Additional Resources
Top Commentators:
- Elliott Abrams
- Fouad Ajami
- Shlomo Avineri
- Benny Avni
- Alan Dershowitz
- Jackson Diehl
- Dore Gold
- Daniel Gordis
- Tom Gross
- Jonathan Halevy
- David Ignatius
- Pinchas Inbari
- Jeff Jacoby
- Efraim Karsh
- Mordechai Kedar
- Charles Krauthammer
- Emily Landau
- David Makovsky
- Aaron David Miller
- Benny Morris
- Jacques Neriah
- Marty Peretz
- Melanie Phillips
- Daniel Pipes
- Harold Rhode
- Gary Rosenblatt
- Jennifer Rubin
- David Schenkar
- Shimon Shapira
- Jonathan Spyer
- Gerald Steinberg
- Bret Stephens
- Amir Taheri
- Josh Teitelbaum
- Khaled Abu Toameh
- Jonathan Tobin
- Michael Totten
- Michael Young
- Mort Zuckerman
Think Tanks:
- American Enterprise Institute
- Brookings Institution
- Center for Security Policy
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Heritage Foundation
- Hudson Institute
- Institute for Contemporary Affairs
- Institute for Counter-Terrorism
- Institute for Global Jewish Affairs
- Institute for National Security Studies
- Institute for Science and Intl. Security
- Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
- Investigative Project
- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
- RAND Corporation
- Saban Center for Middle East Policy
- Shalem Center
- Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Media:
- CAMERA
- Daily Alert
- Jewish Political Studies Review
- MEMRI
- NGO Monitor
- Palestinian Media Watch
- The Israel Project
- YouTube
Government:
Back
(JNS) Alyza Lewin - Is it anti-Semitism to support the destruction of the one and only Jewish nation-state - home to approximately half of the Jews in the world today? Is it anti-Semitism to say that Jews do not have a right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland, the Land of Israel? These questions lie at the heart of today's debate over anti-Semitism. The Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism signed last week answered these questions in the affirmative by incorporating the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Definition of Antisemitism, which includes as a contemporary example of anti-Semitism "[d]enying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin in programs and activities that receive federal funding. National origin discrimination has been interpreted for years to include discrimination against those who have shared ancestry or ethnicity. What is new is that the Executive Order requires all executive branch agencies and departments charged with enforcing Title VI to apply the IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism when determining whether unlawful conduct has been motivated by discriminatory intent. It is the "adoption" of this definition of anti-Semitism that is causing the ruckus. There is nothing in either the IHRA Definition or the Executive Order that precludes anyone from criticizing the policies of the government of Israel. In fact, the IHRA definition explicitly states that "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic." But opposing Israel's existence as a Jewish homeland is anti-Semitism. It is not unlawful in the U.S. to make racist or anti-Jewish comments. In America, the First Amendment protects your right to express yourself as a bigot. But the First Amendment does not insulate and prevent those who make racist or anti-Semitic comments from being labeled as racists and anti-Semites. The writer is president and general counsel of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law.2019-12-19 00:00:00Full Article
New Executive Order Defines and Combats Anti-Semitism without Stifling Speech
(JNS) Alyza Lewin - Is it anti-Semitism to support the destruction of the one and only Jewish nation-state - home to approximately half of the Jews in the world today? Is it anti-Semitism to say that Jews do not have a right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland, the Land of Israel? These questions lie at the heart of today's debate over anti-Semitism. The Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism signed last week answered these questions in the affirmative by incorporating the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Definition of Antisemitism, which includes as a contemporary example of anti-Semitism "[d]enying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin in programs and activities that receive federal funding. National origin discrimination has been interpreted for years to include discrimination against those who have shared ancestry or ethnicity. What is new is that the Executive Order requires all executive branch agencies and departments charged with enforcing Title VI to apply the IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism when determining whether unlawful conduct has been motivated by discriminatory intent. It is the "adoption" of this definition of anti-Semitism that is causing the ruckus. There is nothing in either the IHRA Definition or the Executive Order that precludes anyone from criticizing the policies of the government of Israel. In fact, the IHRA definition explicitly states that "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic." But opposing Israel's existence as a Jewish homeland is anti-Semitism. It is not unlawful in the U.S. to make racist or anti-Jewish comments. In America, the First Amendment protects your right to express yourself as a bigot. But the First Amendment does not insulate and prevent those who make racist or anti-Semitic comments from being labeled as racists and anti-Semites. The writer is president and general counsel of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law.2019-12-19 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|