If you read the text of the act, it really doesn’t do much of anything. Doesn’t expand the powers of the department of education or any law enforcement agency, just clarifies the definition of antisemitism used in existing laws about discrimination. The exact definition proposed is from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance:
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.
Nothing involving criticism of the government of Israel. That said, they do offer a little bit of clarification on their website:
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.
I really don’t see anything worth getting worked up about. This is about as standard, boring government as it gets.
Can we table this and come back to it when the law is used to prosecute people who have leveled criticisms of Israel as they would any other country? Will you fight against tyranny then?
I mean, this is a useful law for those concerned with the excessive force against pro-palestine protestors, because the definition it references specifically calls out criticism of Israel as a state not being antisemitism.
If your criticism of the state of Israel is that it gives unequal treatment to Jews and non-Jews, how do you distinguish that from conceiving of it as a Jewish collectivity?
If you criticize an action that no other country is engaging in, how can your criticism be similar to that leveled against other countries?
If you read the text of the act, it really doesn’t do much of anything. Doesn’t expand the powers of the department of education or any law enforcement agency, just clarifies the definition of antisemitism used in existing laws about discrimination. The exact definition proposed is from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance:
Nothing involving criticism of the government of Israel. That said, they do offer a little bit of clarification on their website:
I really don’t see anything worth getting worked up about. This is about as standard, boring government as it gets.
Can we table this and come back to it when the law is used to prosecute people who have leveled criticisms of Israel as they would any other country? Will you fight against tyranny then?
I mean, this is a useful law for those concerned with the excessive force against pro-palestine protestors, because the definition it references specifically calls out criticism of Israel as a state not being antisemitism.
If your criticism of the state of Israel is that it gives unequal treatment to Jews and non-Jews, how do you distinguish that from conceiving of it as a Jewish collectivity?
If you criticize an action that no other country is engaging in, how can your criticism be similar to that leveled against other countries?