(Fathom-BICOM-UK) Dave Rich - A Jan. 7 letter in the Guardian, signed by eight experienced lawyers, misrepresents what the IHRA definition says about Israel and anti-Semitism. They claim that "the majority" of the IHRA definition's "illustrative examples" of potentially anti-Semitic speech "do not refer to Jews as such, but to Israel." This is simply not true. Of the 11 "illustrative examples" of potentially anti-Semitic speech listed in the IHRA definition, 9 explicitly mention Jews or the Jewish people (7 mention Israel, of which 5 mention both Jews and Israel). The examples that mention both Jews and Israel include "Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust"; "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel"; or "Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis." Do the signatories of this letter really intend to claim that these examples suppress legitimate, non-anti-Semitic criticism of the State of Israel? They further claim that the examples in the definition "have been widely used to suppress or avoid criticism of the state of Israel." Widely used? Treating the suggestion that criticism of Israel is widely suppressed, either in our universities or elsewhere, is a laughable fantasy. Anti-Israel events still take place at British universities on a regular basis. Meanwhile, anti-Semitic incidents at British universities are at record levels. The writer is Director of Policy at the UK Community Security Trust.
2021-01-14 00:00:00Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive