[Closed] Anti-Semitism, it's offical!

100% agree. It's good to have a very clear separation of the 2 things. It is important to be able to criticise both Israel and Palestine without brining religion into it.

Is this just not a clear attempt by the government to make Jeremy Corbyns head explode?

The highly inflammatory language in the press release could push a few more over the edge.

Prime Minister Theresa May will argue that a clear definition means anyone guilty of anti-Semitism in "essence, language or behaviour" will be [b]"called out on it"[/b].

binners - Member

Is this just not a clear attempt by the government to maek Jeremy Corbyns head explode?

Maybe, but oddly I think it confirms his stance as being anti-Israel rather than Anti-Semitic.

I can't help thinking it's a 'flags for orphans' act and buried in the small print is an NHS privatisation clause.

I'm waiting to hear what Ken Livingstone says about it...

Eric Pickles is quoted in that article, and I agree with him.

Bloody hell.

wwaswas - Member
I'm waiting to hear what Ken Livingstone says about it...

no idea what Ken would say

Firstly, yes an internationally agreed definition is important and this definition is such. Secondly it's absolutely legitimate to critise Israeli government policy as many Israelis themselves do.

However, P-Jay do you think it draws a clear line re: Israel ? I am not so sure. You cannot act against Jewish institutions, does that not by definition include Israel ? Genuine question and I think the definition could (imo should) be interpreted that way. To be against the entire state of Israel and it's existance is imo anti-Semitic. I read the UK police already use such a definition by the way.

It is also interesting (and important) they have made it clear you can behave in an anti-Semitic way towards a non-Jewish person.

The BDS movement is generally accepted to be anti-Semitic in what it actually tries to do (eg try and ban a Jewish commedian from a Spanish festival)

You cannot act against Jewish institutions, does that not by definition include Israel ?

To be against the entire state of Israel and it's existance is imo anti-Semitic.

There is no way BDS is anti-Semitic.
In the absence of any political leadership from the west trying to reign in the worst excesses of Israeli criminal behaviour, efforts by organisations and individuals are all that is left.
BDS is a reaction against Israeli policy, not against Jewish people.

APF

Right Jammers! Lets get this cleared up once and for all! Are we allowed to criticise Spurs? 🙂

I still don't know what 'called out' means.

terrahawk - Member
I still don't know what 'called out' means.

It means saying Oi your a racist etc. when somebody is not just saying it's locker room banter etc

is that it? scary stuff.

does that not by definition include Israel ?

I don't think that's the intent though, and it tends to be only elements of the Israeli Govt and it's apologists that use this definition when faced with legitimate criticism of actions carried out by the Israeli state ( any govt which has acted the way the Israelis have would and should expect the same level if criticism)

Yeah it is, it stops things like what Jamby says above and it means there are less weasel words around what it means rather than taking action against the anti-semites and also being able to be 100% tough on the Israeli government over its appalling human rights and war crimes.

I still don't know what 'called out' means.

It defines anti-Semitism as "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews."

How is that clearer/an improvement? How long did it take to come up with something that remains vague and ill-defined? A couple of minutes?

http://howlongsincekenlivingstonementionedhitler.com

made accountable for your crimes?

not sure why they didn't put that in the press release TBH.

However, P-Jay do you think it draws a clear line re: Israel ? I am not so sure. You cannot act against Jewish institutions, does that not by definition include Israel ? Genuine question and I think the definition could (imo should) be interpreted that way. To be against the entire state of Israel and it's existance is imo anti-Semitic. I read the UK police already use such a definition by the way.

I'll have to wait until the actual statement, but as you say it's likely to be pretty close the UK Police version.

Will it draw a clear line? No chance, even if in the very unlikely event it's made in the most blunt of terms, people will invariably interpret their own way or choose to interpret it in a way that suits their agenda.

As for Jewish Institutions and Israel, I don't think it's anti-Semitic to question the creation and support of Israel and no state should be above criticism - to claim criticise of a state is the same as being prejudice an individual because of their religion is frankly bonkers.

