Rosie DiManno--A fixation with Israel is antisemitism dressed up as pious principle.
- Thread starter shack
- Start date
Documentation: hirhome.com/israel/nazis_palestinians.htm
All book chapters and videos: hirhome.com/colapso/colapso.htm
Traces the history of PLO/Fatah, now better known as the 'Palestinian Authority,' the organization that will govern a future Palestinian State. The video shows how PLO/Fatah emerged from the German Nazi Final Solution. Hajj Amin al Husseini, father of the Palestinian Movement, creator of Fatah, and mentor to Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, was co-director with Adolf Eichmann of the death camp system that exterminated between 5 and 6 million European Jews in WWII.
The pro-palestinian movement started to destroy jews and israel. it has nothing to do with the rights of the palestinians
Hardly, shack.
People now worry about getting attacked for even suggesting Palestinians have rights these days. The Valentina Azarova case was a prime example.
You have people like basketcase trying to push this IHRA definition of antisemitism that tries to conflate criticism of apartheid Israel policy with antisemitism.
In universities you really risk having your career ended for supporting Palestinian human rights and defending Amnesty and HRW reports.
The observation is correct; some 50 formal resolutions, from the General Assembly, aimed at Israel since 1948. Last year alone, there were 14 condemnations of Israel (70 per cent of the resolutions) while the remaining 194 countries drew a grand total of four: North Korea, Iran, Myanmar and Russia, specifically for its activities in Crimea.
Explain why there are so few resolutions against those other countries.
None of those countries are actively colonizing a country under a 70 year occupation.
North Korea is screwed up but other than hacking they keep to themselves.
Myanmar hasn't been at it nearly as long.
Iran hasn't started a war in 300 years and isn't occupying any other country.
Russia? The Crimea issue is only a decade old major issue.
But Israel has been refusing to listen to UN resolutions for 70 years. How is it surprising they get so many resolutions when they refuse to abide by any?
And Israel is still actively colonizing and taking land from Palestinians, as they have been doing slowly for 70 years now.
Name one single resolution that Israel has actually abided by.
You can't do it, can you?
So in almost every case, it's not the actual human rights violations themselves, it's just a time factor. Interesting perspective.
What is the accepted "leave it alone until this date"?
How many years until Russia gets resolutions against them for their invasion? 70?
As to the article itself, i.e. discrimination at U of T:
But most reprehensibly the signatories were appalled that Cotler spoke in support of the non-binding, working definition of anti-Semitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance — Cotler helped craft it — which has thus far been adopted by 31 countries, including Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom.
It reads: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews which may be expressed as hatred towards 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.”
Are you opposed to that definition? Should Cotler not be allowed to speak?
But most reprehensibly the signatories were appalled that Cotler spoke in support of the non-binding, working definition of anti-Semitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance — Cotler helped craft it — which has thus far been adopted by 31 countries, including Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom.
It reads: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews which may be expressed as hatred towards 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.”
Are you opposed to that definition? Should Cotler not be allowed to speak?
Of course its the human rights violations.
But why is it a surprise that Israel keeps having resolutions posted against them when they keep ignoring them for 70 years?
Maybe if Israel actually fixed the problems they wouldn't keep getting the same complaints against them.
The IHRA definition is designed to stop criticism of Israel by trying to conflate criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitism.
Which makes that definition itself antisemitic by trying to argue that all Jews support Israeli policy and criticizing said policy is an attack on the people, not the government.
And personally, I don't know why you'd want to try to claim that all Jews support apartheid.
IJVCanada makes solid arguments why you really shouldn't be pushing this definition. I'll post them because they are a smart Jewish group and if I posted anything by Amnesty or HRW you'd say they are biased and if I posted anything by Palestinians you'd say they are racists.
FAQs — No IHRA
www.noihra.ca
These countries do not embrace western values and they were not created by a vote in the UN. What evidence do you have of Russia in the Crimea? It was annexed in a very democratic vote. If there were any doubt about the referendum the US would have suggested another one.
There's a difference between criticizing decisions of a country and obsessively condemning its very existence. There is clearly a component of the Israel haters who condemn Israel for things while justifying anti-Israel groups for similar or worse.
And of course, the anti-Israel people who indulge in anti-semitic tropes like Jewish control over foreign policy, the loyalty of non-Israeli Jews, or target and blame those Jews for Israel's actions are good old fashioned anti-semites even when they pretend it's just about Israeli policy.
Here's Canada's definition of anti-semitism. Some posters here have repeatedly checked of many parts of the list.
“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.”
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.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
- 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.
- 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.
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.
Turkey in Northern Cyprus? Morocco in Western Sahara? China in Tibet?
And of course you need to pretend that actual genocide that occurred in Myanmar and Eritrea/Ethiopia are less of a problem than Jews using the courts to get possession of homes.
Yet it specifically says criticism of Israel is not anti-semitic, just the double standards like supporting self-determination for others but not Jews currently living in Israel.
You sound just like the alt-right freaking out over CRT. Bunch of whiners trying to find a way to justify their hatreds.
A bunch of dictators and massive human rights abusers using the UN to try and do what their armies failed to do in 1949.
Thanks for quoting the full IHRA definition and showing why it should be thrown out, basketcase.
Really, its this line that goes too far.
- 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.
Perhaps the most egregious of these examples is the one that says: “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.” Israel is indeed a racist endeavour. This has been confirmed by the leading Israeli human rights organization, B’tselem, as well as Human Rights Watch. And people need to be able to openly speak about Israeli systemic racism without being labelled as antisemites.
Why should a Jewish group oppose the IHRA definition?
The IHRA antisemitism definition is dangerous for both Jews and Palestinians. It’s dangerous for Jews because it conflates real antisemitism with criticism of Israel. And it’s dangerous for Palestinians because it labels them as antisemites for speaking about their stories of displacement at the hands of Israel and Zionism.
Several other Jewish groups besides IJV have cautioned against adopting the IHRA, or opposed it outright, including the Reform Movement (the largest Jewish denomination in the USA), The United Jewish People’s Order, J Street, and a coalition of over 40 progressive Jewish organizations from around the world.
The IHRA definition says that "criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”, so what's all the fuss about?
Israel’s actions and overall situation are unlike those of any other country. In fact, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands is the longest standing illegal occupation in the world. Consequently, any criticism levelled against Israel will necessarily be unique. For example, there is no other situation in the world today where a territory and population have been held under military occupation for over 51 years, while the population therein continues to be denied either citizenship or full self-government. Similarly, there is no situation in the world today, other than Israel’s siege of Gaza, where a territory and its people are subject to a crippling open-ended blockade wherein imports, exports and travel are all strictly controlled and limited.
It’s not just what the definition says that concerns us, but also how it’s used. The track record of the IHRA-WDA being used to silence legitimate criticism of Israeli human rights abuses is long and well-documented.
Zionism is by definition a racist colonial movement.
Israel has stated that the right of self determination is only applicable to Jews in Israel, not Palestinians.
That double standard means that Israel is racist by your own terms.
That's apartheid.
You only say so because you know it calls out many of your posts as anti-semitic.
You have repeatedly claimed Palestinians have the right of self-determination (while ignoring that they overwhelmingly oppose equality with Jews) yet you keep saying it is racist to give that right to Israeli Jews.
The exact kind of racist double-standard that Canada's definition calls out.
