Katharina von Schnurbein is the EC Coordinator on Combating Antisemitism.
Ali Abunimah is the Electronic Intifada coordinator on being a combative antisemite.
So when the Abunimation decided to start up with Katharina, he soon discovered he was way out of his league.
EU continues to criminalize criticism of racist Zionist ideology and apartheid Israel by promoting IHRA def. https://t.co/jB8DwnnlcY https://t.co/AoyvUs4ltN
— Ali Abunimah (@AliAbunimah) November 1, 2017
Wrong. What is criminal is regulated by law. This non-legally binding definition clarifies what is Antisemitic. Such as calling Zionism racist and Israel an Apartheid state, for example. @FacingFactsEU https://t.co/D760KIpcMG
— (((k schnurbein))) (@kschnurbein) November 1, 2017
Precisely the speech restrictions we fear. EU official calls factual statements that Zionism is racist and Israel apartheid “anti-Semitic” https://t.co/f2Bp5WaRhj
— Ali Abunimah (@AliAbunimah) November 1, 2017
I reject the anti-Semitic notion, promoted by the IHRA definition, that criticism of racist Zionist ideology = criticism of Jews. https://t.co/TGbHc0xwJA
— Ali Abunimah (@AliAbunimah) November 1, 2017
Why are you so agitated? Did I touch a soft spot? You say what you want and I do, too. #freedomofspeech #fairplay https://t.co/BGlT5U6wBk
— (((k schnurbein))) (@kschnurbein) November 1, 2017
To recap: Under IHRA, is it antisemitic to call for a single, democratic unified state with full equal rights for people of all religions?
— Ali Abunimah (@AliAbunimah) November 1, 2017
The definition does not express itself on that matter. It is not about states, but about people, about the Jews. https://t.co/2iUcpVGF7q
— (((k schnurbein))) (@kschnurbein) November 1, 2017
This is what Stern, author of IHRA definition, says about how it’s used for censorship: https://t.co/KUAMg3ZRyC pic.twitter.com/jl3Nz1qDlj
— Ali Abunimah (@AliAbunimah) November 1, 2017
It is not about legislation. That's the whole point. We are turning in circles. And btw Ken Stern is certainly not the only author of this definition – it was a consortium of experts in 2004 that drafted it. Good night! https://t.co/jSpSFf8k5f
— (((k schnurbein))) (@kschnurbein) November 1, 2017
So how precisely will states use it? What does it mean to “adopt” it? What are you encouraging them to do with it? Please explain.
— Ali Abunimah (@AliAbunimah) November 1, 2017
For training of state authorities to better understand the various forms of modern Antisemitism. It is also a useful non-legal guidance tool for NGOs, media, sports clubs ect and anybody who wants to understand and stand up against #Antisemitism. https://t.co/1Vbp5qrHOD https://t.co/bQ3YBsPN8h
— (((k schnurbein))) (@kschnurbein) November 1, 2017
2/2 Here UK decision: https://t.co/rzikaPDVTL. It includes: "We believe that references within the definition stating
that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as
antisemitic” are sufficient to ensure freedom of speech" https://t.co/bQ3YBsPN8h— (((k schnurbein))) (@kschnurbein) November 1, 2017
So if state authorities are using it that can lead to censorship — as its lead author rightly warns. Are you concerned about that?
— Ali Abunimah (@AliAbunimah) November 1, 2017
No, I am not because the rule of law defines the limits, not a non-legally binding guidance tool that supports freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a two-way street, wouldn't you agree? https://t.co/fjMy7lYGjW
— (((k schnurbein))) (@kschnurbein) November 1, 2017
.
