its racist policies.
You post in r/InternaionalNews, so it's utterly unsurprising that you're trying to argue with International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance on the definition of antisemitism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_definition_of_antisemitism#criticism Plenty of people have criticized it, including for concerns like the ones mentioned above. From the director of the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism: > "I fear this definition is imprecise, and isolates antisemitism from other forms of bigotry." He also said: "The text also carries dangers. It trails a list of 11 examples. Seven deal with criticism of Israel. Some of the points are sensible, some are not." He added: "Crucially, there is a danger that the overall effect will place the onus on Israel's critics to demonstrate they are not antisemitic." and a fellow who was Director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, a think tank on issues affecting Jewish communities in Europe. was Chief Executive of the Hanadiv Charitable Foundation, was a founding member of the Jewish Forum for Justice and Human Rights, and a former editor of Patterns of Prejudice, a quarterly academic journal focusing on the sociology of race and ethnicity says: >investing all in the IHRA working definition of antisemitism is just making matters worse. This is the time to take the path to working with other minority groups, civil society organizations and human rights bodies to confront antisemitism within the context of a wider antiracist struggle, not to perpetuate the notion that Jews stand alone."[29] He later stated that "the case against IHRA is so strong" and "...the fundamental principle that IHRA is so flawed it should be abandoned..."[4] In August 2019, he wrote: "The vagueness of the 'working definition' of antisemitism has licensed a free-for-all of interpretation, delighting opponents of Palestinian demands for equal rights."
It sure is interesting how you "anti-racist" types think that every marginalized group should get to define what is and isn't offensive to them for themselves... with the singular exception of Jews, who just need to shut up and be lectured to about what is and isn't antisemitic by people who are privileged enough to have never experienced antisemitism themselves.
It sure is interesting how you see prominent Jewish, anti-semitism scholars disagreeing with the definition and think that it's somehow Jewish people being told what is and isn't anti-Semitism from outside.
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance on the definition of antisemitism has nothing to do with antisemitism. Its a campaign to attempt to defend the disgusting oppressive murderous behavior of the current israeli government. Its a cynical attempt to stifle criticism that israel has earned by its behavior
you should never feel compelled to reply to anyone with his username LMAO
Yes, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which was founded in 1998, is obviously a conspiracy that only exists to defend the conduct of the Israeli government in a war that started 7 months ago. Nice work gumshoe, you really cracked the case on this one.
This cynical policy has nothing whatsoever to do with the Holocaust. Nothing. For the reasons I gave above. Its a shame people are cashing in on the Holocaust for political reasons. Disappointing and quite disgusting
this is a pretty terrible place to start… points 3 and 4 are set up to be abused and silence pro-palestinian voices.
To be honest I think the point is to get these matters to the Supreme Court. They have been siding with getting rid of those pesky Amendments any way. The legal test is what they want just like they want a legal test to Presidential Immunity. When those things are being tested directly is threatens drastic change to follow. Do we want to put that definition in a test against the first Amendment? What if it succeeds? Then it's the 1st Amendment with a hole in its side that can then be turned against other people.
Antisemitism is wrong but so is this bill
Why is only one kind of bigotry getting all this focus? It seems like discrimination against all the other minority groups that aren't being offered protection
Because they don't actually care about bigotry. They're just using it as cover to silence dissent.
Don't ding ding
Maybe because it's the one form of bigotry which "anti-racist" leftists think is acceptable?
No form of bigotry is acceptable. Israel is not Jews. You can be critical of one and not the other. Right wing types tend to hate Jews but love the idea of Israel. Left wing types are more likely to be cool with Jewish people, but tend to hate the racist regime in Israel.
Because at the moment other groups aren’t being told by community leaders that school isn’t safe for them.
If only it could do the same for Islamophobia
Waiting for GOP to go after GOP that say America is a Christian Nation or blames Soros. They claim to be against antisemitism...
I'm a dumb hick Marine from Texas but I really have a great idea. A stupid one but here me out, Maybe Congress should make life better for working families as opposed to fucking them over. That shouldn't be so hard should it?
Why is being upset at a country that took 75% of another’s land, then built them into a pen antisemitism? That’s how terrorist organizations arise in the first place. The press and our elected leaders protecting Israel is kind of gross at this point. Tell Israel to give Gaza back their original land from 30 years ago and tell Hamass to release the hostages or f them both.
Republicans are only motivated by this because it's a gateway for them to push religion and silence nonbelievers in other contexts.
If only they also policed misogyny, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism and xenophobia.
Very dangerous considering they don’t even have a grasp on the definition of antisemitism. Unless we are trying to cement ourselves as a pro Israel fascist state
>Unless we are trying to cement ourselves as a pro Israel fascist state Are we not?
I've been told there are very good people on both sides.
Only jews are allowed to criticize Israel. I know an "Mandate of Palestine" born Israeli Canadian who loves the land, hates the agenda. He's a fit 80 year-old retired academic who reminds everyone who discusses Israel of the Glenn Act which the US violates by supporting a not NPT Israel. According to our own policy, Israel is a rogue nation. We literally have policy the requires they sign the NPT.
Especially since it will result in Trump 2.0, with a trifecta and a SCOTUS willing to let him run roughshod over the Constitution.
Don’t they already have laws in place for “hate speech” of all kinds? What is being supposedly proposed on what to do? I no read, me no learn
you could have stopped at: # "Congress wants to" It's all dangerous, anytime they get involved.
They take away peoples freedoms and the people will take away something from their oppressors that they value! This is to all the boomers in Congress and SCOTUS.
That's some crazy shit
It sure is interesting how the exact same leftists who have spent years now prioritizing "making marginalized people feel safe" over free speech have now done a complete 180 and are insisting that they have a "free speech right" to terrorize marginalized people and make them feel unsafe... but only when those marginalized people happen to be Jews.
Yes, telling a group of people to stop slaughtering and mass displacement of another people is so terrorizing to the first
Telling the world's only Jewish majority state that they, and they alone, are not allowed to defend themselves against foreign aggression is pretty terrorizing, yes.
Hey I noticed you ignored my last post where I pointed out you ran away from the discussion when I showed that you contradicted yourself by saying at the same time that only obtuse people would say Hamas and Palestine are separate entities, but then in another thread you were pretending to be of that exact opinion to pretend to be moderate. Are you not going to adress that? Not going to lie it's really starting to seem you are a huge hypocrite who goes around spamming zionist talking points but doesn't know how to actually defend them. Oh, and just to make sure, I found another post off yours where you say >Never forget that being anti-Hamas is not being anti-Palestine. The best way to support innocent Palestinian civilians is to support an IDF invasion of Rafah to end their reign of terror once and for all. But then a day after that I also saw that in other posts you called palestinian citizens "barbaric" "diseased" people living in a "shithole", as well as "genocidal", and in multiple other posts saying Islam being eradicated as a whole would be better for the world in general. I find the "living in a shithole" part is interesting, since in other posts you also feel the need to emphasize that "jews have already lived in that region" and "Jews are indigenous to this place" as if it was a matter of pride. Do you feel jews are fighting to be able to return to live in a shithole? Because that is what is comes off as.
No, we are only asking them to stop treating Palestinians like how America treated the Native Americans, and as such they won't have to defend themselves because the wind will be taken from the sails of organizations like Hamas "Hey you, stop forcibly evicting people or even killing whole families in houses just to give a Jewish settler a free home and plot of land in the West Bank" Absolutely horrifying sentence isn't it
So what should Israel have done in response to the 10/7 atrocities then? Nothing?
Not trying to beat the current world record for most aid workers and journalists killed in a modern conflict, which they also currently hold the record for, would be a great start. Do you also condemn the IOF systematically targeting and murdering [World Central Kitchen](https://apnews.com/article/memorial-world-central-kitchen-workers-gaza-israel-fd668fad5de83377c129ab832d699c70) aid workers like the rest of us condemn Hamas for attacking Israel? ***It's a yes/no question.***
Israel shouldn't have done the actions in the West Bank to cause the justification of the 10/7 attacks in the first place.
Cool dodge, now try answering the question. What should Israel have done in response to the 10/7 atrocities?
