Is it now illegal to criticise the reprehensible actions of the Israeli State? 

Have we become traitors to our own hard-won political and ethical principles on a distorted interpretation of them?





Is "antisemitism" objective or subjective? Does it apply uniquely to Jews or to all semitic (Arab speaking) peoples? Should it be used to criminalise genuine criticism of reprehensible behaviour by the the Israeli State? How is the 'right not to offended' to be reconciled with the fundamental right to free expression of opinion and belief?

Rejected by Labour when it adopted the definition of "antisemitism": 

From the Guardian here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/04/labour-adopts-ihra-antisemitism-definition-in-full

"The most controversial passage in the draft statement proposed by Corbyn said: “It cannot be considered racist to treat Israel like any other state or assess its conduct against the standards of international law. Nor should it be regarded as antisemitic to describe Israel, its policies or the circumstances around its foundation as racist because of their discriminatory impact, or to support another settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict.”"

The Board of Deputies of British Jews welcomed the outcome of the meeting. Marie van der Zyl, its president, said adopting the IHRA definition “had to be the right call”. She said: “It is very long overdue and regrettable that Labour has wasted a whole summer trying to dictate to Jews what constitutes offence against us.”

"Campaigners, many of whom were draped in the flag of Israel, arguing that it was for Jewish people to determine what constituted discrimination against them."

"The Metropolitan police said it was reviewing a leaked dossier that detailed 45 cases of alleged antisemitism to see if any constituted a hate crime. But Cressida Dick, the commissioner, told LBC Radio, which had obtained the file, that “the bar is actually quite high” when it came to launching a prosecution."



From: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/anti-semitism-theresa-may-new-definition-jewish-council-holocaust-society-israel-criticism-palestine-a7470166.html

"Prime Minister Theresa May today announced that the UK is formally adopting a definition of anti-Semitism agreed on earlier this year by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

"This definition is not new, however, and it poses a familiar threat to legitimate criticism of the State of Israel.

"The text of the IHRA definition is based on, and very similar to, a draft document first circulated by a European anti-racism agency in 2005, only to be subsequently abandoned as not fit for purpose.

"That particular definition, drafted with the help of pro-Israel advocacy groups, was the subject of serious critique for its conflation of genuine anti-Semitic bigotry on the one hand, and criticism of or opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel on the other."

From: https://israelpalestinenews.org/landmark-bill-restricting-criticism-of-israel-sneaks-through-south-carolina-senate/

By Alison Weir

"The South Carolina Senate has recently passed legislation that changes the definition of anti-Semitism to include criticism of Israel, and then applies this new definition to college campuses in a manner that experts say will impede free academic inquiry. The U.S. gives Israel over $10 million per day, and Congress frequently approves increases to that amount; restricting discussion on this issue could serve to bolster and increase these expenditures.

"The legislation codifies a definition of anti-Semitism that significantly changes the meaning of the word, and it requires the state’s colleges to use this new definition when determining whether an action is “discriminatory” and therefore prohibited. This new definition declares statements that are critical of Israel—even when factual—“anti-Semitic” and therefore impermissible."

From: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-protesters/new-israel-anti-boycott-act-still-unconstitutional

By Brian Hauss, Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project

MARCH 7, 2018 | 4:45 PM

"Over the weekend, two senators introduced changes to the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which would criminalize participation in certain political boycotts targeting Israel. The changes attempt to address the civil liberties concerns raised by the ACLU and other groups.

"Unfortunately, the revised bill still violates the First Amendment. It does so by unconstitutionally penalizing Americans who participate in political boycotts of companies doing business in Israel and its settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, if those boycotts were called for by international governmental organizations like the United Nations.

"This is impermissible. Political boycotts are fully protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court made that clear when it recognized, in a landmark 1982 decision called NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, that the Constitution protected a 1960s boycott of white-owned businesses in Mississippi. If the Israel Anti-Boycott Act were to pass and take effect, we would strongly consider challenging it in court."

Comprehensive or what????

Should there be one of these for every religious, belief or national group the infringement of which to constitute a criminal offence?


