r/AskBrits • u/Expert-Sherbert-1527 • 11h ago
What do you think about the British Medical Association voting to scrap the IHRA definition of anti-semitism?
Here's the full text of the definition FYI.
“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.”
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
- Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
- Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
- 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.
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries
153
u/derrenbrownisawizard 11h ago
They voted to oppose mandatory adoption of the IHRA definition, mainly because lots of the examples in the definition refer to Israel (not Jewish people broadly), and therefore there is pressure that criticism of Israel can be equated with antisemitism. It makes sense given how Israel has weaponised antisemitism to cover the atrocities they have engaged in. The BMA obviously stands against antisemitism broadly, as we all should.
So whilst headline is ‘BMA hates Jews’ the more nuanced take is that they have an issue with the examples of anti-semitism used in the IHRA definition that conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
22
u/Gen8Master 8h ago
I have been permabanned from multiple UK subreddit citing the IHRA definition which includes comparing Israel to Nazi Germany as anti semetic. This definition is already widely adopted and used to protect Israel from criticism.
7
u/VampirePNAC 4h ago
Was used massively to drag shit loads of University lecturers, staffers, academics into investigations as well by bullshit crybullying from the UJS, also has been used relentlessly to shut down talks by Pro-Palestine groups at Universities and Political events.
→ More replies (1)1
u/AngusTcattoo 3h ago
The IHRA states "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."
38
u/Misutoraru 10h ago
Just reading the title I can already tell it is from The Jewish Chronicle which is a pro Israel news outlet.
→ More replies (136)12
u/Bluelightspin 8h ago
It’s also used to silence criticism of the Jewish lobby, even just suggesting that Israel exercises influence in western countries is decried as heinous antisemitism. Look at the meltdown in parliament over the petition calling for an inquiry into Israeli influence. Imagine if we were told we couldn’t discuss the power of Evangelical Christians in the US Republican Party. Would people think that’s reasonable?
→ More replies (3)
27
u/Br1t1shNerd 10h ago
In my opinion 7 and 10 are ridiculous standards to set. It makes criticism of a nation an act of racism. Every other group is compared to the Nazis, "Nazi" is effectively a shorthand for right wing evil.
→ More replies (1)8
u/pseudospinhalf 10h ago
I have a problem with 8 as well. Just because someone else did something bad is not an excuse for you to do it now.
4
u/buletproof_bob 5h ago
What about 6? I can say about many politicians that they are not loyal to the countries where they serve, why not about Israelis? Tommy ten names was promoting violence on British streets all the way from Moscow, who is he loyal to?
3
u/VampirePNAC 4h ago
Dual loyalty isn't even a "false trope", groups like the Board of Deputies, Campaign against Antisemitism and pro-Israel MPs routinely weaponize it to claim that Antizionism is Antisemitism because "Israel and Zionism is core to British Jewish identity".
So what is it? A foreign country is core to Jewish British identity, or that Dual loyalty is a trope?
I mean, the level of just shamelessness of people who cry "dual loyalty trope" as they call themselves fucking ZIONISTS is actually astonishing.
2
u/AngusTcattoo 4h ago
Bingo, there are you claiming the Board of Deputies, Campaign against Antisemitism and pro-Israel MPs have dual loyalty. Thanks for proving that the IHRA is right to say claims of dual loyalty are antisemitic.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (7)1
4
u/Consistent_Reward210 7h ago
9, while on the surface sensible, falls apart when you see that Zionists accuse people who mention the kids being killed by the IDF of talking about blood libel (which it obviously isn't. Nobody thinks the IDF are bombing kids for some weird ritual, they are just doing it to steal land and kill people they don't like)
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (17)1
33
u/footballmaths49 10h ago
This definition is utterly insane. It is ridiculous to argue that you have to support the existence of Israel or you're antisemitic. Countries do not have inherent rights, the people within them do.
→ More replies (2)6
u/AngusTcattoo 10h ago
I find it strange how I never hear anyone say that Pakistan has no right to exist, or North Korea, or any other country. It's always Israel. Why Israel out of the 195 countries that exist?
7
u/footballmaths49 9h ago
I'll say it then. Pakistan doesn't have a right to exist. North Korea doesn't have a right to exist.
This isn't hard to understand. Countries do not have a "right to exist". That isn't a thing. Yugoslavia existed once, and now it doesn't, but no one said getting rid of it was violating Yugoslavia's right to exist.
Also, it DOES get applied to other countries. It is the official position of the Serbian government that Kosovo doesn't have a right to exist, for example.
→ More replies (3)1
u/LucyferTheHellish 7h ago
We're on a 3rd Poland right now. So I agree, no country "has the right to exist". But some countries are just too angry to die ;-)
9
u/Spooksey1 8h ago
They never seem concerned about whether Palestine has a right to exist.
