EndemicEarthlingFeb 24

In choosing to adopt the controversial & widely discredited #IHRA definition (doing so against the advice of many experts, including the author of the definition, who warns against its use for purposes linked to government regulative activity), the Royal Commission set up by the #Albanese #ALP federal government after the #BondiMassacre has now become the Royal Commission into Criticism of Israel, rather than what it claims to be, a Royal Commission into Antisemitism.

It is not antisemitic to uphold #HumanRights, #InternationalLaw and oppose a #genocide. It *is* antisemitic to conflate legitimate criticism of Israel with hatred of all Jewish people as such.

By making this move, the Commissioner has shifted the focus of investigation away from some of the very factors most responsible for the recent rise in *actual* hatred towards Jewish people as such. This will seriously impede the ability of the Commission to reach useful insights. Instead, it will likely result in shifting blame (implicitly or explicitly) onto those standing up for the lives and dignity of Israel's victims, including onto survivors, as well as relatives and friends of victims of genocide, torture, forced displacement and starvation.

#Auspol #antisemitism #RoyalCommission #definition #racism #hatred #SocialCohesion

Show threadCycling StuFeb 24

@EndemicEarthling @sister_ratched She was also at pains to comment that criticism of Israel or its govt is not antisemitic

quote:

She said the inquiry would adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism for the proceedings.

“It provides antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews which may be expressed as a hatred towards Jews” and included antisemitism directed toward Jewish or non Jewish individuals, their property and towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities, she said.

She added that while some examples of conduct attached to the definition were controversial, “criticism of the policies that may be pursued by the government of Israel from time to time is not of itself antisemitic”."

Show threadEndemicEarthlingFeb 24

@stufromoz @sister_ratched The IHRA definition itself technically admits as much. But that is not how it is used, nor why pro-Israel lobbyists have worked so hard to get it adopted by official organisations all over the world.

"while some examples of conduct attached to the definition were controversial" — those examples are precisely why it has been pushed so hard as a definition. Organisations that try to adopt the IHRA definition while omitting the examples get denounced. The examples are the main issue at stake, setting a norm that criticism of Israel is seen as suspicious by default, and in practice, is frequently found to be antisemitic by organisations that adopt the IHRA definition. But the ambiguity created by having examples that focus heavily on criticisms of Israel generates uncertainty, leading to self-censorship. Then the admission within the definition itself that criticism of Israel is not *always* antisemitic provides the very cover of respectability your response exemplifies.

EDIT: clarity/typos

Show threadJude🇵🇸
@EndemicEarthling @stufromoz Media fail perpetuates this.
Feb 24 at 11:25amWeb