I think its trying to deal with a recent trend:
The surge in hate crimes and the bitter brexit debate where the media and many politicians used xenophobia as a tool to push their own agendas

The far right has tried (and succeeded?) to rebrand and legitimise itself as the Alt-Right, Breitbart for example being a magnet for anti-semites and isalmophobes.
Britain First etc have learnt to exploit things like Brexit and Remembrance Day as a way to increase their footprint accross social media.
The Daily Mail has excelled itself in recent years with its vileness, attacking millibands father or the Nazi style 'Enemies of the People' headlines.
The stream of death and rape threats Ginna Miller or even the high court judges have received, show that this is a real problem.

The death of Jo Cox should have been more of a wake up call

but am I right that this slightly better definition of anti-semitism is also part of the same legislation that is naming this far right group (that Thomas Mair was influenced by) as a terrorist organisation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38286708

.To be against the entire state of Israel and it's existance is imo anti-Semitic.

Today I chose peppers from Spain over peppers from Israel...

Blimey, a political news story where I agree with everything that everyone says.

That might be a first.

It means saying [b]Oy vey[/b] your a racist etc.

FTFY.

What that article doesnt say is anything about Israel. At all. It makes no distinction about what would be acceptable anti-Israeli criticism that wouldn't be classed as antisemitism.

Does the IHRA definition itself cover that?

What that article doesnt say is anything about Israel. At all. It makes no distinction about what would be acceptable anti-Israeli criticism

Doesn't need defining. Anything is acceptable as long as it doesn't include hatred towards Israelis for being Jewish.

Racism against black people is still widespread, yet we don't have this sort of issue when criticising, say, the DRC.

indeed. So in practice we will have to wait and see the establishment* stand up and defend clear anti-Israeli statements as NOT being antisemitic. That's going to be fun....

* or whichever body is going to stand up and "police" this definition.

No binners it's not, I am aware the FA don't like us chanting "Yid Army" personally I think that's an act of solidarity with the Yiddish people.

You can critise the polcies of the Israeli government, eg in West Bank or in Gaza. What you cannot do is delegitimise the state of Israel over those policies or deny it's right to exist.

Listened to interviews on Sky from Pickles and a campaigner. Below is a link to a short explanatory document with some supporting examples (cannot paste them here for some reason)

[b] https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_release_document_antisemitism.pdf [/b]

You cannot deligitimise Isreal - to me this clearly means you cannot identify as an anti-Zionist (as Eric Pickles says people use the word Zionist in place of Jew to disguise anti-Semitism)
You cannot compare Israel to Nazi Germany as an "apartheid state"
You cannot hold Jews responsible for the actions of the Israeli government

There is no way BDS is anti-Semitic

AFP in theory having an action group which seeks to put pressure on Isreal over it's policies in say Gaza and the West Bank is legitimate. However in practice their actions are anti-Semitic, eg the example of the Jewish (American) Comedian or in trying to arrange a boycott of the Bataclan in Paris (btw it's my clear view it was targetted by the terrorists as it's a Jewish owned business and it was hosting an American band). Neither the commedian or the concert venue have anything to do with Israeli government policy in the West Bank, the action is clearly designed to target Jews as being responsible for what happens in Israel.

Also I'd happy to see an equivalent definition and Government action over Islamphobia

the definition of anti-semitism:

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-Semitism or anti-semitism) is hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews.

last time i checked Judaism was a religion and not a race...but then the Israeli government have done a pretty good job of changing that definition by making sure that you cant be Israeli unless you're Jewish therefore one cannot criticise Israel in any way with being accused of being anti Semitic.
and this ruling can now reinforce that...if its to prevent hate crime based on religious belief then i'm all for it but if its used as a defence to prevent political criticism then no i dont agree with it

Gonzy. Race and a religion. 20% of Israeli's are not Jewish. You can become a citizen if you are not Jewish although this is not straightforward unless you have a Jewish parent or grandparent (then it's very simple and the state will help you practically and financially)

Absolutely you can critise Israel. What you can't do is hold them to a higher standard than other Middle East countries for example, ie campaign only against Israel but ignore all the sectarian violence and human rights abuses in the region.

