[wat0n]

There are enough news articles on this that anyone following this issue must have stumbled on one by now.

I still don't see the proof.

By the way, the IHRA definition is already in use under Executive Order IIRC.

When will you stop playing victim to justify harassing Jewish and Israeli students for exercising their right to be on campus?

[Pants-of-dog]

I still don't see the proof.

Do you get all your hews solely through conservative and far right twitter feeds?

If so, you might have missed the many news articles.

By the way, the IHRA definition is already in use under Executive Order IIRC.

Yes, the State Department uses it for foreign stuff. This is discussed in the many articles about it.

When will you stop playing victim to justify harassing Jewish and Israeli students for exercising their right to be on campus?

I never made any claim about justifying anything. I do not really care to talk about feels.

[wat0n]

Do you get all your hews solely through conservative and far right twitter feeds?

If so, you might have missed the many news articles.

I still don't see you posting the proof. I am waiting.

Yes, the State Department uses it for foreign stuff. This is discussed in the many articles about it.

Irrelevant.

I never made any claim about justifying anything. I do not really care to talk about feels.

When will you stop playing victim to justify harassing Jewish and Israeli students?

[Pants-of-dog]

Another unfortunate thing about this bill is that it does not protect Jewish students at all.

The Jewish protesters opposing the war and being arrested are not protected by it, Quite the opposite: Jews themselves are being labeled as antisemitic for opposing Netanyahu’s policies and settler colonialism. They can be attacked just like all the other protesters.

Nor will it protect a random Jewish student going about their day and being called an ethnic slur or even physically assaulted. The antisemitism monitors will not be patrolling campuses, They will be sitting in offices doing paperwork or sitting in classrooms making sure no criticism of Zionism is taught,

[wat0n]

Clearly wrong, as usual.

“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.”

But even then, anti-semitism itself is not illegal. Harassment and limiting access to Jewish students to their own universities, on the other hand, are.

The responsibility to protect Jewish and, in fact, all students falls upon schools.

[Pants-of-dog]

From the link in the previous post:

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.

Note that the first example would apply if someone claimed that Israel is functioning as an Apartheid state. Thus, this definition would make it illegal to discuss whether or Israel is an apartheid state.

And the second would apply to anyone who forgets to mention all the other settler colonialist states when criticizing Israel’s settler colonialism. If the USA does not also make it illegal to call Canada a settler colonialist state unless Israel is mentioned as well, this seems like a weird double standard.

[wat0n]

From the link in the previous post:



Note that the first example would apply if someone claimed that Israel is functioning as an Apartheid state. Thus, this definition would make it illegal to discuss whether or Israel is an apartheid state.

Not really.

Saying Israel is an Apartheid state while refusing to apply that label to other states with similar behavior would fall into the definition. But if you did so while showing that Israel's conduct is somehow unique, does not.

Discussion of the topic itself would not be banned under IHRA.

And the second would apply to anyone who forgets to mention all the other settler colonialist states when criticizing Israel’s settler colonialism. If the USA does not also make it illegal to call Canada a settler colonialist state unless Israel is mentioned as well, this seems like a weird double standard.

Leaving aside just how useless settler colonialism is as a concept in general and even more so in the Middle East context, this claim would literally not fall under IHRA since you are claiming Israel and Canada are settler colonialist based on both having similar policies.

It is the double standard that is antisemitic, not the criticism.

[Unthinking Majority]

Who cares about all this personal feeling and opinion things?

You seem to care every other time you give your opinions and feelings on things. Just not now, how convenient. "Leave my personal terrorist-supporting opinions out of this!"

[Pants-of-dog]

According to the IHRA source posted above, claiming Israel is a racist endeavour is antisemitic regardless if another country is mentioned.

And this thread and others are an example of how Zionism defenders will accuse people of antisemitism even if critics of Israel have been making the same settler colonialism argument against Canada and other countries for years, hence the only defense against the charge is to mention it every time.


DISCLAIMER
PLEASE NOTE: ANY CRITICISM OF ISRAEL INVOLVING SETTLER COLONIALISM IS NOT RESTRICTED TO ISRAEL AND MAY BE APPLICABLE TO OTHER SETTLER COLONIALIST STATES

[wat0n]

According to the IHRA source posted above, claiming Israel is a racist endeavour is antisemitic regardless if another country is mentioned.

And this thread and others are an example of how Zionism defenders will accuse people of antisemitism even if critics of Israel have been making the same settler colonialism argument against Canada and other countries for years, hence the only defense against the charge is to mention it every time.


