A group of palestinians in the UK (or rather, supposed descendants and descendants of descendants of those claiming to have lived in British mandate Palestine pre-1948) have put out a video urging UK Labour not to adopt the IHRA definition of “antisemitism.”
The whole idea behind this campaign is offensive for a start. Imagine if a group of Jewish people campaigned to change the definition of “Islamophobia.”
They are also being disingenuous (surprise, surprise). They will only be “silenced” if they are – wait for it – actually being antisemitic. The definition clearly states:
criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
One would need to go beyond that into hostility, prejudice or discrimination against towards Jews to fall foul of the definition.
For instance, Pink Flannel Hipster mentions the clause that would criminalize calling Israel a racist endeavour. The exact clause is:
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.
Of course denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination is prejudice or discrimination against Jews – especially when backed up by the lie that Israel – the historical homeland of the Jewish people – is a racist endeavor.
Pink Flannel Hipster also thinks he should be able to single out Israel. The definition does not use those exact words, but I assume he is referring to this clause:
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Again, that is clearly discrimination against the Jewish state, and so should surely fall under the definition of antisemitism.
These “activists” are clearly soiling their pants over the definition since they want to be able to engage in their antisemitic behavior. This is because in the vast majority of cases, one who hates Israel is motivated by a very real hatred of Jews (in other cases, it is ignorance about the situation), and the words they employ very much reflects this reality.
Note also the lies they tell; here are just some of them:
- “We’ve been written out of history in 1917” – she is referring to the Balfour Declaration. It did nothing of the sort – it merely announced support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. Furthermore, in 1917, the Arabs who lived in Palestine did not even consider themselves a distinct identity – they thought of themselves as an inseparable part of Syria. If anything, after WWI, they wrote themselves into history
- “..we were dispossessed and expelled off (sic) Palestine for Israel to exist” – some were expelled during the War of Independence in which the Arab armies tried to destroy the nascent state. Many others fled or left on their own volition, expecting to return after the Arab armies did what they set out to do
- “And ever since we’ve been subject to a discourse of violence that continuously favored the Israeli colonial narrative over ours” – I am not even sure what she means by “discourse of violence”, but certainly palestinian Arabs are associated with violence because of their tactic to employ terrorism. As for the assertion that our narrative has been favored over theirs, what planet is she living on?
- “Over the past few months over 170 palestinians have been massacred by the Israeli state” – what she doesn’t mention is that vast majority of those killed were either terrorists or affiliated with terrorist organizations. Plus given how many violent rioters there were trying to flood into Israel and murder civilians, the fact the casualty number was relatively low indicates we did anything but “massacre” them
- “Of course, Palestinians are against all forms of racism” – except against Jews, apparently.
Remember, if you have to lie in order to demonize Israel, you are almost certainly an antisemite.