You cannot deligitimise Isreal - to me this clearly means you cannot identify as an anti-Zionist (as Eric Pickles says people use the word Zionist in place of Jew to disguise anti-Semitism)

zionism is a capitalist movement perpetuated by the current Israeli government by which it carries out illegal land grabbing and illegal settlements at the detriment of the Palestinian people which it then dehumanises by sticking them behind a wall and restricts their movements by way of checkpoints
zionism has no connection to Judaism but those who are guilty of enforcing it hide behind the Jewish faith to prevent any criticism being aimed at them.

You cannot compare Israel to Nazi Germany as an "apartheid state"

Israel is an apartheid state in that it treats the Arab population like second class citizens and denies them the same rights and freedom of movement that is afforded to its Jewish citizens. even the South African government who all too well have experienced apartheid has said this is the case.

You cannot hold Jews responsible for the actions of the Israeli government

the wording of that statement is deliberately wrong. what it should say is that you should be able to hold Israelis responsible for the actions of the Israeli government...but because you can only be Israeli if you are Jewish then it just so happens that any criticism is met with claims of anti semitism

Absolutely you can critise Israel. What you can't do is hold them to a higher standard than other Middle East countries for example, ie campaign only against Israel but ignore all the sectarian violence and human rights abuses in the region.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whataboutery

Ransos why not read the document I linked to. That's exactly what this definition is about.

You can become a citizen if you are not Jewish although this is not straightforward unless you have a Jewish parent or grandparent

a great example of rules of apartheid rule...you can get citizenship easily if you are jewish but if youre not we will make it very hard for you just like we do when you move about on a daily basis such as going to work or school

Absolutely you can critise Israel. What you can't do is hold them to a higher standard than other Middle East countries for example, ie campaign only against Israel but ignore all the sectarian violence and human rights abuses in the region.

not really true though in practice is it? you can criticise the saudis for their human rights abuses etc and not be accused of being islamophibic but soon as you criticise israel for its human rights abuses the antisemitic card comes flying out
the reason they are held to a higher standard is that the nation of israel was born out of land being taken from another country without its explicit consent and given to displaced jews of european descent, who then went about to forcibly gain autonomy on the back of acts of terrorism against the nations that granted them the land as a home, and who have since then continued to illegally steal land from the country they originally were given land from and settle upon it illegally whilst mistreating and brutalising the displaced inhabitants of the land they have illegally seized whilst having the full protection of the western governments such as the USA and UK...and a great deal of this aid is in the form of military aid and political support and protection from criticism....or have you conveniently forgotten that bit?

Gonzy with that line of argument and associated behaviour you could well end up in court.

Israeli Arabs and Christians have one of the best standards of living and human rights positions of any people in the Middle East. It is well known that homosexual Palestinians much prefer to live in Israel and do so if they can. Israelis pointed out this summer you are more welcome to win in a Burkini in Tel Aviv than in France.

Ransos why not read the document I linked to. That's exactly what this definition is about.

No, this is about more jambafacts. As gonzy notes, you would have no problem with criticism of Saudi human rights abuses, presumably not feeling the need to reference Israeli activities in Gaza.

Well, that cuts both ways.

Race and a religion

if the term jewish is for both for the religion and the race then you cant be one without the other...so therefore you cant be non-jewish and an israeli which contradicts you're earlier statement that 20% of Israelis are non-jewish

what about jews living in the USA or UK or any other country? are they not americans, brits etc who happen to be jewish?

your definition that it is a race is bonkers as youre trying to put jews in the same racial category as black people, white people, chinese people and asian people but guess what? all those other races by definition have people who fall into those categories but have different religious beliefs...

your definition is a political definition designed by the current zionist government so it can hide behind the faith of judaism so that it can go about carrying out its crimes whilst facing no criticism

Gonzy you can critise Israel's bombing of Gaza, the border controls etc. What you can't do is protest outside a Jewish shop in Manchester or try to pusuede people to boycott it or indeed "big up Hitler" as the Asian lad tried to do.

land being taken from another country

There was never a country of Palestine, the land wasn't taken from a country having previously been part of the Ottoman Empire. Had the Arabs/Palestinians accepted the 1948 division they would have had their own state for nearly 60 years and one matrially larger than any two-state solution will provide today (hence the "right to return" movement and it's attempt to eradicate Israel). They didn't accept it and Jordan claimed the West Bank. As many Jews (800,000) where expelled from Middle East countries as where Palestinians from the newly created Israel.

