I am not going to enter into debate with you because you deliberately mischaracterize what I say and impute improper, hateful motives to my words.
And you are slippery. You seldom answer the question posed to you, and instead, use it as an opportunity to tee off into your predictable accusatory diatribes. As you have here.
You POST POST POST xitter shit and expect everyone to lap it up, yet you admit you don't even read or listen to what others have to say.
Hey Schlong, if you feel I've mischaracterized that article point out how I've done so and we'll discuss it.
I don't think I have, as I've seen other similar pieces pushing the same narrative.
Its an offshoot of some of the discussions about the government accepted terms of racism. There was a push to recognize Islamaphobia as racism, which took a while to implement. The right wing side of Jewish organizations pushed for a definition of antisemitism in response that came from the Holocaust Museum, the IHRA definition. That definition is very problematic as it labels criticism of Israel as antisemitic. Rather than take my word for it or post something from the xitter, I'd have you look at Independent Jewish Voices Canada and their page on the definition.
Fight antisemitism and white supremacy. Not Palestine solidarity. The dangerously misleading IHRA antisemitism definition poses an unprecedented threat to the Palestine solidarity movement.
www.noihra.ca
Where this ties into the article in question is that right Jewish organizations that are more tied to Israel managed to get the government of Canada to recognize this IHRA definition as the Canadian definition of antisemitism. But that means that according to this definition discussing anti Palestinian racism is an attack on Israel which they say is an attack on the Jewish people so therefore antisemitic. Which is what that article is trying to push, the idea that saying racism against Palestinians is wrong is antisemitic.
That's why I knew what that article was pushing and that one paragraph just summed up their views. My view, which is based of the IJVCanada take, is that the IHRA definition is intentionally messed up in order to stifle debate about Israel, and as a result adds to antisemitism. It used to be that the Israel supporters here argued that Israel is a democratic state, now they argue that its Jewish instead. Anti zionist Jewish groups are pushing against this definition as they don't want Jews around the world to be tied to a government committing genocide.
I posted a quick answer for shack because that's all he needs in this debate, I filled it out for you so you could understand that its not a refusal to listen but that argument has been raised here before and doesn't need that degree of explanation for most of the people in these threads.
Fair?