[JoshBB]

I've been reading up a lot on the whole fiasco regarding Labour's refusal to adopt the full IHRA definition of anti-semitism. As a Labour member myself, I was really concerned when I first heard this, alongside many protests that asserted Labour was anti-semitic as a result. The last thing I would want is to be associated with a racist party in any way, shape, or form. Therefore, I decided to research.

I figured a good starting point was to look up the definition itself, and most of these are common sense that they should be adopted. But there were just two examples that I'm not 100% sure why they constitute anti-semitism, so perhaps someone here can help me to understand. I got the "eleven examples" from this Jewish news site, which I assume to be accurate.

The IHRA examples in question are;

7) 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.

To me, calls to "get rid of"/dissolve the current Israeli state are almost always a red flag that the person is an anti-semite. However, the bolded aspect is what confuses me. I feel that in a way, it censors the criticism of discrimination towards Arabic Israelis and some of the language the current government has used about Arabs. (ie. by Netanyahu)

10) Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

This one I find quite problematic. I understand that it could be easy to cross lines in a justifiably sensitive topic, though I don't think any state or individual should be exempt from comparisons to Nazi ideology if they are legitimate. For example, most people would not raise issue with apartheid South African policy or North Korean policy being compared to the Nazis' - so what is the difference here? Not a rhetorical question, genuinely uncertain.

In advance, I hope y'all understand the education-seeking nature of this post, and apologies if I've offended any jewish members by questioning the technicalities of the IHRA definition peace and love

[Twosugars]

good topic, let's hope for a grownup discussion

Never have time to read up on these things, but I'm also confused by these two.
Agree with your doubts, would only add to the first that I don't know how this bit of the definition sits with statements by some Israeli politicians that Israel should be a Jewish state. Does it mean non-Jewish citizens are somehow second class?
The second one is very sensitive considering the unprecedented human suffering of Jews inflicted by the Nazis. My only objection there would be purely rhetorical: it is theoretically and practically possible for victims to become perpetrators. And so why the state of Israel should be exempt from this (extreme) comparison?

[Maru]

@#7

We can visit many nations in the world, and it's not hard to find places where there are a specific set of laws meant to promote or protect certain forms of cultural tradition or practice. Most of these practices either don't conflict with popular norms or are so removed from the world stage that not much thought is given to it.

Someone who tends to be anti-Semitic will overlook all that and put Israel on a different pedestal and say that their laws/politics/international policy are all in fact all quite racist, when really they're not doing anything out of the norm. They are a Jewish country, simple...

This is where ideals of multiculturalism often fail to conform with actual reality. The assumption that peoples in other nations and societies that move naturally to embrace more Western-style practices such as relaxing cultural/societal rules on dress, changing business practices to be more accommodating for tourism, that "they" (the local population) are fact moving towards multiculturalism. This may or may not actually be the case at all (not ours to determine), but there are folk who believe if a state or nation wishes to participate on the Western stage, that they must adopt certain principles (including multiculturalism)... Israel is sometimes thought to be a counter-element to this.

Perhaps every nation has to find its mix of traditions and modern practices, but it's usually better for society if they do it that on their own. However, the tendency for foreign folk/media to focus on a nation and impose their own world view often has seeds of ethnocentrism embedded within them. These seeds tends to create safe havens for various elements to come in who diametrically oppose certain cultures/traditions and to cause problems societal. Moreover, Israel is seen as having an important role in maintaining the current world order, so that makes them a bigger target for vitroil...

@#10

I imagine it's quite problematic for Jews as well

Keeping in mind, the list of examples cited in the IHRA from are meant to be exactly that, examples. I don't think it is meant to be portrayed as this dialogue is always anti-Semitic. However, if a person does a good portion of that list, then it's a safer bet. Keeping in mind someone who is anti-Semitic will often employ criticism of the state of Israel as a useful tactic to construct and spread a negative image of the Jewish people in general.

[Toy Soldier]

I only really take issue with 7; it's not even that I think everyone should denounce Israel as a racist endeavour... Just that it's bizarre and unprecedented for it to be "banned" to even suggest it?? It's a step too far IMO and cripples normal and vital international political debate. It also doesn't stop people thinking it. It just shuts down the discussion so that those opinions "go underground" and rather than being aired and debated, they're whispered among like-minded individuals, and that is where true xenophobia is borne. A foolish and dangerous policy, in my opinion.


Not comparing Israel / Jews to Nazis (specifically) tbh I get it, and it's fair enough that it shouldn't be accepted. You can have the same criticisms without making the actual comparison / using those specific terms and, given the history, I don't think it'll ever be an appropriate comparison. It's a lazy shortcut and can easily be avoided, and in itself it doesn't exclude an opinion, it just suggests that people might pick their words more mindfully, which let's be honest is good advice in all circumstances.

[bitontheslide]

The way i see it is a little different.

Given that the jewish people have suffered such persecution in relatively recent history, its important that they are well cushioned, at least for a while, from it happening again.

I like to think of it similarly to positive discrimination. To give woman a fighting chance for example. I don't necessarily think these methods are good long term, but they do deserve some protections until proper balances are restored

For me, thats what these definitions are all about. Give the jewish people a leg up after all the dreadful things that have happened to them. Give them a degree of security that they most certainly have earnt.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Iv read it and I am happy with it

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Iv read it and I am happy with it

Oh signed, sealed, delivered then. No one else bother; it has the LT seal of approval

[LeatherTrumpet]

[Livia]

If people don't understand why comparing Israel to the Nazis is wrong, then they know nothing about the Nazis, or nothing about Israel... or both.

People claim Israel is akin to the Nazi state because of their oppression of Palestinians. Yet Arab Israelis are able to go about their business, worship, work... Arab women can vote - one of the only places in the Middle East where they can. I can't remember the Nazis affording Jewish women that privilege. And as far as I know, Israel doesn't intend gassing six million people.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I only really take issue with 7; it's not even that I think everyone should denounce Israel as a racist endeavour... Just that it's bizarre and unprecedented for it to be "banned" to even suggest it?? It's a step too far IMO and cripples normal and vital international political debate. It also doesn't stop people thinking it. It just shuts down the discussion so that those opinions "go underground" and rather than being aired and debated, they're whispered among like-minded individuals, and that is where true xenophobia is borne. A foolish and dangerous policy, in my opinion.

It's not banning those discussions. It's just a grouping of examples together in one space that can fit underneath the umbrella. I don't think it is meant to be taken so broadly, so much so that from the POV of the average person, an innocuous discussion from someone about Israeli-related topics automatically becomes an anti-Semitic affair... in fact, if anything, this IHRA definition is having the opposite effect of stimulating the discussion since we are all having this discussion now... which is a great thing.

From a governmental perspective, it's very useful to be able to point out where we may have cases of really bad actors who want to disrupt the achievements and development of a particular culture/group of peoples using very specific language. The racist example is seemingly innocuous, but it crafted in such a way to subvert the will of an entire ethic group... by claiming their choices as a people automatically fall under <insert stigmatized word>, in this case "racism"... That's an easy way to pigeon-hole an entire ethnic group of people into the suspicious category. That is very clearly anti-Semitic... but I think that that persecution complex would have to be there to fit into the first portion of #7.