Also the historical "land was taken from" argument is one shall we say fraught with difficulty as the Jews have the longest historical links to governing the region going back at least to King David. Mohammed ascending to heaven from ontop of the Jewish Temple has always seemed a remarkable coincidence to me.

BTW as per a thread Molgrips started I am reading this which helps explain the historical disputes over the city and the whole region really

[img] [/img]

Will catch up later off out now

Then, even more interestingly, it will finally, draw a clean line between Anti-Semitism and being Anti-Israel which for me is even more important...

Agreed.

Israeli Arabs and Christians have one of the best standards of living and human rights positions of any people in the Middle East.

compared to the rest of the middle east which has been turned into a war zone...yes youre right but in comparison to jewish israelis then no as theyre still seen and treated as second class citizens. and i expect youre aware of how badly the Eritrean jews are treated in Israel by the israeli jews?

with that line of argument and associated behaviour you could well end up in court.

why? what have i said that is either derogatory, hostile, discriminatory or prejudiced towards the jewish faith? ive made a statement based on facts backed up by historical evidence...if anything ive made a criticism of the political policies of the government....im sure you said that was fine...but here you are redefining the boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not just so you can try to accuse me of anti semitism

There was never a country of Palestine

Had the Arabs/Palestinians accepted the 1948 division they would have had their own state for nearly 60 years and one matrially larger than any two-state solution will provide today (hence the "right to return" movement and it's attempt to eradicate Israel).

even though that didnt happen it hasnt stopped israel breaking the 1947 border agreements for its own ends has it
[img] [/img]

Will catch up later off out now

you gonna return as your alter ego..ninfan?

Interesting development.

Labour were utterly incapable of having an adult discussion of the matter.

I think that deep-down, labours masters found it difficult to delve into our own 'british' roots and prefer to see us as mere wage-fodder.

Maybe [i]we[/i] (us brits, even the daftest far-right types) are authentically Jewish..the diaspora of the 12 tribes of Israel.

Israel has a high standard of living, but its neighbours have been starved of investment just because of their proximity to the Suez Canal.

Maybe we (us brits, even the daftest far-right types) are authentically Jewish..the diaspora of the 12 tribes of Israel.

Eh ???

Regardless if this is saying you can't criticise Israel as it's different from other countries (which is what I think jams is implying) then that is very dark indeed, you should be able form an opinion on any country regardless of what the government tells you to think.

Also the historical "land was taken from" argument is one shall we say fraught with difficulty as the Jews have the longest historical links to governing the region going back at least to King David. Mohammed ascending to heaven from ontop of the Jewish Temple has always seemed a remarkable coincidence to me

Wait a minute does that mean the first people to settle in a country own it? then we must all be Ethiopian vassal states. 😆

Genetics makes rubbish of such laughable things as borders and kingdoms anyway

https://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/03/03/gbe.evw046.full.pdf+html

Unfortunately, some Jewish scholars have got very upset that genetics has overturned some of their preconceived ideas about their origins.

@kimbers

Afaik most of the settlers in Palestine post ww2 were the descendants of the khazars that converted to Judaism ad 700 (approx) and not 'genetically' descended from the 12 tribes of Israel *(I'm getting out of my depth here!)

*some of whom ended up here in Britain (allegedly)

There's some eytemelogical stuff on how 'britain' means Jewish.

Kind of blew my mind on the possibility that the Torah was taught in Ireland way back.
I was always under the impression that the uk went from straight from paganism to Christianity.

And the ultra right nutters forget that their ancestors (like our royal family) were originally from Syria.

Had the Arabs/Palestinians accepted the 1948 division

"Hi, We've come to live in your house. So if you could all just **** off to live in the airing cupboard, that would be grand.

What? You reject those terms? How very unreasonable of you."

some interesting points here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38293314

The obvious contrast is the way that the media portrays right wing terrorism- Thomas Mair's trial and sentence was burried on page 30 of the Daily Mail while they push muslamic terrorists as a constatnt threat

At the time of Jo Cox's murder, posters on here were adamant it couldnt have anything to do wit Britain First
and earlier today when a Man was stabbing people in London Shouting 'Kill All Muslims' he was dismissed as a nutcase- which he obviously was but it ignores a potentially much wider problem.