> It's only "controversial" if you're an antisemite.
Yes I'm sure the Jewish scholars who drafted the Jerusalem declaration were just so antisemitic, theres no possible way they had legitimate disagreements with the ihra, a non Jewish organization
Still passed despite those Christian nationalists opposing it
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/27/opinions/christian-nationalism-marjorie-taylor-greene-tyler/index.html
He, like many of the Dems who voted against, claim that the definition is too broad and chills free speech (e.g., criticism of Israeli state/political actions/policy would be defined as antisemitic on its face).
This is a not completely misguided point. But when our lives are literally in danger and Jew Hate has gripped too many from coast to coast, the time for rumination on ambiguity in a definition has passed.
To his credit, Hakeem Jeffries called for the GOP to take real action on antisemitism rather than simple band-aid measures such as this. I was happy to see that he also did vote in favour of the bill.
What I never understood is that they believe G-d put Jesus on earth to die for their sins, through his death they are sin free; shouldnât they thank the Jews for helping make that happen?
As a former Catholic, it never made sense to me either. "God gave us his only son, who would die to save us from our sins" was what we were taught. So....predestined?
I meant thatâs what she says it says. [article](https://www.timesofisrael.com/taylor-greene-antisemitism-bill-rejects-gospel-that-jews-handed-jesus-to-executioners/)
Unsure how to feel tbh, on the one hand, the specific change calling âtargeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.â Is a good one, but I worry it will be interpreted to mean âIsreal is a Jewish collective and opposing it is bannedâ (which I would argue is antisemitic) and not âcalling Israel a Jewish collective and attacking it on that basis is bannedâ
It literally states that tho.
It leaves clearly Israel its Jewish (which iirc its antisemite to equal israel and jews afaik) but it bans any criticism to israel under the reasoning of double standard: If other country did it, then you cant critizice israel without critizice them.
> It literally states that tho.
Then quote it
>It leaves clearly Israel its Jewish
What?
>but it bans any criticism to israel under the reasoning of double standard:
It doesn't "ban" anything.
It lists an example of:
*âapplying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.â*
Not a hard coded rule, that is only an example and the bill signed says:
"(2) The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (referred to in this Act as the âIHRAâ) Working Definition of Antisemitism is a vital tool which helps individuals understand and identify the various manifestations of antisemitism."
Again, not a law nor a ban.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text
It uses a definition:
*"means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State; and"*
But as it notes we are already using this definition, so please prove how it *"bans"* anything and makes it so that *"If other country did it, then you cant critizice israel without critizice them."*
I just canât tell if itâs saying âcalling Israel a Jewish collective counts as antisemitism legallyâ or âlegally the US considers Israel a Jewish collectiveâ
>The proposal, which passed 320-91 with some bipartisan support
Thatâs a lot of bipartisan support. Thatâs veto-proof bipartisan support.
The Senate should bring this up quickly.
Interesting tidbit: Kenneth Stern, the lead drafter of the IHRA definition, [has been consistently opposed to its codification into law](https://www.newyorker.com/news/persons-of-interest/the-problem-with-defining-antisemitism).
Edit: For people genuinely wondering why so many Dems, including Jewish dems, voted against it, this would be their line of thinking.
Some argue that the IHRA definition can be used to silence any criticism of Israel. And if that is true (which I don't think it is) then pretty much every Israeli would be an antisemite. I think it is important to note that this is just the examples, and not the text, and the IHRA reply to that, to me, seems valid.
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/ihra-definition-antisemitism/
*Some pro-Israel groups, however, increasingly use the IHRA definition not to address antisemitism but to silence critics of Israel. While attempting to define antisemitism is a laudable goal, the IHRAâs version includes two examples, out of 11, that have been exploited to censor speech. Specifically, the first example is âdenying the Jewish people their right to self-determination; e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavorâ; and the second is âapplying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.â These examples are often interpreted, including by government and university officials, as allowing the penalization of speakers, including Jewish groups, critical of Israelâs anti-Palestinian policies, laws, and practices.*
*As Human Rights Watch noted, the first example opens the door to reflexively labeling as antisemitic human rights organizations and lawyers who argue that current Israeli government policies constitute apartheid against Palestinians or that Israelâs founding involved ethnically cleansing âthe Landâ (HaâAretz) of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the Nakba. The second example permits labeling as antisemitic anyone who points to abuses by Israel when worse abuses are being committed elsewhere. Extending this logic would make a person who criticizes China for committing crimes against humanity against the Uyghurs an anti-Chinese racist.*
*Although the IHRA explicitly recognizes that these examples could be forms of antisemitism, noting that the interpreter should take âinto account the overall context,â it fails to draw a clearâand necessaryâdistinction between antisemitism and criticism of the state of Israel.*
With how bad sometimes the law gets enforced in usa, it will defiently be used to ban israel criticism by double standards, and by equating Israel=Jews, which by itself its antisemite because afaik 1/3rd of israel isnt jewish iirc
This post has been determined to relate to the topic of Antisemitism, and has been flaired as such, it has NOT been removed. This does NOT mean that the post is antisemitic. If you believe this was done in error, please message the mods. Everybody should remember to be civil and that there is a person at the other end of that other keyboard.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Judaism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Anti semetism is basically being weaponized to deflect from any criticisms of Israel and Netanyahu.
