• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    The definition Democrats just voted for effectively equates Judaism with political Zionism.

    Where are you seeing that? This is what I see:

    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.”

    source

    Where are you seeing Zionism or Israel mentioned or protected?

      • Omega@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Also, “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

        Whether you think it’s accurate or not, that’s not antisemitic. The reference isn’t because they’re Jewish. It’s because it’s the most salient example of genocide that we have.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Thank you for replying. I replied in your linked thread so you wouldn’t have to have two discussion on the same topic.

    • TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      It’s in the part “Accompanying the IHRA Definition are 11 examples that “may serve as illustrations”.

      This is probably the major one people would have issue with because you could get convicted of antisemitism for just speaking the truth.

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