From: https://www.thejc.com/comment/analysis/what-is-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-and-why-has-labour-outraged-jews-by-rejecting-it-1.467511

The IHRA definition specifies eleven “contemporary examples of antisemitism”, while making it clear that there may be others.

These are:

1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
2. Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
3. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
4. Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
5. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
6. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
7. 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.
8. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
9. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis.
10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
11. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Since when, in a liberal democratic state, has the action of any other state the right not to be criticisised for its reprehensible behaviour? Well the answer seems to be "Now, in the United States of America". In other words Israel has been given it seems, a uniquely elevated position above all others. How could this state of affairs come about? Should not American legislators feel ashamed for being traitors to the founding principles of their own constitution? How can the evil actions of states be opposed if they cannot at least be criticised?

Manage

 Have we in fact entered a new dark age, when only State approved speech and opinion is allowed or whereif it runs counter to some Jewish Zionist checklist it is to be criminalised? And remember this is being engineered by our own legislators, intent on undermining our own hard-won freedoms of speech. Jordon Peterson is right, this goes to the very heart of our political economy, on the back of specious arguments of 'liberalism and the right not to be offended by anything'. It needs to be exposed for what it is, and opposed at every turn before 1984 is fully realised in 2020.



Expect more of similar incidents as this 2016 one!

Jewish Man Indicted After Criticizing Israel, U.S. at Kansas Q&A With Dennis Ross

From: https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/americas/jewish-man-who-criticized-u-s-israel-at-kansas-q-a-indicted-1.5445760

The Associated Press Oct. 4th 2016

If people can be arrested for asking questions at library events, 'then I guess we're going to have to shut the library down,' says outraged director about the May incident.

The Associat

ed Press

Oct 04, 2016 7:22 PM

The executive director the Kansas City library system says he is "outraged" that prosecutors continue to pursue charges against a man who was arrested after asking pointed questions during a library discussion about the Middle East peace process and an employee who tried to intervene.

Although the arrests occurred in May following a speech by author and diplomat Dennis Ross, the library system only recently went public about its opposition to charges, the Kansas City Star reported.

The executive director the Kansas City library system says he is "outraged" that prosecutors continue to pursue charges against a man who was arrested after asking pointed questions during a library discussion about the Middle East peace process and an employee who tried to intervene.

Although the arrests occurred in May following a speech by author and diplomat Dennis Ross, the library system only recently went public about its opposition to charges, the Kansas City Star reported.

R. Crosby Kemper III, executive director of the city's library system, said "we're going to be living in a different kind of country" if people can be arrested for asking questions at a library. "If this kind of behavior is unacceptable to the police, then I guess we're going to have to shut the library down."

Issues arose after Ross finished speaking and took a question from Jeremy Rothe-Kushel concerning whether Jewish Americans like Rothe-Kushel should be concerned about actions by the U.S. and Israel that amount to "state-sponsored terrorism."

"When are we going to stand up and be ethical Jews and Americans?" Rothe-Kushel asked.

When Rothe-Kushel tried to ask another question, a private security guard grasped his arm, followed by an off-duty police officer, both employed by the Jewish Community Foundation. Rothe-Kushel then shouted, "Get your hands off of me right now!"

Steve Woolfolk, director of public programming for the library, tried to intervene. Both men were arrested by off-duty officers.

"Every police officer who was on duty that evening was very communicative and respectful," Rothe-Kushel said. But he said he would have left if he had been asked to and given the chance to do so.

Kansas City police spokeswoman Capt. Stacey Graves said off-duty officers hired by the event sponsor acted properly in helping private security stop an audience member from asking follow-up questions.

Rothe-Kushel is charged in city court with trespassing and resisting arrest. Woolfolk is charged with interfering with an arrest. Woolfolk said he suffered a torn medial collateral ligament in his knee when a police officer kneed him in the leg.

Kemper said the private security guards had no right to remove a patron for asking a question.

Ross' speech was the inaugural Truman and Israel Lecture, established by the Truman Library Institute and the Jewish Community Foundation of Greater Kansas City.