DISCLAIMER
PLEASE NOTE: ANY CRITICISM OF ISRAEL INVOLVING SETTLER COLONIALISM IS NOT RESTRICTED TO ISRAEL AND MAY BE APPLICABLE TO OTHER SETTLER COLONIALIST STATES

Then it seems you did not read it:

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.

In this case, claiming Israel's existence is racist is odd given that you would have no problem at all with an indigenist state in the Americas. Like, for example, the one that the Chilean left tried to found when we overwhelmingly voted against your trash Constitution in 2022

Or with the Palestinians themselves defining Palestine as an Arab state, as determined by their Constitution.

If you have no issues with these, why would you have any issues with Israel defining itself as a Jewish state?

[Pants-of-dog]

So if someone simply claims that Israel is a settler colonial state that has a racist Apartheid system that specifically oppresses Palestinians, this would be antisemitism if the disclaimer was not used.

This post will soon be illegal on a US university campus.

[wat0n]

It is telling you did not answer the question, @Pants-of-dog

It seems you're playing the victim to justify harassing Jewish students and forcing them off campus.

[Pants-of-dog]

Who cares if someone thinks I am secretly antisemitic?

I can legally be accused of it for simply stating that Israel is a settler colonialist state if I decide not to mention any other.

There is no need to make up stuff about people opposed to the genocide in Gaza, Now you can charge then for saying the truth if they do not word it carefully enough.

[wat0n]

Actually, you can't, because the law deals with determining antisemitic intent in Title VI enforcement. Unless you are an educational institution, it has nothing with you.

Also, nobody is forbidding you from antisemitic speech. What is in fact forbidden is harassment and disrupting the learning process, the latter of which amounts to a denial to the right to education.

[Deutschmania]

There are enough news articles on this that anyone following this issue must have stumbled on one by now.

This video , for instance , gives a good critical overview .

[Unthinking Majority]

This video , for instance , gives a good critical overview .

The bill is problematic.

I find it unbelievable that a lot of people on the left are now defending hate speech as free speech. If this was a bill against Islamophobic speech most of them would say nothing or cheer it.

It's disturbing how many people have such an inconsistent sense of right and wrong. Right and wrong to a lot of people is simply whether something furthers their own agenda and biases or not. This is extremely selfish and absolutely evil. Just look at how a lot of judges behave.

[Potemkin]

The bill is problematic.

I find it unbelievable that a lot of people on the left are now defending hate speech as free speech. If this was a bill against Islamophobic speech most of them would say nothing or cheer it.

It's disturbing how many people have such an inconsistent sense of right and wrong. Right and wrong to a lot of people is simply whether something furthers their own agenda and biases or not. This is extremely selfish and absolutely evil. Just look at how a lot of judges behave.

You mean you’ve only just noticed this?

[wat0n]

The bills at hand are actually two different bills on Title VI enforcement which may actually be confusing things quite a bit.

The Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 would enshrine the use of the IHRA definition in Title VI enforcement under the law, although this should not change anything on the ground because it has been used by the Department of Education since 2018 and also used in Executive Order 13899 On Combating Antisemitism of 2019. This standard is already used by the federal government and has been for over 5 years now.

The COLUMBIA Act is a different bill, one that would allow the Department of Education to appoint an antisemitism monitor to schools, funded at their expense, who would in turn issue quarterly reports to the public on instances of antisemitism on campus and the actions taken by schools to deal with them. Refusal to accept the monitor would lead to the loss of federal funding.

I actually think the COLUMBIA Act may be problematic, not for free speech reasons or anything like that, but because it's specifically for antisemitism when this could be done for all other instances of schools fostering a hostile educational environment for students based on their protected class. We're supposed to be protected equally under the law so the same standard should be available for Title VI enforcement in general if it is a good way to enforce current law.

[KurtFF8]

The bill is problematic.

I find it unbelievable that a lot of people on the left are now defending hate speech as free speech. If this was a bill against Islamophobic speech most of them would say nothing or cheer it.

It's disturbing how many people have such an inconsistent sense of right and wrong. Right and wrong to a lot of people is simply whether something furthers their own agenda and biases or not. This is extremely selfish and absolutely evil. Just look at how a lot of judges behave.

What "hate speech" is the Left defending?

[Pants-of-dog]

hate speech

Show how this argument is hate speech:

Israel is a settler colonial state that has a racist Apartheid system that specifically oppresses Palestinians.