Post by GB Post by The Todal
It's impossible to measure whether someone is "more" loyal to Israel
than to the interests of the UK, but if a person says that it is of
paramount importance to them that the Prime Minister of the UK is
sympathetic to Israel's interests
Can you find anyone at all in the UK who genuinely regards that as more
important than *anything* else at all?
Post by The Todal
and will refrain from criticism of
Israel, why should it be antisemitic to suggest that they are putting
Israel's interests above those of the UK? It may not be true, but why
should it be antisemitic to suggest it?
So you hypothesise somebody who does not exist, in order to say it's
okay to criticise that person?
Wasn't it originally the IHRA definition-example that hypothesised a
possibly mythical person, or class of persons, as in the example
The Todal quoted earlier in the thread?
==== start TT quote ====
"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:
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the
alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own
==== end TT quote ====
I don't see why such a hypothetical accusation (of being more
loyal to Israel) would necessarily be anti-semitic.
Personally, I think the IHRA definition itself is reasonable, so far
as I can see, but they are stretching the definition too far in some
of the examples they provide. I feel their tactic may be to try and
paint any criticism of Israeli government policy as anti-semitic.
I basically agree with this pro-Palestinian website, which outlines
some of the concerns about the IHRA definition and examples:
6 April 2017
'Campaigners go on offensive against bogus UK anti-Semitism
'... a new analysis by human rights lawyer Hugh Tomlinson, says that
public authorities in the UK are under no legal obligation to adopt the
“unclear and confusing” definition.
'The definition was originally drawn up by pro-Israel lobbyists as part
of an exercise coordinated by a European Union agency in Vienna.
Although the definition was never formally endorsed by the EU, it was
subsequently taken on board – with minor amendments – by an
intergovernmental body called the International Holocaust
Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).
'An explanatory document accompanying the definition cites several
“examples” of what “could” be considered anti-Semitism. They include
stating “that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
'... David Feldman, director of the Pears Institute for the Study of
Antisemitism at Birkbeck, University of London, has called the definition
“bewilderingly imprecise” and the accompanying explanatory document
dangerous because they may “place the onus on Israel’s critics to
demonstrate they are not anti-Semitic.”
'Valerie Amos director of the School of Oriental and African Studies in
London told the BBC last month that that college would not be
adopting the “contentious” definition.
'The decision not to approve the definition was based on advice from
the Centre for Jewish Studies at SOAS, Amos added.
'Tomlinson’s analysis states that any public body choosing to adopt
the definition must interpret it in a manner consistent with its legal
obligation to protect freedom of speech.
'... Tomlinson’s analysis states that absent evidence of hatred of Jews,
“it would not be anti-Semitic to assert that as Israel defines itself as a
Jewish state and thereby by race, and that because non-Jewish
Israelis and non-Jews under its jurisdiction are discriminated against,
the State of Israel is currently a racist endeavor.” ...'