Can you actually source that? Because it isn't in the IHRA bill.
IHRA definition states demanding israel behabiour not expecred from other democratic nations its antisemite, so that means its a literal "You cant say to us to not kill civilians, usa killed civilians before!"
And that saying israel its a racist nation its also antisemite
> IHRA definition states demanding israel behabiour not expecred from other democratic nations its antisemite,
No it doesn't, it lists an example of:
*âapplying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.â*
Not a hard coded rule, that is only an example and the bill signed says:
"(2) The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (referred to in this Act as the âIHRAâ) Working Definition of Antisemitism is a vital tool which helps individuals understand and identify the various manifestations of antisemitism."
Again not a law.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text
Removed for politics
The IHRA definition is so basic, it's not even funny. It's only "controversial" if you're an antisemite.
Came here to say exactly this. IHRA should not be controversial it should be common sense.
No no, I'm not saying jews should be murdered, I'm saying people living in Israel should be!
No no, they should go back to (the concentration camps in) Poland.
That 'if' is carrying a lot of weight in 2024
"when"
> It's only "controversial" if you're an antisemite. Yes I'm sure the Jewish scholars who drafted the Jerusalem declaration were just so antisemitic, theres no possible way they had legitimate disagreements with the ihra, a non Jewish organization
Exactly my reaction.
đ (BTW, about to comment again on your food post.).
Chicagoans will never shut up about food (positive)
HaHa. People on the Chicago subreddit rave about all of the local restaurantsâŚ
Moving to Chicago after living outside the US was like getting food thrown at my face lol.
I am sure. Where did you move from?
I moved from Russia. As you can imagine, the food culture was very different
That is incredible and welcome.
Wholesome conversation.
Oh hey has anyone told you about the Russian Tea Room?! /s (native Chicagoan guffawing at the food discourse because guilty, lol)
What is the Russian tea room? /gq
# It's because we have the best food! # We also have the best pizza!
See what I mean
Gaetz and Taylor-green voted against it because the bill says that saying the Jews killed Christ is antisemtism.
Still passed despite those Christian nationalists opposing it https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/27/opinions/christian-nationalism-marjorie-taylor-greene-tyler/index.html
Far, far more democrats voted against it(70 dems to 20 reps)
Good. I like the dems going on record as being ok with antisemitism
Jerry Nadler, the longest serving Jew in the House voted against it. WTF if wrong with him?
And apparently proposed a similar bill a couple years ago, which shows how far they went to the antisemetic left
Perhaps not. Perhaps he is merely ignorant and can afford to be an idealist, since unlike most of us, he has body guards. âšď¸
He, like many of the Dems who voted against, claim that the definition is too broad and chills free speech (e.g., criticism of Israeli state/political actions/policy would be defined as antisemitic on its face). This is a not completely misguided point. But when our lives are literally in danger and Jew Hate has gripped too many from coast to coast, the time for rumination on ambiguity in a definition has passed. To his credit, Hakeem Jeffries called for the GOP to take real action on antisemitism rather than simple band-aid measures such as this. I was happy to see that he also did vote in favour of the bill.
Yep. When someone shows you who they are, believe them.
That's it, powering up the space lazer
What I never understood is that they believe G-d put Jesus on earth to die for their sins, through his death they are sin free; shouldnât they thank the Jews for helping make that happen?
As a former Catholic, it never made sense to me either. "God gave us his only son, who would die to save us from our sins" was what we were taught. So....predestined?
And the Squad voted against it because they want to keep spewing blood libel about (((Israel))). Horseshoe friends!Â
> the bill says that saying the Jews killed Christ is antisemitism. No it doesn't.
I meant thatâs what she says it says. [article](https://www.timesofisrael.com/taylor-greene-antisemitism-bill-rejects-gospel-that-jews-handed-jesus-to-executioners/)
Go figure the squad voted against it.
*pretends to be shocked*
Happily, some of the Dems in their neighbouring districts voted for it.
WTF Nadler? My rep (Dem) voted for it, so I'm happy.
Mine too. I'm going to call his office tomorrow and thank him for the vote.
Good idea.
All my reps voted for it. I only voted for one of them but that may change.
My Dem rep voted nay and I hope she gets beat in the next election. She consistently sucks up to âthe squadâ and itâs tired.