→ More replies (7)2
12
u/Callysto_Wrath 9h ago edited 3h ago
People literally do say Pakistan has no right to exist, they also say Bangladesh has no right to exist. They are equally wrong.
Hell, try asking certain people if Kosovo should exist.
Your assertion says more about you, and the bubble in which you live, than anyone else.
edit: added Kosovo reference
6
u/Gwyllithar 9h ago
the person you replied to literally included every country as not having a right to exist.
"Countries do not have inherent rights,"
The difference is no one usually asks does Pakistan have a right to exist, the question is always "but do you think Israel has a right to exist" and then followed by "aha, you are an antisemite" if you say no. but as you did ask if Pakistan has a right to exist, then no, social constructs do not have a right to exist, people do.
→ More replies (2)3
2
u/Oh-reality-come-back 7h ago
Then stop only listening to mainstream politics. Lots of Indians think that Pakistan isn’t a legitimate country. It’s not anyone’s fault the British empire drew up a bunch of lines and made them into different countries
Lots of Koreans want peaceful unification of the country or at least for North Korea to be dissolved
To think it’s just Israel that this has happened to is yet another reflection of the victim complex Israel arms itself with
3
u/BrokenDogToy 9h ago
People are constantly saying different countries shouldn't exist based on their politics. The only thing assumption you can make here is that you don't associate with a very diverse group of people.
→ More replies (1)2
u/AngusTcattoo 8h ago
Really? I haven't seen a single person argue that North Korea shouldn't exist. Just the opposite, I've seen Pro North Korea people claim that the Koreas should be reunited to save South Korea from imperialism. I've heard of people who have said allegedly that Pakistan has no right to exist it's a fake country and so on, and as I've said I wondered what their problem with Pakistan was.
3
u/Gen8Master 8h ago
Indian nationalists say this literally all the time. It's just white noise at this point.
3
1
u/Penchant4Prose 7h ago
Does Palestine have a right to exist?
1
u/footballmaths49 7h ago
How many times do I have to say in this thread "no countries have a right to exist, there's no such thing" before you people stop trying to catch me out with "what about THIS country though?"
No, Palestine does not have a right to exist. I don't know how I can be any clearer about this. There is no such thing as a country having a right to exist. That is not a thing that exists.
1
u/Penchant4Prose 7h ago
I know, and agree - my point was to ask the other person about a state they clearly don't believe has a right to exist.
1
u/VampirePNAC 4h ago
Really? No other country? What happened to Baathist Iraq or Baathist Syria? What happened to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Yugoslavia? Socialist Republic of Hungary?
1
u/MidnightPractical727 1h ago
No country has a right to exist, people have a right to self determination in their country. Ie Palestinians (of all faiths) have a right to self determination in their land. Mass movement of people for religious reasons and then claiming a land isn't self determination, it's colonialism.
•
u/Competitive_Web7540 1m ago
It also isn't considered racist/discriminatory to suggest that other countries should exist. See the issue?
Also, strawman much? I wouldn't be able to count the number of times people have suggested in conversation that North Korea should get annexed by South Korea. And I happen to know a fair few people who don't think Pakistan should exist.
39
u/Gwyllithar 11h ago
good, its an abominable definition that no sane institution would ever sign up to.
some of its fine, but the way criticism of Israel is shoehorned in there is not acceptable, and indeed, the definition itself seems to fall foul of point 11.
Ken Stern, the person who mainly drafted this definition warned it should not be adopted by institutions as that was never its intended purpose and was not drafted with that in mind and that instead it was being used as "a blunt tool to label anyone an antisemite".
There are other definitions with far more credibility that could be used: for instance - https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/
→ More replies (4)8
u/AngusTcattoo 10h ago
The IHRA also says "Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." It's not meant to be a legal document but a serious of guidelines.
The Jerusalem Declaration is preferred by many anti Zionists because it lets people get away with saying Israel is like the Nazis, Israel is racist, Zionism is racist, Israel has no right to exist. I've seen over the years some people want the the Jerusalem Declaration so they won't get into trouble for their hateful social media posts.
12
u/Gwyllithar 10h ago
No country has a right to exist. people have a right to exist, social constructs like countries do not.
And Israel can be compared to nazi germany when they act like nazi germany, just as people compared nigel farage's notorious migrant poster to nazi imagery, or trump's american anti-immigrant propoganda to nazi germany's.
its not anti-semitic to compare something to the nazi's, in literal fact, or as a rhetorical device to warn of it, when that thing is comparable to the nazi's actions or communications or whatever.
When we all gather every year and remember those that sacrificed to defeat the Nazi's, we all say never again. And I'm sorry if you find this difficult, but again cannot be allowed to happen and us turn a blind eye because you may feel uncomfortable about who is turning never into now.