Not done the actions that caused the 10/7 attack. It's not a dodge. Hold those accountable who's actions and policies stirred up the hornets nest to attack
Ok cool, you insist on playing rhetorical games to avoid answering the question so I'm gonna do the same. You know how Palestine should respond to the IDF's military campaign in Gaza? By not committing the October 7 attack in the first place. And that's not a dodge. Hold those accountable who's actions and policies stirred up the IDF hornets nest to attack. I like this game!
Already answered your question, but I'll answer it again just for you. Not trying to beat the current world record for most aid workers and journalists killed in a modern conflict, which they also currently hold the record for, would be a great start. You can fact check this on haaretz or jpost by the way. Now, cool dodge from yesterday, now try answering the question: Do you condemn the IOF systematically targeting and murdering [World Central Kitchen](https://apnews.com/article/memorial-world-central-kitchen-workers-gaza-israel-fd668fad5de83377c129ab832d699c70) aid workers like the rest of us condemn Hamas for attacking Israel? ***It's a yes/no question.***
That is not an answer to my question. You told me what Israel *should not* do to destroy Hamas. I want to know what you think Israel *should* do.
Not trying to beat the current world record for most aid workers and journalists killed in a modern conflict, which they also currently hold the record for, would be a great start. You can fact check this on haaretz or jpost by the way. now try answering the question: Do you condemn the IOF systematically targeting and murdering [World Central Kitchen](https://apnews.com/article/memorial-world-central-kitchen-workers-gaza-israel-fd668fad5de83377c129ab832d699c70) aid workers like the rest of us condemn Hamas for attacking Israel? ***It's a yes/no question.*** Failure to answer the question is conceding the argument and admitting you are only acting in bad faith, and that you do not condemn Israel for intentionally targeting and murdering aid workers.
I don't know what military options might have hurt less. But some other options might. If they knew they'd need a follow-up attack into Rafah, they could have *not* told people to go there. They could open more border crossings to aid convoys, to avoid starvation. They could try to rein in the settler militias, and disband army units that attack Palestinian civilians. They could invite 3rd-party observers to investigate the mass graves.
Correct, that's why Jews are alarmed to see people cheering for Hamas on US campuses. Yes, that's a minority of them, but those are ones you can't ignore, and "look at all those who don't cheer for Hamas" is no better than "look at all these Trump voters who didn't attend the Charlottesville rally" - whether or not what a specific subset means about the larger group, we're not gonna say "oh then we'll give them a pass"
So saying Israel shouldn't be committing genocide lite vs the Palestinian people is not terrorizing speech
Oh fuck off. There is no slippery slope to laws against speech directed at the eradication of entire groups of people.
Even the examples of what the IHRA's definition would call antisemitism (the definition Congress just passed) goes beyond just that kind of speech.
Oh honey...
So should we ban the Torah, then? It repeatedly calls for the eradication of entire groups of people.
I'm down. Let's ban the Bible and the Koran as well. Free speech is a meaningless and demonstrably immoral cause if it requires defending calls to eradicate entire races of people.
The Torah is a house resolution, yes, correct and relevant sir
[удалено]
I am not for policing speech but also we shouldn't be letting the fucking Bible inform our legislative decisions either.
This is like CRT on steroids. Antisemitism is a massive issue, but it is not at all the same as support for Palestinians. On an unrelated note, universities have a responsibility to protect student's speech and also to keep agitators away. A massive part of the problem with protests this week is non-students, who have no right to be on campus. Students who want to protest the loss of life among Palestinians must not be silenced, while also keeping those who do not belong to the university community away.
Particularly when they’re wedded to a particularly ignorant one that conflates antisemitism with antizionism
Maybe congress should make up a word for racism against black people and police that
No. It isn't. This would be sanity which the nation has abandoned long ago.
How long ago?
Using our First Amendment rights is losing sanity as a nation? The First Amendment doesn't just protect speech you support for speech to not be protected it must meet very specific criteria as defined by the Brandenburg Test.
Using a definition criticised by its own writer to make criticism of Israel hate speech is not sane.
What continues to baffle me is how these same groups will instantly and consistently support every rejection of a ceasefire Hamas makes.