International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's Working Definition of Antisemitism

126 posts / 0 new

Sun, 2024-03-31 14:40

JKR

https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism.

On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:

Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

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.

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.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

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

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

Sun, 2024-03-31 14:59

Michael Moriarity

IJV says:

noihra.ca wrote:

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism (IHRA-WDA) is designed to silence criticism of Israel and of Zionism by equating this criticism with antisemitism.

Yet since antisemitism is a type of racism, it must be opposed in solidarity with other anti-racist struggles. The real fight against antisemitism must be joined to the struggle for equality and human rights for all people in Canada, in Israel-Palestine and around the world.

and they propose their own definition, which I find to be much better:

noihra.ca wrote:

IJV Working Definition of Antisemitism

Antisemitism is racism, hostility, prejudice, vilification, discrimination or violence, including hate crimes, directed against Jews, as individuals, groups or as a collective – because they are Jews. Its expression includes attributing to Jews, as a group, characteristics or behaviours that are perceived as dangerous, harmful, frightening or threatening to non-Jews.

• • •

Antisemitism is a type of racism, bigotry and xenophobia and as such is closely related to, and often driven by similar motivations and forces as other forms of bigotry.

In the 20th and 21st centuries, antisemitism has most often been associated with white supremacy and theories of Aryan or White European racial superiority. Antisemites sometimes see Jews as undermining the “white” or the “white Christian” race, either on their own or by “masterminding” an “invasion” of racialized people. Antisemites often characterize Jews as secretly conspiring to control the world through their alleged control of money and/or the media. These, of course, are only a few ways antisemitic stereotypes have manifested themselves in the past century.

It is essential to recognize that antisemitism is not an exceptional form of bigotry. People who hate, discriminate and/or attack Jews, will also hate, discriminate and/or attack other protected groups – including racialized people, Muslims, LGBTQ2+, women, Indigenous peoples.

In addition, privileging the efforts to combat discrimination against one of these groups, risks further marginalizing the other targeted groups, and undermines solidarity and cooperation among them in fighting their common enemies. Fighting and educating against antisemitism must therefore be part of a larger struggle against all group hatred and discrimination.

Finally, it should be noted that the State of Israel is a political entity like any other state. Its policies, actions and history can be judged and criticized, even harshly. Such criticism is not, by itself, antisemitic.

Sun, 2024-03-31 15:03

josh

The IHRA definition is bullshit.

Sun, 2024-03-31 15:04

6079_Smith_W

You are giving this its own thread why?

Because it was pointed out in another thread how it confuses legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism?

Here it is again - two clauses which directly contradict each other. And the State of Israel IS a racist endeavour. That is included in its constitution and its laws.

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.

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.

And this clause is also contradictory. Is Israel an expression of Jewish collectivity or isn't it? Obviously not, so why does the definition frame it that way in the other clauses?

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

How the false IHRA definition has been used to attack legitimate criticism of Israel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dVV8HjSpdA

Sun, 2024-03-31 15:09

josh

It does nothing but conflate opposition to a political state with prejudice and discrimination against Jews as individual and a group. Tying the Holocaust to it is an added obscenity.

Sun, 2024-03-31 16:38

(Reply to #5) #6

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You are giving this its own thread why?

JKR you should have asked Smith for permission.

Sun, 2024-03-31 16:47

josh

Taybeh is the largest Palestinian Christian community in the West Bank. Since October 7th, armed Jewish settlers and the Israeli army, emboldened by the war in Gaza, have been terrorizing the community with mob beatings, theft, and forcibly removing Palestinians from their own property.

"They attack indiscriminately. Christians and Muslims. That's the nature of the [Israeli] state."

https://x.com/loffredojeremy/status/1774465468184584678?s=20

Would be considered anti-Semitism under the IHRA definition.

Sun, 2024-03-31 17:53

(Reply to #7) #8

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Here it is again - two clauses which directly contradict each other. And the State of Israel IS a racist endeavour. That is included in its constitution and its laws.

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.

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.

End of quote.

————
————

You omitted something vital from the definition. The definition clearly states “Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

Most countries in the world like Israel favour a religion. Saudi Arabia and Iran are two of the most extreme examples of countries that favour a religion and disfavour other religions but there are many other countries that favour religious over other religions. Even though Israel favours Judaism, all citizens of Israel are guaranteed equal civil rights. Arab Israelis have full civil rights. Here in Canada we officially celebrate and get time to celebrate Easter, not Passover, not Ramadan, not Vaisakhi, etc…. In Canada Christianity and Christians are supported and protected because Christians make up the majority of Canadians. Many other countries in the world support people from certain religions and offer a refuge to people from those religions if they are experiencing discrimination elsewhere. Israel was created as a place where Jews could seek refuge from antisemitism. Obviously antisemitism is unfortunately still prevalent in very many countries. Antisemitism still exists in most countries in the world. Israel was legally created by the UN through its Partition Plan. Israel agreed to the UN Partition Plan. The UN Partition Plan supported creating two states. It should be remembered that according to the UN Partition Plan many Jews were going to continue living in the area designated as a Palestinian state. According to the UN Partition Plan the rights of Jews in the Palestinian state and the rights of Palestinians in Israel were both to be respected and protected. Israel agreed to that. Unfortunately the Partition Plan was not accepted by Arabs and Arab countries who simultaneously militarily attacked Israel. This war created refugees on both the Israeli side and the Arab side. Jews living in areas conquered by Arab countries were either killed or became refugees in Israel. No Jews were allowed to remain in the area militarily controlled by Arabs and Arab countries. Palestinian also became refugees from the new state of Israel but many Arabs chose to remain in Israel during the war initiated by Arab countries. The fact is that all the Jews in the areas under Arab military control were either killed or had to flee for their lives. No Jews remained in this area. They were ethnically cleansed. The Jews who survived became refugees in Israel. In the area the Israeli military controlled Arabs were also killed during the war and also fled because of the war but many Arabs stayed in Israel as Israel’s population was more than 20% Arabic then as it still is today. Arab Israelis have had full civil rights and take part in Israeli life since then.

Sun, 2024-03-31 17:59

(Reply to #8) #9

JKR

Paladin1 wrote:
6079_Smith_W wrote:

You are giving this its own thread why?

JKR you should have asked Smith for permission.

I’m not sure if requiring special permission to speak about antisemitism is in itself antisemitic? Lol

Sun, 2024-03-31 18:06

#10

6079_Smith_W

Doesn't really matter JKR, since you are completely ignoring my point and going off on another tangent.

I left it out for a couple of reasons:

You have already posted the whole thing.

That caveat is roundly ignored (you ignore it all the time)

And the second sentence isn't relevant to the reason I posted it.

As for what I did post, it is unclear and contradictory. Does the clause mean that some critics see Israel as a "Jewish collectivity" or is is IHRA saying they see it that way.

In either case, there is a contradiction with the other two clauses about "Jewish self-determination" and not holding Jews responsible.

Well which is it? Can't have it both ways.

Sun, 2024-03-31 18:08

(Reply to #10) #11

6079_Smith_W

JKR wrote:
Paladin1 wrote:
6079_Smith_W wrote:

You are giving this its own thread why?

JKR you should have asked Smith for permission.

I’m not sure if requiring special permission to speak about antisemitism is in itself antisemitic? Lol

Why don't you start another thread about it. We only have to keep track of all this stupid shit for another two weeks. So go ahead, make 50 of them.

Sun, 2024-03-31 18:09

(Reply to #11) #12

josh

Paladin1 wrote:
6079_Smith_W wrote:

You are giving this its own thread why?

JKR you should have asked Smith for permission.

Similar to the IHRA definition. You need permission to criticize Israel.

Sun, 2024-03-31 18:16

#13

6079_Smith_W

Yeah, though that was Paladin making that up.

I was asking a perfectly fair question about why this requires the confusing step of moving the conversation over to a brand new thread.

Maybe JKR thinks this is some kind of showstopper because it comes from the IHRA. I see it in the opposite way - as a shameful example of just how far some go to abuse the Holocaust as a cover for genocide.

Sun, 2024-03-31 19:50

(Reply to #13) #14

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:

As for what I did post, it is unclear and contradictory. Does the clause mean that some critics see Israel as a "Jewish collectivity" or is is IHRA saying they see it that way.

In either case, there is a contradiction with the other two clauses about "Jewish self-determination" and not holding Jews responsible.

Well which is it? Can't have it both ways.

End of quote.