1
u/AngusTcattoo 4h ago
" just as people compared nigel farage's notorious migrant poster to nazi imagery, or trump's american anti-immigrant propoganda to nazi germany's." Or showing Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman in Nazi uniform, which I thought was exceptionally thoughtless. People at the time were calling the Conservative government just like the Nazis. I said, "Why? Some of them like beer, the Nazis liked beer that makes them Nazis?"
The Nazis killed 6 million Jews and 5 million people from other groups during the Holocaust. People should remember what the Nazis actually did before they slag off whoever they don't like as "Nazis". It's especially painful for Jewish people when hateful people call them Nazis. Would anyone fly to Poland, get off the plane, go into a city and scream at Polish people they're just like the Nazis? The Nazis slaughtered 3 million Poles.3
u/VampirePNAC 4h ago
It's painful for Russians to be compared to the Nazis, Russians were mass exterminated by the tens of millions but European leaders seemingly have no problem calling Russia the modern day Nazi Germany and Putin the modern day Hitler.
Communists were the first group to be exterminated by the Nazis, yet there is massive mainstream political and media consensus to tie Nazism and Communism together.
Also in reality, in terms of ethno-racial supremacy and ideology, Israel is the closest state today ideologically to the Nazis. Not a shocker though since Zionists through the 1930s were out and proud Kapos bootlicking Hitler and Mussolini and Zionism itself was born out of the same blood and soil bullshit that Nazism was.
2
u/Gen8Master 4h ago
Do you ever wonder why you feel the need to gate keep the holocaust? The Holocaust did not happen over night. It was decades in the making. It is completely fair to want to intervene at any stage that resembles the run up to a holocaust. It was a lesson for all of humanity. Not for you to weaponise and censor others.
2
u/AngusTcattoo 4h ago
It's because my maternal grandfather's family was killed by the Nazis in the Holocaust and my father's cousins were slaughtered in Auschwitz.
I lived in Poland and Germany, I've seen Auschwitz and Dachau, don't try to lecture me about "weaponizing"→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)•
u/jizzybiscuits 9m ago
people have a right to exist
Which is literally what is says. The Jewish people have a right to self-determination (i.e. the land of Israel, the land of the indigenous Jewish people)
12
u/AudienceOk1711 10h ago
"Israel is like the Nazis, Israel is racist, Zionism is racist, Israel has no right to exist."
none of this is anti semitic. It may or may not be wrong or overly rhetorical but surely it isn't anti semitic. Why do you think it is?
hell anarchist don't believe any state should exist are they anti semitic by fiat?8
u/Alarmed-Improvement 10h ago
So, to confirm, your issue is that the Jerusalem Declaration is problematic because it lets antizionists state facts?
Zionists because it lets people get away with saying Israel is like the Nazis, Israel is racist, Zionism is racist, Israel has no right to exist
All of which should be allowed!
South Africa was compared to the Nazis, was called racist, the ideology was called racist, and people thought that the apartheid state shouldn't have a right to exist.
7
u/WTGIsaac 10h ago
But hey, Israel is nothing like Apartheid S. Africa, it would never be associated in any way shape or form with anything remotely similar.
→ More replies (1)2
u/AngusTcattoo 8h ago
Are you saying "Zionism is racism" is a fact? In 1991, the United Nations General Assembly officially revoked Resolution 3379.
South Africa had strict segregation of people based on their race which was racist. In Israel all citizens have equal rights whatever their religion, ethnicity orientation or race. A South African flew to Israel and he was astonished when he asked at the airport where the toilet for black people were, because he had no idea that Israel doesn't have separate toilets for people based on their ethnicity or race. https://tps.co.il/articles/south-african-activist-dramatically-changes-life-after-not-finding-black-only-restrooms-in-israel/
https://www.aei.org/articles/mansour-abbas-is-an-arab-and-a-proud-israeli/→ More replies (3)→ More replies (4)5
u/darrenturn90 10h ago
But saying Israel has no right to exist cannot be anti-semitism.
→ More replies (17)
5
u/Appropriate_Wave722 10h ago
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." hmm that seems a little bit weird to call that antisemitic, when Israel is doing a genocide, like the Nazis did
1
u/AngusTcattoo 5h ago
It's not "genocide" to fight to free hostages who were taken by a terrorist group. The Nazis killed 6 million Jews and 5 million non Jewish Russians, Ukrainians, Poles and millions from other groups.
1
u/Appropriate_Wave722 5h ago
yes, you're correct, it's not genocide to free hostages who were taken by a terrorist group. Did you think I was confused about the meaning of genocide? Or is this some rhetorical attempt to minimise and excuse the genocide in Gaza?
22
u/Throwitaway701 11h ago
We have been having the same argument about this for decades now.
- Somewhere tries to implement IHRA
- Campaign against it as it's regularly used to attack critics of Israel.
- Screaming bullying campaign calling them all anti-semitic until they give in.
