this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
397 points (97.8% liked)

World News

32348 readers
140 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The United States House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed a bill that would expand the federal definition of anti-Semitism, despite opposition from civil liberties groups.

The bill passed the House on Wednesday by a margin of 320 to 91, and it is largely seen as a reaction to the ongoing antiwar protests unfolding on US university campuses. It now goes to the Senate for consideration.

If the bill were to become law, it would codify a definition of anti-Semitism created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

IHRA’s working definition of anti-Semitism is “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities”.

According to the IHRA, that definition also encompasses the “targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity”.

The group also includes certain examples in its definition to illustrate anti-Semitism. Saying, for instance, that “the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” would be deemed anti-Semitic under its terms. The definition also bars any comparison between “contemporary Israeli policy” and “that of the Nazis”.

Rights groups, however, have raised concerns the definition nevertheless conflates criticism of the state of Israel and Zionism with anti-Semitism.

In a letter sent to lawmakers on Friday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) urged House members to vote against the legislation, saying federal law already prohibits anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment.

“Instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism.”

Archive link

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Both-siding with an occupation and their victims just means passively supporting their genocide. My statement remains unchanged.

[–] feddylemmy -3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Fuck the IDF. Fuck Hamas. Save the Palestinian people. It's not that hard.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah that'll happen by magic and not violent resistance, just like with Vietnam

[–] feddylemmy -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It won't happen by magic with blind violence.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Yup, it has to be properly organized and planned obviously

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Liberals try to have critical thinking challenge (impossible)

[–] feddylemmy -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Terminally online people try to condemn killing innocent civilians including children (impossible)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Talking about yourself? You know, both-siding with the genocide and all

No, shitting on the resistance does not count as "condemning" the occupation.

Terminally online

Consider organizing.

[–] feddylemmy 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

No? I have already condemned the IDFs behavior. It's obvious their track record is worse.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Like Alsephina said, both-siding an occupation just means passively supporting it.

The same way saying "I condemn the Viet Cong and the US" just means passively supporting the US, condemning any Palestinian resistance organizations and israel just means passively supporting the occupation.

[–] feddylemmy 1 points 6 months ago

I expressed that Palestine should be free. I'm against the occupation. You're more interested in politics than human lives. It's a simple statement: you're wrong if you kill innocent people.