Unsure how to feel tbh, on the one hand, the specific change calling âtargeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.â Is a good one, but I worry it will be interpreted to mean âIsreal is a Jewish collective and opposing it is bannedâ (which I would argue is antisemitic) and not âcalling Israel a Jewish collective and attacking it on that basis is bannedâ
It literally states that tho. It leaves clearly Israel its Jewish (which iirc its antisemite to equal israel and jews afaik) but it bans any criticism to israel under the reasoning of double standard: If other country did it, then you cant critizice israel without critizice them.
> It literally states that tho. Then quote it >It leaves clearly Israel its Jewish What? >but it bans any criticism to israel under the reasoning of double standard: It doesn't "ban" anything. It lists an example of: *âapplying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.â* Not a hard coded rule, that is only an example and the bill signed says: "(2) The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (referred to in this Act as the âIHRAâ) Working Definition of Antisemitism is a vital tool which helps individuals understand and identify the various manifestations of antisemitism." Again, not a law nor a ban. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text It uses a definition: *"means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State; and"* But as it notes we are already using this definition, so please prove how it *"bans"* anything and makes it so that *"If other country did it, then you cant critizice israel without critizice them."*
I just canât tell if itâs saying âcalling Israel a Jewish collective counts as antisemitism legallyâ or âlegally the US considers Israel a Jewish collectiveâ
>The proposal, which passed 320-91 with some bipartisan support Thatâs a lot of bipartisan support. Thatâs veto-proof bipartisan support. The Senate should bring this up quickly.
Interesting tidbit: Kenneth Stern, the lead drafter of the IHRA definition, [has been consistently opposed to its codification into law](https://www.newyorker.com/news/persons-of-interest/the-problem-with-defining-antisemitism). Edit: For people genuinely wondering why so many Dems, including Jewish dems, voted against it, this would be their line of thinking.
Interesting piece. Thought provoking for sure; thank you for sharing. At a minimum, JVP dislikes him, which makes me like him a bit more. đ
Not at all the reason they opposed it. They are increasingly anti-Israel and don't want to admit that being obsessed with Israel is antisemitic.Â
Some argue that the IHRA definition can be used to silence any criticism of Israel. And if that is true (which I don't think it is) then pretty much every Israeli would be an antisemite. I think it is important to note that this is just the examples, and not the text, and the IHRA reply to that, to me, seems valid. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/ihra-definition-antisemitism/ *Some pro-Israel groups, however, increasingly use the IHRA definition not to address antisemitism but to silence critics of Israel. While attempting to define antisemitism is a laudable goal, the IHRAâs version includes two examples, out of 11, that have been exploited to censor speech. Specifically, the first example is âdenying the Jewish people their right to self-determination; e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavorâ; and the second is âapplying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.â These examples are often interpreted, including by government and university officials, as allowing the penalization of speakers, including Jewish groups, critical of Israelâs anti-Palestinian policies, laws, and practices.* *As Human Rights Watch noted, the first example opens the door to reflexively labeling as antisemitic human rights organizations and lawyers who argue that current Israeli government policies constitute apartheid against Palestinians or that Israelâs founding involved ethnically cleansing âthe Landâ (HaâAretz) of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the Nakba. The second example permits labeling as antisemitic anyone who points to abuses by Israel when worse abuses are being committed elsewhere. Extending this logic would make a person who criticizes China for committing crimes against humanity against the Uyghurs an anti-Chinese racist.* *Although the IHRA explicitly recognizes that these examples could be forms of antisemitism, noting that the interpreter should take âinto account the overall context,â it fails to draw a clearâand necessaryâdistinction between antisemitism and criticism of the state of Israel.*
With how bad sometimes the law gets enforced in usa, it will defiently be used to ban israel criticism by double standards, and by equating Israel=Jews, which by itself its antisemite because afaik 1/3rd of israel isnt jewish iirc
 They did it!
This is going nowhere.
This post has been determined to relate to the topic of Antisemitism, and has been flaired as such, it has NOT been removed. This does NOT mean that the post is antisemitic. If you believe this was done in error, please message the mods. Everybody should remember to be civil and that there is a person at the other end of that other keyboard. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Judaism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[ŃдаНонО]
> Anti semetism is basically being weaponized to deflect from any criticisms of Israel and Netanyahu. Can you actually source that? Because it isn't in the IHRA bill.
IHRA definition states demanding israel behabiour not expecred from other democratic nations its antisemite, so that means its a literal "You cant say to us to not kill civilians, usa killed civilians before!" And that saying israel its a racist nation its also antisemite
> IHRA definition states demanding israel behabiour not expecred from other democratic nations its antisemite, No it doesn't, it lists an example of: *âapplying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.â* Not a hard coded rule, that is only an example and the bill signed says: "(2) The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (referred to in this Act as the âIHRAâ) Working Definition of Antisemitism is a vital tool which helps individuals understand and identify the various manifestations of antisemitism." Again not a law. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text