————
————

The IHRA quote obviously refers to critics of Israel targeting Israel by wrongly viewing Israel collectively. This is the FULL quote:

“Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.”

The clause about “Jewish self determination” is about anti-Semite’s denying the right of Jews in Israel to the right of self determination.

The clause about not holding Jews collectively responsible is also from the viewpoint of antisemites.

Sun, 2024-03-31 19:58

(Reply to #14) #15

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I was asking a perfectly fair question about why this requires the confusing step of moving the conversation over to a brand new thread.

The crew here doesn't post a single article here then we all discuss it. A bunch of them get posted one after another, rapid fire. Articles, twitter quotes, or links in a row. Stuff gets burred fast.
It's possible JKR wanted his own thread to discuss a specific topic and avoid it getting spammed by NDPP or Epaulo.

Sun, 2024-03-31 20:47

(Reply to #15) #16

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Why don't you start another thread about it. We only have to keep track of all this stupid shit for another two weeks. So go ahead, make 50 of them.

Sorry. I’ll have to take a pass on your offer.

Sun, 2024-03-31 21:09

(Reply to #16) #17

6079_Smith_W

JKR wrote:

The IHRA quote obviously refers to critics of Israel targeting Israel by wrongly viewing Israel collectively. This is the FULL quote:

“Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.”

The clause about “Jewish self determination” is about anti-Semite’s denying the right of Jews in Israel to the right of self determination.

The clause about not holding Jews collectively responsible is also from the viewpoint of antisemites.

Mmmm... nah. That doesn't add up.

I agree with you the first clause might mean that, but it could be read both ways (which is why I cited it).

As for the other two... no, of course individual Jewish people cannot be held responsible for the actions of the State of Israel.

But you aren't reading that second clause correctly. It isn't about individual Jewish people in Israel; it directly links the State of Israel (and specifically criticism of the racism in its laws) with Jewish self-determination.

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.

So no, they can't have it both ways of claiming the Jewish people are separate and not responsible (which is correct), and on the other hand claiming the State of Israel is a manifestation of Jewish self-determination.

Which is bullshit. It is Zionist self-determination. And as such, it has no place in a declaration on racism. Zionism is an ideology - one which many Jews oppose.

Though if they confuse Zionism with the Jewish people there, it does call into question what they mean in that first clause.

Sun, 2024-03-31 21:21

(Reply to #17) #18

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Maybe JKR thinks this is some kind of showstopper because it comes from the IHRA. I see it in the opposite way - as a shameful example of just how far some go to abuse the Holocaust as a cover for genocide.

I didn’t bring up IHRA and their definition. I’m just responding to posts by other people.

Sun, 2024-03-31 21:59

(Reply to #18) #19

6079_Smith_W

JKR wrote:

I didn’t bring up IHRA and their definition. I’m just responding to posts by other people.

Well not just responding... it was important enough to you that you started a whole new thread specifically about it.

I mean you are free to do whatever you want, but it is a bit funny considering how many Palestine threads we have already.

Sun, 2024-03-31 22:26

(Reply to #19) #20

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:

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.

End of quote.

————
————

Here is the clause in question:

“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.”

I think this clause is simply saying that it’s antisemitic to deny Jewish people the right of political self determination. That it’s antisemitic to deny Jews the right of self determination just because they are Jews. This has often happened to Jews. For example, the right to vote was taken away from Jews in Germany. I think the example of Israel is that it’s antisemitic to say that the Jews in Israel should not have the right of self determination.

Sun, 2024-03-31 22:32

(Reply to #20) #21

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well not just responding... it was important enough to you that you started a whole new thread specifically about it.

I mean you are free to do whatever you want, but it is a bit funny considering how many Palestine threads we have already.

End of quote.

————
————

I think the topic of the definition of antisemitism and how it should be defined is much broader than the current Israeli - Palestinian conflict. I think antisemitism is a part of the Israeli - Palestinian conflict even though antisemitism is much bigger than this one conflict. Concerning just the Palestinian - Israeli conflict, there are numerous of antisemitism including Hamas’s leadership spouting antisemitism and Hamas’s incredibly antisemitic charter. The antisemitism in this conflict goes back over a century to the Arab leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who supported the expulsion of Jews. He was also a high level supporter of the Holocaust. Some people like NDPP defend him by saying he wasn’t a part of the establishment of the policy to implementing the Holocaust but the fact remains he was a higher level leader who was paid by the Nazis to live in Berlin and he toured concentration camps and supported the Holocaust.

Sun, 2024-03-31 22:38

#22

6079_Smith_W

That is not what it says, JKR. It says this:

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 example cited isn't about people. The example is very clearly about the State of Israel.

Thing is, this wouldn't be such a big deal if this was just some semantic argument. If you watched that video I posted people are being attacked and fired and groups are being banned simply for pro-Palestinian activism. Also in that video, a person who helped draught the IHRA definition decried how it has been used by far right pro-Israel groups.

So no, it isn't just about criticizing Jewish people. It is very clearly understood, and being used to falsely brand criticism of Israel as antisemitism.

Sun, 2024-03-31 23:11

#23

JKR

I agree that the definition of antisemitism, like all definitions, can be misused. A great amount of the antisemitism in the world currently is connected to the Israeli - Palestinian conflict but it's also true that much criticism of Israel is not antisemitic. For example, saying many of Israel's actions in Gaza are wrong is not antisemitic. Saying Israelis are Nazis is antisemitic.

Sun, 2024-03-31 23:45

#24

6079_Smith_W

You are kind of confusing Israel and Jews again. Calling Israelis Nazis isn't exactly accurate, and obviously intended to get a reaction. But it is about supporters of the state, not people of a certain race.

Mon, 2024-04-01 00:29

#25

JKR

https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

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

Mon, 2024-04-01 00:46

#26

6079_Smith_W

Yeah, I know what it says JKR. It is just another reason why the IHRA definition is completely wrong in some ways, and does more harm than good.

Criticizing a nation state and its policies is not racism. Even comments that are hyperbolae are not racism. For the same reason we are allowed to criticize churches and religions without it being considered discrimination.

Here is what Independent Jewish Voices has to say about the document as a whole:

https://www.ijvcanada.org/fighting-antisemitism-is-essential-but-the-ihr...

Mon, 2024-04-01 01:54

#27

JKR

I agree freedom of speech rights give people the right to say offensive things including racism. Would it be ok to say Palestinians are Nazis?

Mon, 2024-04-01 03:08

(Reply to #27) #28

josh

JKR wrote:

https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

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

Saying that Israel is acting like Nazis is not anti-Semitic. Sometimes it’s hyperbole, sometimes it’s accurate. But it’s not anti-Semitic.

Mon, 2024-04-01 09:32

(Reply to #28) #29

6079_Smith_W

JKR wrote:

I agree freedom of speech rights give people the right to say offensive things including racism. Would it be ok to say Palestinians are Nazis?

Is there some reason you aren't understanding this?

It isn't racism if it is about a nationality - especially if it refers to the policies and actions of the government. And given that the IHRA definition refers specifically to the state of Israel that should be obvious.

If you aren't understanding that there isn't much point in getting into the fact racism is systemic and driven by who has power.

Mon, 2024-04-01 11:24

(Reply to #29) #30

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:
We only have to keep track of all this stupid shit for another two weeks.

Why do you feel you HAVE to keep track of everything here? You could stop posting today if you wanted to.

Mon, 2024-04-01 12:45

(Reply to #30) #31

JKR

josh wrote:
JKR wrote:

https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

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

Saying that Israel is acting like Nazis is not anti-Semitic. Sometimes it’s hyperbole, sometimes it’s accurate. But it’s not anti-Semitic.

Very many if not most Jews would disagree. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance also disagrees. I think the organization established to remember the Holocaust has insight on the Holocaust and on antisemitism. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance is not a Zionist organization. I think organizations opposed to Israel have a bias concerning this issue. For obvious reasons anti-Israel organizations want to ignore the antisemitism of people who oppose Israel. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance rightfully doesn’t want to ignore antisemitism no matter what form it takes.

Mon, 2024-04-01 12:50

(Reply to #31) #32

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:
JKR wrote:

I agree freedom of speech rights give people the right to say offensive things including racism. Would it be ok to say Palestinians are Nazis?

Is there some reason you aren't understanding this?

It isn't racism if it is about a nationality - especially if it refers to the policies and actions of the government. And given that the IHRA definition refers specifically to the state of Israel that should be obvious.

If you aren't understanding that there isn't much point in getting into the fact racism is systemic and driven by who has power.

Do you understand that around 75% of Israelis are Jewish? Do you understand that Judaism is associated with Israel? Do you understand that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance has a good understanding of the Holocaust and of antisemitism?

Mon, 2024-04-01 13:21

(Reply to #32) #33

6079_Smith_W

No, the IHRA definition is very inaccurate and has caused a lot of damage.

I just posted the Independent Jewish Voices criticism. Here are 100 groups, including Israel's larged human rights organization, pointing out how flawed the IHRA definition is.

The letter notes that application of the definition has been widely criticised including by Ken Stern who, as the American Jewish Committee’s antisemitism expert, led its drafting two decades ago. Earlier this year, Stern successfully urged the American Bar Association against adopting the definition because it has been used as “a blunt instrument to label anyone an antisemite”.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/apr/24/un-ihra-antisemitism-defini...

And you just acknowledged that Israel and the Jewish people are not one and the same thing. Now you are talking out of the other side of your mouth. Make up your mind.

JKR wrote:
For example, saying many of Israel's actions in Gaza are wrong is not antisemitic.

Mon, 2024-04-01 13:35

#34

6079_Smith_W

The article mentions this definition, which is much more accurate:

https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/

Mon, 2024-04-01 14:23

(Reply to #34) #35

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And you just acknowledged that Israel and the Jewish people are not one and the same thing. Now you are talking out of the other side of your mouth. Make up your mind.

End of quote.
————
————

These are all true and mutually inclusive:

- Israel and Jews are not the same.

- More than 75% of Israelis are Jewish.

- Israel is a Jewish state as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria are Islamic states.

Mon, 2024-04-01 14:28

#36

6079_Smith_W

Which means fuck all.

When I criticize actions of Iran and Saudi Arabia I am not going to wind up fired, banned or in front of a human rights tribunal for Islamophobia.

Yet there is a record of the IHRA definition being systematically used to attack those who criticize Israel and support Palestinians.

Mon, 2024-04-01 14:54

#37

JKR

The IHRA definition clearly states that criticism of Israel can be completely legitimate and have nothing to do with antisemitism. Criticism of Israel can also be antisemitic. Anyone reading the Hamas Charter knows that some criticism of Israel can be very antisemitic. Saying Israel should be destroyed is antisemitic as saying Iran or Saudi Arabia should be destroyed is Islamaphobic.

Mon, 2024-04-01 14:59

#38

6079_Smith_W

The definition also includes clauses which directly contradict that. And that caveat has been ignored in its application.

So again, it means nothing.

And to be honest, the new Hamas Charter does a far better job of separating the state from the culture than the IHRA definition does.

How about you pull an example from the current charter that you consider specifically antisemitic, rather than a criticism of Israel and Zionism.

Mon, 2024-04-01 15:08

#39

JKR

There is no new Hamas Charter. Hamas still stands by their Charter and has never repudiated it. The document Hamas supported in 2017 did not repudiate its Charter. The document published in 2017 was called by Hamas their "general principles and policies." General principles and policies are just short term politics that can easily be changed whenever and can easily be ignored. Hamas leaders still openly support the antisemitic ideas of their Charter. Saying Hamas has a better definition of antisemitism than Jews do is in itself antisemitic.

Mon, 2024-04-01 15:11

#40

JKR

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_charter

In May 2017 Palestinian political and military organization Hamasunveiled A Document of General Principles and Policies (وثيقة المبادئ والسياسات العامة لحركة حماس), often referred to as the new or revised Hamas charter. It advocated for a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, describing this as a "formula of national consensus",[1] but at the same time strove for the "complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea",[2][3] and did not explicitly recognize Israel.[1]The new charter holds that armed resistance against an occupying power is justified under international law.[4][5]

While the 1988 Hamas Charterhad been widely criticized for its antisemitism, the 2017 document stated that Hamas' fight was not with Jews as such because of their religion but with the Zionist project. However, Hamas fell short of repudiating the original, 1988 charter, saying it was a document of its time and the new document represented Hamas's position for now.

Views on the 2017 document varied. While some welcomed it as a sign of pragmatism and increased political maturity, and a potential step on the way to peace, many others dismissed it as a merely cosmetic effort designed to make Hamas sound more palatable while changing nothing about Hamas' underlying aims and methods.