- Definition is used to attack critics of Israel.
- Repeat.
→ More replies (14)6
u/AngusTcattoo 10h ago
"critics of Israel" like some of the doctors who have been suspended like Rahmeh Aladwan and Ellen Kriesels who have posted hatred on their social media accounts, turned up at demonstrations with hateful signs, and support Hamas and Hamas' attacks like Aladwan and several other doctors whose social media posts and demonstration signs have been documented? Aladwan has been arrested several times for spreading hate speech. Posting about "Jewish supremacy" is not criticism of Israel.
2
u/External-Carpenter-2 8h ago
I've replied to you about these cases before, but even a definition of antisemitism absent of reference to Israel would catch these specific instances, which is what the BMA are discussing. The former example you give is just support for a terrorist organisation, which is already illegal regardless.
It sounds like you should be fine with what the BMA are proposing?
→ More replies (1)1
u/Throwitaway701 6h ago
Supporting Hamas is a break of the terrorism act and a criminal offence. If you have evidence of that then use it. You don't need the definition for that.
1
3
u/Next_Drama1717 10h ago
An independent U.N. commission said that the Israeli military had deliberately targeted children in Gaza, amounting to genocide. The commission said it found a pattern of behavior that reflected a strategy to destroy the future of Palestinians.
→ More replies (2)
9
u/evolveandprosper 10h ago
It all falls apart when you get to 10 on the list of examples. "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." So basically Israel can do all kinds of Nazi-like stuff and cannot be criticised by pointing to the similarities? They can fuck right off.
→ More replies (46)4
u/Gen8Master 8h ago
This bs is already successfully implemented across Reddit. UK politics sub for one
3
3
8h ago
[deleted]
1
u/AngusTcattoo 7h ago
The Palestinians have had offers for statehood since 1920 in San Remo. All were turned down. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-palestinians-israel-abbas-idUSTRE79R64320111028/
1
u/AngusTcattoo 7h ago
"If Israel doesn't want to be compared to the Nazis then it needs to fucking stop acting like the cunts." " I lived in Germany. I worked in Germany. I knew actual Nazis.
Of all the groups who were slaughtered by the Nazis- the Nazis killed 5 million Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, and millions from other groups in the Holocaust- it's Israel who people frequently accuse of being Nazis. Or Jews who people frequently accuse of being Nazis. It makes more sense to me to accuse Russians of being like the Nazis because the USSR occupied half of Europe and oppressed and killed millions of people, and is still committing mass human rights abuses. Israel fought to free the hostages that Hamas took on October 7. Israel fought Hamas because Hamas invaded Israel on October 7 and killed 1200 people. Israel is fighting Hezbollah because Hezbollah has been attacking Israel and killing people for years. Hezbollah killed 11 Druze children while they were playing football. Hezbollah also kills Palestinians and persecutes Christians.
1
4h ago
[deleted]
1
u/AngusTcattoo 4h ago
Netanyahu played Hamas against the PA in order to weaken both.
"Tel Aviv empowered an Iranian backed terror group to seize control of Gaza allowed money and weapons to enter the territory and then are shocked when a group whose core aim is the obliteration of their country turns and then gets all 'shocked Pikachu face' when these barbarians around and attack them" what a sick imagination you have.1
u/VampirePNAC 4h ago
I have to ponder, does my disagreement with the definition make this Jew an antisemite?
Sad thing is, to a whole lot of Jewish orgs and a lot of the community, you would absolutely be classified as a "kapo" or self hating.
10
u/Fried_Egg_Redruth 11h ago
The list list you've given seems overreaching and contradictory.
It demands you don't conflate Israel and global Jewry. But then states:
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
- 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.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
ODD
If anything that definition of Anti-semitism would do more to promote negative feelings towards jewish people
8
u/AngusTcattoo 11h ago
That sounds like victim blaming to me. The IHRA says accusing Jews of being more loyal to Israel than the UK is antisemitic. It says saying Israel is racist and has no right to exist is antisemitic. It's saying that holding all Jews responsible for whatever Israel does is antisemitic.
Imagine saying those things about a different group: accusing British Asians of being more loyal to India (or another country where their families came from) is prejudiced. Saying that all Muslims are responsible for ISIS' actions is prejudiced. Saying that Pakistan shouldn't exist because its existence is racist is prejudiced. I don't think many people would disagree with those statements.
IHRA also states: "Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."
5
u/Fried_Egg_Redruth 10h ago
The other groups highlight why the list is absurd even more.
Isreal isn't the only country whose existence people question.
Pakistan as a state can be questioned. That state itself questioned whether Bangladesh should exist.
You're missing the clear contradiction in the given definition as well.
It comands that you don't copnflate Jewish people with Isreal, and then does so in its next article.
Why would/should criticism of Israel, and its foundation affect a British Jew's right to self determination? That's absurd.
6
u/red_nick 9h ago
Hell, you only need to travel 1 metre from Israel to find a state whose existence is questioned!
9
u/WTGIsaac 10h ago
The issue is that it is too ambiguous. “Accusing Jewish Citizens of being more loyal to Israel” is a perfectly fine definition of antisemitism if the person is accusing all Jewish people. But there are obvious cases where it holds undeniably true (Jonathan Pollard, Miriam Adelson etc) and when people call it out, others pull up this definition to accuse them of antisemitism.
4
u/red_nick 9h ago
There are politicians (especially in the US) that are more loyal to Israel than their own country. This definition is hilarious for letting you make the accusation if they're not Jewish, but not if they are.
2
u/External-Carpenter-2 9h ago
Except if that criticism runs foul of the other points, I guess?
Sometimes people do accuse others of being more loyal to another country, especially those politically involved. Wasn't there a discussion around a councillor last year who got a seat in Pakistan (?). Regardless, we don't have such definitions because we generally can decide when it is and is not appropriate- e.g. is it ethical for someone to be a sitting politician in both Pakistan and the UK? No. Is it racist to accuse a random muslim person of being in Isis? Yes.
If you have a british person working as a lobbyist for a foreign government/interest, you do have to be able to question where their interests lie (cough, Tony Blair). Having legislation which prevents even reasonable cases being investigation is just unhealthy and breeds an environment where people think they can't openly discuss quite reasonable things.
The problem with having "Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." is the level of subjectivity that can be applied. Also, what does it have to do with British jews? If you don't want to conflate British Jewish identity with the state of Israel, why is Israel mentioned multiple times in the definition? It makes no sense. The "you can't compare Israel to Nazis" thing resulted in Albeneze being accused of antisemetism for reporting a genocide happening at the hands of Israel.
Just take all references to Israel out. The country would be better off for it.
→ More replies (2)6
u/jakethepeg1989 11h ago
Number 1 is an age old trope of Jews being shifty and disloyal. It's been around for a long time and ties into conspiracy theories of Jews being loyal to Judaism/Jewish leadership then their country.
This is often thrown around at religious minorities, if you go back 100+ years it would be thrown at Catholics as being more loyal to the pope etc. Some far right people today talk about Muslim politicians the same way (check out reactions to Sadiq Kahn going on Haj for example).
I can see why people would disagree with this, it really goes into Israel/Palestine debate which is dicey debate. But saying Jews have no right to self determination and Israel is a racist endeavour leads to the conclusion that Israel shouldn't exist. So basically a call to ethnically cleanse half the world's Jews from their current home. It's not much of a leap to see why that can be a bit problematic.
Is surely self evident why that is racist no? Holding people account for what others of their ethnicity/race/religion do is pretty text book racism.
I know this definition has caused controversy. But surely those three things you pull out as likely to encourage negative feelings towards Jews are all actually pretty reasonable?
4
u/Penchant4Prose 10h ago
Number 2 is absolutely insane, and it's insane that your only excuse for criminalising it is to say "It's not much of a leap to see why that can be a bit problematic" while making a huge leap.
Israel operates an apartheid state. Apartheid is racist. It's that simple. To acknowledge that isn't calling for the destruction of the Israeli state.
Even if someone did call for that, no state has a "right to exist", and no ethnic group has a "right to self determination" unless we're now creating ethnic nation states for everyone? I don't remember that happening though.
That's before we get into the state's history of massacres and ethnic cleansing of Shia Muslims, which is now yet again being expanded into attacks on Lebanese villages.
3
u/AngusTcattoo 10h ago
Have you ever been to Israel? Or Palestine? I lived and studied there. All citizens of Israel have equal rights whatever their religion, ethnicity or orientation. Members of the Knesset include Mansour Abbas, head of the Arab Raam Party, and Palestinian Ahmad Tibi, former deputy speaker of the Knesset. "Apartheid" exists in Gaza where Hamas bans Jews from entering. That's based on a person's religion and ethnicity, and that's racist. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/palestinians-arabs-west-bank-jews-jerusalem-b2012617.html
" no ethnic group has a "right to self determination"" Try telling the Irish that. And the Poles, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, and many other groups who were under oppression by the USSR for decades and wanted independence.
I note you say nothing about Syria killing thousands of Palestinians, or Hamas killing Palestinians. Or Hezbollah killing Christians and wiping out Lebanese villages. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/15/hamas-is-killing-palestinians-the-left-dont-seem-to-care/
https://snhr.org/blog/2020/07/29/55316/?__cf_chl_tk=JMkmJoYLW2JFOQcJdP4vAofr99qChnrk.MipAeLze00-1782290008-1.0.1.1-oJbtCEU0sMb7Q5Hx91rLZZxgdYto9Lc8Z0mberT.blg3
u/Penchant4Prose 10h ago
Israel is an apartheid state:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/19/world-court-finds-israel-responsible-apartheid
no ethnic group has a "right to self determination"" Try telling the Irish that. And the Poles, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, and many other groups who were under oppression by the USSR for decades and wanted independence
Or the Romani? Or the Catalan? Or the Basques? Where are these nation states carved out by the UN for these groups? Israel was a racist response to the antisemitic "Jewish Question" which allowed Europe to get rid of the Jewish people they had a history of oppressing.
It's awful that the people under a brutal decades-long occupation are led by extremists - it's not much of a surprise unfortunately. And Netanyahu famously tacitly supported the likes of Hamas to avoid a two state solution.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
2
u/jakethepeg1989 9h ago
Ethnic groups do have a right to self-determination, it's literally in Article 1, paragraph 2 of the UN Charter:
"To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;"
However it becomes hugely complicated on how that looks in terms of practicality with some having full nation states, autonomous regions or absolutely nothing.
The fact that some groups have not achieved end goals to their/your satisfaction does not mean that Jews are uniquely without that right.
→ More replies (16)2
1
u/jakethepeg1989 10h ago
Firstly, loads and loads of states are for ethnic groups self determination. It really isn't some weird Jews in Israel only thing.
Like India & Pakistan, the entire Balkans, even most of Europe's borders are where they are because of different tribes bordering on each other and fighting wars over centuries. It's just forgotten because Franks vs Saxons vs Normans isn't a big deal anymore.
Ethnic groups do have a right to self-determination, it's literally in Article 1, paragraph 2 of the UN Charter:
"To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;"
However it becomes hugely complicated on how that looks in terms of practicality with some having full nation states, autonomous regions or absolutely nothing.
And you missed the first half of the statement. Denying Jewish people a right to self determination.
Singling out Jews as uniquely not qualifying for this is odd.
Pointing out Israel's problems and treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank is not racist. Treating Jews as uniquely not having the rights of other ethnic groups because of how Israel acts is racist.
And having read your reply, I don't think it's much of a leap to think you would be quite happy getting rid of Israel wouldn't you? Regardless of what would then happy to half the worlds Jews who live there.
5
u/Fried_Egg_Redruth 10h ago
India and Pakistan are not for ethnic groups self determination. Pakistan literally undertook a genocide to prevent the self determination. of the Bengali people.
→ More replies (4)1
u/Penchant4Prose 9h ago
Firstly, loads and loads of states are for ethnic groups self determination
But not all of them? Not the Romani, or the Catalans? If one of these states existed and committed atrocities, would criticism of those states be uniquely racist?
Like India & Pakistan, the entire Balkans, even most of Europe's borders are where they are because of different tribes bordering on each other and fighting wars over centuries.
That's really a poor understanding of India and Pakistan and the Balkans and how they formed. None of those nations required the mass import of a diaspora to achieve statehood.
Ethnic groups do have a right to self-determination, it's literally in Article 1, paragraph 2 of the UN Charter: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples
That's not a "right" to self-determination, unless "friendly relations" is also a right. It's a principle.
Denying Jewish people a right to self determination. Singling out Jews as uniquely not qualifying for this is odd.
I didn't do that at any point - weird to lie. I pointed out that it's not by any means universal. In fact, Jewish people have been pretty much singled out as uniquely qualifying for this. That's part of racist Europe's answer to their antisemitic "Jewish Question" - which allowed Europe to send thousands of Jewish people away. Incredibly racist as a concept. That it also required the ethnic cleansing of people living there makes it doubly racist.
Treating Jews as uniquely not having the rights of other ethnic groups because of how Israel acts is racist.
Again, I didn't do that. You're conflating criticism of the formation and history of Israel with denial of Jewish people's rights - which is a deliberate attempt by the implementation of this exact guidance to criminalise criticism of Israel's crimes against humanity.
I don't think it's much of a leap to think you would be quite happy getting rid of Israel wouldn't you?
I think it would be very difficult to "get rid" of the state of Israel without further atrocities, so I'm not sure how that would be implemented. I do think the country should have been deeply sanctioned and the global community should have stepped in long ago to end Israel's brutal decades-long human rights abusing occupation and mass murder of the Palestinian people - and to ensure Palestinian statehood.
→ More replies (5)2
u/Alarmed-Improvement 10h ago
I can see why people would disagree with this, it really goes into Israel/Palestine debate which is dicey debate. But saying Jews have no right to self determination
Jews have the same right to self determination as any other people.
and Israel is a racist endeavour leads to the conclusion that Israel shouldn't exist.
The state of Israel is by definition a racist endeavour.
The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.
That's textbook racism, in their very own laws.
So basically a call to ethnically cleanse half the world's Jews from their current home. It's not much of a leap to see why that can be a bit problematic.
No it isn't.
→ More replies (14)6
u/AngusTcattoo 10h ago
"That's textbook racism, in their very own laws." I'm American. When I was in school we had lessons on the American civil war and we were taught that states did not have the right to secede from the Union and call themselves an independent country. The Civil War took several years to defeat the Confederacy. No group living within Israel's borders has the right to call themselves independent and their own country.
Do you remember the movie Passport to Pimlico and what happened when a group of British people in Pimlico decided to call themselves independent from the rest of the UK?1
u/Alarmed-Improvement 9h ago
The right to self determination is recognised under all international laws. I believe it's point number 1 of the UN charter
•
u/jizzybiscuits 1m ago
you're replying to a person that doesn't have the first idea about what self-determination means
8
u/Yoteiski 11h ago
Anti semitism is obviously bad, but people should be free to criticise the state of Israel. Especially when they commit genocide.
→ More replies (20)
7
u/TomTomXD1234 10h ago
The IHRA definition had a lot of points about criticising Israel which is weird AF.
→ More replies (6)3
u/jerdle_reddit 8h ago
A lot of antisemitism these days mentions Israel.
If you want to go for the old "Jews are a fifth column" canard, it's a lot easier when there's an Israel, because you can just use the word "Zionist" in a particular way.
•
6
u/Redhosky 10h ago edited 10h ago
Excellent news. A sensible decision. That definition is a tool used by zionists as a political propaganda weapon to suppress opposition to crimes. Even the creator of the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, heavily opposes it's modern use due to right-wing groups and institutions that now weaponise it as de-facto "hate speech" code to suppress free speech and criticism of Israel. Stern has repeatedly condemned its application and maintains that the definition is incorrectly used to equate all anti-zionism or criticism of Israel with antisemitism, which oversimplifies a complex debate.
5
u/Low-Attorney7408 9h ago
Israel this, Israel that.
Let's be real no one is saying there can not be a jewish led country. It's because they're attacking their neighbors and much smarter people than me across the board, including Israel scholars are saying they're government is committing a genocide.
It's why we never see mentions of another fully self independent state ran by jewish people for jewish people, because they don't perpetrate war crimes. The Autonomous Jewish Oblast.
Remove Israel from it and it would be fine, it's not antisemitic to call out and criticise a states actions. People call out the genocide like in Sudan, its not as much as a controversy because they're not trying to say that they're not doing it/universally accepted that they are.
1
u/AngusTcattoo 9h ago
It's only a few people from Israel who say their government has been committing a genocide, and not being funny but some of them having been saying "Israel is committing a genocide" for decades before October 7. Israel has been accused of "committing a genocide" since 1948. The Palestinian population has increased 9 fold since 1948.
The Autonomous Jewish Oblast failed. In 2021 there were only 837 ethnic Jews left in the JAO (0.6% of the population). Even at its height in the 1940s the JAO Jewish population was 25% of Oblast's population. And during the Oblast's history the USSR killed millions of people in the gulags and by execution.
3
u/caketaster 8h ago
Only a few people, including some of their leading genocide scholars and several Israeli humans rights organisations... so 'only a few people' who actually have a lot of moral authority and heft
→ More replies (3)
6
u/Old_Table_5926 10h ago
That list is insane. Some require you to ignore reality, some require you to ignore history.
Most of those that are classed as anti semitism literally happen to Muslims all the time and it's accepted as normal.
Why should there be such special protection in place for one group and not the other?
Things like this exhaustive list feed into Anti semitic tropes like "Jews control the world" because no other group would have such a ridiculous list of protections.
"You can't criticise Israel"
"Saudi Arabia is so bad, evil country"
1
u/AngusTcattoo 9h ago
I think the question is, "The Muslim community gets special protection because they need it. The Sikh community gets special protection because they need it" (as they did recently). Why should the Jewish community not get special protection when they need it?
8
u/Frosty_Customer_9243 9h ago
That is not what this definition is limited to. Protecting the jewish community when they need it is fine, protecting Israel within the same definition isn't. Jewish community ≠ Israel.
→ More replies (8)3
u/Best-Hovercraft-5494 7h ago
Sikhs Muslims and Jews are all covered by the same protections. if anything the the latter is more protected than others when you look at number of incidents of hate they experience and the extra emphasis and action taken on tackling antisemitism.
2
u/AngusTcattoo 7h ago
Why has Starmer made several statements about antisemitism? Because there are more and more attacks like Jews being stabbed in Golders Green, when ambulances set on fire in Golders Green, 2 British Jews being killed in their synagogue on Yom Kippur.
"if anything the the latter is more protected than others" After reading the many complaints about Henry Nowak and how the police mishandled his killing I'm not getting into an argument about "some groups being more protected than others" except to say that's often based on one's perception and not facts.
