- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
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.”
There is no impartiality for genocide.
The Viet Cong killed hundreds in the same way, and so have all successful revolutionary groups in the past. Decolonization is violent, if you don’t like it don’t colonize in the first place.
Fuck off with hiding behind “but genocide!” whenever someone disagrees with you and double fuck you for implying that I or those other people support genocide. No matter how hard tankie politics dictates imperialsits (‘them’) and rest of the world (‘us’) are polar opposites, there are people that share some of your values and don’t share others. This includes people who see both hamas and isreali gvt as evil. If your ideology has answers ready for everything and doesn’t need you to impartially think to come to conclusions that’s a bullshit ideology.
Edit: Reminds me of religious nuts thinking atheists are evil because if they don’t follow every rule in the book they must be breaking all of the rules and you certainly can’t have your own moral compass.
Are you seriously arguing that killing less civilians than the isreali military somehow makes hamas good? If they hadn’t attacked much of the violence since then wouldn’t have happened and those 30 thousand Palestinians would at least be alive, even if not free. How hard is it to understand that multiple things can be correct?
I can understand why Hamas would choose to do what they did when they did it. Cornered animal lashes out. But it’s incomprehensible to me how anyone looking from the outside thinks attacking Isreal with anything less than a takeover force was a good idea, especially considering that in hindsight it was a terrible one.
“Anything I don’t like is a tankie”, Lemmy politics equivalent to the right wing’s use of woke.
Followed by the 30,000x version of “they wouldn’t have died if they just did what the police told them!”
You’re saying the people advocating to remove comments that condemn Hamas or Gaddafi, accuse people of obeying the ‘empire’ and bring up genocide to claim moral high ground aren’t tankies?