87 points

We are witnessing a modern day red scare

permalink
report
reply
45 points

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

Close - the difference is that in this red scare we’re the reds and McCarthy is neither a senator nor even an American… They’re Isreali lobbyists.

permalink
report
parent
reply
53 points
*

I really, really do not want to be lumped in with Zionists.

I don’t agree at all with what’s happened to the Palestinians at Israel’s hands, and I have no trouble saying both Zionists and Israeli govt are wrong here.

I have never visited Israel for how toxic Zionists ironically sounded, considering our history in Germany, and I’m damn glad I never will. You’re making us all look bad, you fucking idiots.

permalink
report
reply
39 points

I don’t agree at all with what’s happened to the Palestinians at Israel’s hands, and I have no trouble saying both Zionists and Israeli govt are wrong here.

That right there, you are going to be engaging in hate speech if this bill becomes law.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Agreed. I’m Jewish but I’m American. I’m not Israeli. I don’t support Israel’s apartheid or its genocide. I’ve never cared much about Israel in terms of my “heritage” and I’ve never even been especially interested in visiting beyond wanting to see some of the archaeology.

I am so tired of being associated with Israel and it’s Israel’s fault.

permalink
report
parent
reply
49 points

So criticizing a country that has assassinated American citizens is now a crime. Fucking wow

permalink
report
reply
9 points

A bill so bad that even the ADL is opposed to it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

The article says:

The measure passed in a 320-91 vote. Twenty-one Republicans and 70 Democrats voted against the legislation.

The bill, titled the Antisemitism Awareness Act, would mandate that the Education Department adopt the broad definition of antisemitism used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, an intergovernmental group, to enforce anti-discrimination laws.

The international group defines antisemitism as a “certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” The group adds that “rhetorical and physical manifestations” of antisemitism include such things as calling for the killing or harming of Jews or holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by the state of Israel.

This seems good at first glance, as it clearly separates Israel and Judaism, which would be very clearly against the views of Netanyahu and his conservative government. My only issue is that it could be interpreted differently to give IHRA the agency to change their definitions, and they’re not generally unbiased when dealing with Israel. They had a highly controversial list of “examples of antisemitism” which defended Israel with fervor.

permalink
report
reply
11 points
*

as it clearly separates Israel and Judaism

What are you talking about? The definition CLEARLY combines Israel and Judaism into one category, as in, any criticism of Israel becomes antisemitic hate speech.

Have you even actually read the definition?

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

You seem to have trouble reading the text you’re replying to. I’ll paste if a few more times to make it easier for you.

The international group defines antisemitism as a “certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” The group adds that “rhetorical and physical manifestations” of antisemitism include such things as calling for the killing or harming of Jews or holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by the state of Israel.

The group adds that “rhetorical and physical manifestations” of antisemitism include such things as calling for the killing or harming of Jews or holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by the state of Israel.

holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by the state of Israel.

holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by the state of Israel.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points
*

The key text:

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.

This is where the slight of hand happens. The problem with self determination is that we don’t live in an empty world. My right to self determination can’t impinge on your right to self determination. So this definition doesn’t take into account competing political projects, agendas etc. This is about Israel, but notice they start with denying the Jewish people the right to self determination, then the example they give is claiming that the state of Israel is a racist endeavor. Now Judaism is conflated with political Zionism. These two things are not the same. And people have a right to believe that creating Israel is ok. But I have a right and you have a right to disagree that the formation of Israel was morally OK, politically acceptable. I can say that creating Israel came at the expense, of the Palestinian people. And that the creation of an ethnostate as such affords Israelis different rights whether or not you’re Jewish. And I don’t have to support the principal of an ethnostate. I dont belive in kurdish ethnostates, I don’t believe in white nationlist ethnostates, I dont believe in Arab or Islamic ethnostates, and I don’t believe in Jewish ethnostates.

I can say that. Unless we follow this definition.

for reference: the actual definition (if you can get it to load its getting the internet hug of death): https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

and the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7921

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I assume “calling for the killing or harming of Jews” is meant in the general sense. But what happens if it’s directed at one person, who happens to be Jewish. Let’s say the individual is a criminal and people wish harm upon them. Would that count?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I feel like the illegality of threatening to murder a specific person was never really in question regardless of legislature waiting on the Senate’s approval,

But Fuck Netanyahu

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Calling for the killing or harming of someone is not the same as threatening someone.

For example, I would never say “I’m going to kill Netanyahu”, but I AM aware of the FACT that the world would become a better place if someone, for example himself, did.

Likewise, it’s always been illegal to threaten Jewish people, just like anyone else, but this law is at the very least a step towards criminalizing all criticism of the actions of a fascist apartheid regime by equating Israel and by extension its government with all Jewish people, which is itself a very antisemitic thing to do.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Even Bernie is against this bill. ( He’s a Jew, btw.)

permalink
report
reply
7 points

Saying someone is “a Jew” rather than saying that they’re “Jewish” often comes off as vaguely antisemitic. I’m not saying that it’s wrong, just something subtle I’ve noticed over the years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Eh. I’m a Jew.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Really? (Really asking)

It’s not considered offensive for other religions as far as I know… “Peter is a Christian” has zero derogatory connotation

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I mean the first point is that there’s not much history of widespread systematic anti-christian sentiment in the western world. Secondly, I’ve noticed antisemitic people tend to say “… is a jew” with a particular intonation even when they’re not speaking negatively about someone. In text format where tone isn’t able to be conveyed, I’ve noticed that people are more likely to react negatively.

Maybe I’m wrong, though. 🤷‍♂️ I’m a stranger on the internet, and you probably shouldn’t take my word at face value.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

“even”?

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 21K

    Posts

  • 526K

    Comments