Jewish-led groups slammed the legislation as a tool for silencing the movement for Palestinian rights.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/kVkfI

  • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    The list of “[c]ontemporary 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” that exact wording is part of the law now. So anything the government decides works for them, they can use. And it might get struck down in the end, but random college students don’t have the capital to fight it out in courts. So it will 100% chill speech that criticizes the Israeli government.

    Under “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” example, Israel can’t be an apartheid state. So anything that counters that is antisemitic under this law.

    Under “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” example Israel can’t be committing a genocide because it would compare it to the Nazi Germany and their policy justifications used for killing Jews.

    The whole list is made up of highly curated examples to create the best shield and sword Israel can use to label anyone that criticizes them as an antisemite.

    • a lil bee 🐝@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m with you that the primary purpose of this bill is to chill speech. It could have been useful in less charged times but there is zero possibility of passing anything like this without the current zeitgeist interfering in either direction. Regardless, I just cannot agree with your interpretation here. In the current landscape, the hypothetical arguments you presented don’t follow logic that a court would follow.

      Accusing Israel of apartheid is not the same as the wording of the text, which is to assert that the existence of Israel itself is racist. Saying Israel did something that Nazi Germany did is not drawing a comparison in the same way that me saying you breathe air is not comparing you to Hitler. I would have to assert “you are like Hitler because you breathe air like he did” to draw a comparison.

      I also cannot get down with “they said ‘but not limited to’ so it could literally be anything”. That’s standard boilerplate stuff that is only saying the definition cannot explicitly list every example of antisemitic behavior. It’s not meant to stretch the definition out.

      Frankly, I think this bill is dumb. It’s obviously meant as a deterrent for pro-Palestinian voices. The danger in this bill will be in the implementation and enforcement. However, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with the definition of antisemitism used by the bill.

      • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s the beauty of a discussion, we don’t have to agree on everything. Thank you for a civil discussion, and time will tell which one of was correct.