Mon, 2024-04-01 15:23

#41

6079_Smith_W

So to get to the point, is there something in there that is specifically antisemitic, and not a criticism of Zionism and Israel?

Mon, 2024-04-01 15:25

#42

JKR

However, Hamas fell short of repudiating the original, 1988 charter, saying it was a document of its time and the new document represented Hamas's position for now.

--------

Hamas still doesn't recognize Israel's right to exists and says it will always have the right to militarily destroy Isrsel.

Mon, 2024-04-01 15:47

(Reply to #42) #43

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So to get to the point, is there something in there that is specifically antisemitic, and not a criticism of Zionism and Israel?

It opposes peace and supports violence and antisemitism:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170510123932/http://hamas.ps/en/post/678/

Palestine is a land that was seized by a racist, anti-human and colonial Zionist project.

…

Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people. The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity.

Palestine is an Arab Islamic land. It is a blessed sacred land that has a special place in the heart of every Arab and every Muslim.

…

By virtue of its justly balanced middle way and moderate spirit, Islam – for Hamas - provides a comprehensive way of life and an order that is fit for purpose at all times and in all places. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. It provides an umbrella for the followers of other creeds and religions who can practice their beliefs in security and safety. Hamas believes that the message of Islam upholds the values of truth, justice, freedom and dignity and prohibits all forms of injustice and incriminates oppressors irrespective of their religion, race, gender or nationality. Islam is against all forms of religious, ethnic or sectarian extremism and bigotry. It is the religion that inculcates in its followers the value of standing up to aggression and of supporting the oppressed; it motivates them to give generously and make sacrifices in defence of their dignity, their land, their peoples and their holy places.

…

Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. Its religious, historic and civilizational status is fundamental to the Arabs, Muslims and the world at large. Its Islamic and Christian holy places belong exclusively to the Palestinian people and to the Arab and Islamic Ummah. Not one stone of Jerusalem can be surrendered or relinquished. The measures undertaken by the occupiers in Jerusalem, such as Judaization, settlement building, and establishing facts on the ground are fundamentally null and void.

The blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque belongs exclusively to our people and our Ummah, and the occupation has no right to it whatsoever. The occupation’s plots, measures and attempts to judaize Al-Aqsa and divide it are null, void and illegitimate.

…

The Zionist project is a racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist project based on seizing the properties of others; it is hostile to the Palestinian people and to their aspiration for freedom, liberation, return and self-determination. The Israeli entity is the plaything of the Zionist project and its base of aggression.

The Zionist project does not target the Palestinian people alone; it is the enemy of the Arab and Islamic Ummah posing a grave threat to its security and interests. It is also hostile to the Ummah’s aspirations for unity, renaissance and liberation and has been the major source of its troubles. The Zionist project also poses a danger to international security and peace and to mankind and its interests and stability.

…

The following are considered null and void: the Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate Document, the UN Palestine Partition Resolution, and whatever resolutions and measures that derive from them or are similar to them. The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah.

…

There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, Judaization or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse.

…

Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.

…

Resistance and jihad for the liberation of Palestine will remain a legitimate right, a duty and an honour for all the sons and daughters of our people and our Ummah.

…

The liberation of Palestine is the duty of the Palestinian people in particular and the duty of the Arab and Islamic Ummah in general.

…

Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws. At the heart of these lies armed resistance, which is regarded as the strategic choice for protecting the principles and the rights of the Palestinian people.

…

Hamas rejects any attempt to undermine the resistance and its arms. It also affirms the right of our people to develop the means and mechanisms of resistance. Managing resistance, in terms of escalation or de-escalation, or in terms of diversifying the means and methods, is an integral part of the process of managing the conflict and should not be at the expense of the principle of resistance.

…

. A real state of Palestine is a state that has been liberated. There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital.

…

Hamas affirms the responsibility of the Arabs and the Muslims and their duty and role in the liberation of Palestine from Zionist occupation.

…

Hamas welcomes the stances of states, organisations and institutions that support the rights of the Palestinian people. It salutes the free peoples of the world who support the Palestinian cause. At the same time, it denounces the support granted by any party to the Zionist entity or the attempts to cover up its crimes and aggression against the Palestinians and calls for the prosecution of Zionist war criminals.

Mon, 2024-04-01 15:53

#44

6079_Smith_W

That is a lot of words, JKR.

Can you point to anything in there that is something other than political criticism?

If you say it is antisemitic, what in there is specifically directed against Jews?

Mon, 2024-04-01 16:14

(Reply to #44) #45

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:

That is a lot of words, JKR.

Can you point to anything in there that is something other than political criticism?

If you say it is antisemitic, what in there is specifically directed against Jews?

It speaks about Judaism very pejoratively. It states that Arabs and Islam should rule all of Palestine. It supports militarily destroying Israel.

————

Palestine is an Arab Islamic land.

…

Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. It provides an umbrella for the followers of other creeds and religions.

…

Not one stone of Jerusalem can be surrendered or relinquished.

…

The measures undertaken by the occupiers in Jerusalem, such as Judaization, settlement building, and establishing facts on the ground are fundamentally null and void.

…

The occupation’s plots, measures and attempts to judaize Al-Aqsa and divide it are null, void and illegitimate.

…

The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal….

…

Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, Judaization or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate.

…

The liberation of Palestine is the duty of the Palestinian people in particular and the duty of the Arab and Islamic Ummah in general.

…

Hamas affirms the responsibility of the Arabs and the Muslims and their duty and role in the liberation of Palestine from Zionist occupation.

…

Mon, 2024-04-01 16:17

#46

JKR

It's insane that we're debating whether Hamas is or is not antisemitic! It's insane to say that Hamas's idea of antisemitism is enlightened!

Mon, 2024-04-01 16:40

(Reply to #46) #47

josh

JKR wrote:
josh wrote:
JKR wrote:

https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

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

Saying that Israel is acting like Nazis is not anti-Semitic. Sometimes it’s hyperbole, sometimes it’s accurate. But it’s not anti-Semitic.

Very many if not most Jews would disagree. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance also disagrees. I think the organization established to remember the Holocaust has insight on the Holocaust and on antisemitism. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance is not a Zionist organization. I think organizations opposed to Israel have a bias concerning this issue. For obvious reasons anti-Israel organizations want to ignore the antisemitism of people who oppose Israel. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance rightfully doesn’t want to ignore antisemitism no matter what form it takes.

Wow. Quoting the people who came up with free speech suppression definition. Impressive. There are appeals to authority and then there are JKR appeals to authority.

Mon, 2024-04-01 16:43

(Reply to #47) #48

josh

JKR wrote:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_charter

In May 2017 Palestinian political and military organization Hamasunveiled A Document of General Principles and Policies (وثيقة المبادئ والسياسات العامة لحركة حماس), often referred to as the new or revised Hamas charter. It advocated for a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, describing this as a "formula of national consensus",[1] but at the same time strove for the "complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea",[2][3] and did not explicitly recognize Israel.[1]The new charter holds that armed resistance against an occupying power is justified under international law.[4][5]

While the 1988 Hamas Charterhad been widely criticized for its antisemitism, the 2017 document stated that Hamas' fight was not with Jews as such because of their religion but with the Zionist project. However, Hamas fell short of repudiating the original, 1988 charter, saying it was a document of its time and the new document represented Hamas's position for now.

Views on the 2017 document varied. While some welcomed it as a sign of pragmatism and increased political maturity, and a potential step on the way to peace, many others dismissed it as a merely cosmetic effort designed to make Hamas sound more palatable while changing nothing about Hamas' underlying aims and methods.

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.

Mon, 2024-04-01 16:56

(Reply to #48) #49

JKR

josh wrote:

Wow. Quoting the people who came up with free speech suppression definition.

————

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance does not oppose free speech. They oppose antisemitism.

Mon, 2024-04-01 17:06

#50

JKR

How does an example of Likud's positions change the fact that Hamas is virulently antisemitic? Complete non sequitur.

Mon, 2024-04-01 17:11

(Reply to #50) #51

6079_Smith_W

Where does it speak pejoratively about Judaism?

There are clauses in there about not stealing Muslim sites and "Judaeizing" them. But it is pretty clear that it is the work of Zionists.

We aren't talking about whether there are antisemitic elements in Hamas. I am asking you about their charter in comparison to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which is an absolute dog's breakfast.

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's Working Definition of Antisemitism

Pages