[TimorousBestie]

The IHRA definition of antisemitism is so vague that it includes otherwise innocuous and/or factual statements.

> “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

In IHRA’s defense, this definition was never intended for legal use. But here we are.

[timr]

They go on to discuss more than a page of examples, all of which sound completely reasonable to me. Or perhaps you could just quote the very next paragraph, which is pretty specific:

> Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

[somenameforme]

A key issue in this is that the screening process is completely opaque. I have acquaintances who have tried to get visas to the US, and it usually takes several attempts - with nothing really changing in between. It mostly comes down to the exact immigration officer working somebody's application, and the waxing and waning of the moon.

The reasons given are extremely broad, so it makes nuances like this largely irrelevant. If an immigration officer perceives their duty (or maybe it's just their own personal opinion) to be to reject applications which are critical of Israel, then that's exactly what they're going to do. And you have no ability to appeal decisions, not that you'd even know what caused those decisions.

FWIW the people I'm referencing were also completely upstanding, educated individuals with high competence in English. It's a great way to make one loathe the double standard given to people who just illegally cross the border. Even moreso when you consider that each of these applications costs hundreds of dollars in places where that's often a rather substantial sum of money (just as it would be in most places in e.g. South America).

[timr]

Yeah, I’m not saying anything about the idea of screening someone based on the content of their thoughts (i.e. their social media feed). I’m only commenting about the purported unreasonableness of the definition of antisemitism.

There are obviously issues of subjectiveness here, but that’s also nothing new in the world of immigration. These decisions are made by humans, not robots (or at least, robots trained by humans).

[TimorousBestie]

“X might include Y”, “X frequently Z”, “X is often W”: these phrases do not legally define anything, they’re merely vibes. If I argue that a particular statement is neither Y, Z, or W, that doesn’t logically imply that it isn’t X.

If a censor is trying to determine if a particular post doesn’t contain antisemetic content, this paragraph is not helpful.

Well, they do state one negative criterion:

> However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

I have never seen this principle successfully cited as an affirmative defense, however. They give examples that contradict this quote, so I don’t think we’re supposed to take it seriously.

[KingMob]

Many are reasonable, but several are not.

> 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.

One does not entail the other. You can support our right to self-determination while not supporting Israel's apartheid-style policies, but this sentence conflates them.

> Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

This is pure whataboutism. Israel is actually given incredible leeway by America, and I usually see this trotted out to shut down legitimate criticism. There's a good discussion to be had about why we don't criticize China, or why we ignore atrocities in African countries, but none of that absolves Israel from its misdeeds.

> Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Call it "sparkling ethnic cleansing" then. Ironically, actual genocide scholars have pointed out that when the Shoah is your metric, then almost nothing can compare, rendering the word useless.

[timr]

> > 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.

> One does not entail the other. You can support our right to self-determination while not supporting...policies, but this sentence conflates them.

Uh...exactly? You're criticizing the state. Per the definition you can do that, but you can't generalize to the people. And certainly, calling the state a "racist endeavor" should cross the line?

Basically, all three of your examples boil down to the same thing: you want to accuse a nation of something bad, and think it’s somehow unfair that, under this definition, you can’t then accuse a people of the act. That isn’t ambiguous. If you did the same thing for, say, Chinese people and the CCP, you’d be equally wrong. Jewish people are not of one mind about current events, and that seems like a fairly obvious point.

As far as the third item, specifically, any comparison to the Nazi party is so hyperbolic as to be in obvious bad faith.

[harimau777]

Accusing a nation of something bad is precisely what their definition of anti-semitism includes. The examples they gave are all from the controversal definition of anti-semitism.

[timr]

> Accusing a nation of something bad is precisely what their definition of anti-semitism includes.

They literally say the opposite, right in the paragraph I quoted at the top.

Yes, they give examples of criticizing Israel. But the point of the examples is that you a) can't apply standards unique to Israel, and b) if you do criticize the country, it's not fair game to extend it to an entire people.

[SauciestGNU]

But under this guideline it seems that if I say "ethnostates are a crime against humanity and Israel is committing genocide to create an ethnostate just like the Nazis did" I'm violating these guidelines in a number of ways despite this being purely political criticism leveled at the state and not at Jewish people.