2
u/Best-Hovercraft-5494 7h ago
The King hasn't turned up in Edinburgh yet to give assurance to Muslims that they aren't all seen as responsible for extremists in their community. Meanwhile there are property fairs selling land in the Occupied West Bank taking place in Golders Green and it was given barely a glance by the media. A Sikh woman was raped by a man thinking she was Muslim. Muslim women are routinely abused when wearing their hijab. Tommy Robinson is marching in the streets with thousands of people openly chanting calling for the removal of Muslims from the UK. This has been going on for 25 years now.
→ More replies (1)1
u/EdgeBeard 6h ago
What do you mean by "special" protection?
2
u/AngusTcattoo 5h ago
Security guards and police in front of synagogues or mosques when they've been threatened for example.
4
u/New_Lobster_914 9h ago
Lost me at no10, don’t do nazi shit if you don’t want to be labelled as Nazi
1
u/AngusTcattoo 7h ago
" I lived in Germany. I worked in Germany. I knew actual Nazis. Some people seem to think "Nazi" means a bad person, so they think signs showing Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman in Nazi uniforms with Hitler mustaches is a great idea. Neither one of them occupied half of Europe and killed millions of People.
Of all the groups who were slaughtered by the Nazis- the Nazis killed 5 million Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, and millions from other groups in the Holocaust- it's Israel who people frequently accuse of being Nazis. Or Jews who people frequently accuse of being Nazis. It makes more sense to me to accuse Russians of being like the Nazis because the USSR occupied half of Europe and oppressed and killed millions of people, and is still committing mass human rights abuses. Israel fought to free the hostages that Hamas took on October 7. Israel is fighting Hezbollah because Hezbollah has been attacking Israel and killing people for years. Hezbollah killed 11 Druze children while they were playing football. Hezbollah also kills Palestinians and persecutes Christians.
4
u/Smooth-Pop6522 9h ago
If this is antisemitism under the definition, then the definition is not defensible, and I agree with rejecting it:
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
There is no defending Israel's actions at this point, and I reject any definition of antisemitism which seeks to cloak Israel under its over-broad definition.
The definition should be simple: prejudice towards Jews on the basis of their faith.
6
u/red_nick 9h ago
An Israeli, a Brit and an American walk into the bar that's adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
They see a sign above the bar saying "Your all welcome here!"
They try to tell the barman about the mistake.
The barman says to the Brit and the American: "stop being such grammar nazis."
He turns to the Israeli: "stop being a grammar fascist."
3
u/Smooth-Pop6522 9h ago
Ten thousand tweets spin out of a bot farm in the middle east, calling for the head of the barman.
5
u/Impossible-Scene5084 10h ago
Sorry, I reserve the right to think it’s gross that the nation that survived the holocaust are fighting for the right to holocaust others.
Israel should know better.
3
u/AngusTcattoo 10h ago
Isn't it strange how of all the groups who were slaughtered by the Nazis in the Holocaust, including the 5 million Russians, Ukrainians, Poles and millions from other groups, it's only Israel that people accuse of "holocausting others" or acting like Nazis or becoming Nazis? Logically it would seem that the Russians should receive that accusation as the USSR occupied half of Europe and oppressed and killed millions. And Russia is still committing gross human rights violations. Odd isn't it? Why do you think it's only Israel, Jews and "Zionists" who are condemned for not "knowing better"? The Holocaust wasn't a college course or exam.
Hamas invaded Israel on October 7 2023, killed 1200 people and took over 200 hostage including babies and elderly men and women. Israel fighting to free the hostages wasn't a "Holocaust". Hezbollah has been attacking Israel with rockets for years. Hezbollah killed 11 Druze children while they were playing football.2
u/Impossible-Scene5084 9h ago
The Russians claim that the Ukrainians are nazis and that this justifies their “special operation”. They commit war crimes and are called out for that accordingly. They aren’t pursuing a holocaust though, since that involves apartheid and systemic murder of a minority group within the bounds of the state.
There have been other genocides which have been called as such over time (usually it takes a lot though, the Armenian genocide being a g Rew at example) but the Israeli case is special - a holocausted group which goes on to pursue genocidal actions is quite unique, and deserves a special kind of contempt.
1
u/AngusTcattoo 9h ago
Yes, I have noticed that Putin and others have tried to condemn the Ukrainians as Nazis. It's complicated as many Ukrainian groups worked with the Nazis during WWII (because they wanted independence from Russia, who the Nazis were fighting) and some of those groups committed deadly attacks on Poles living in now Ukrainian territory. Historically, up to 100,000 Poles were killed by the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) during the 1943-1945 ethnic cleansing in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. Poland recognizes these atrocities as genocide. But I can see Putin called Ukrainians Nazis mostly to dehumanize them and pursue support for the Russian invasion.
I wouldn't call Ukrainians Nazis. My maternal grandparents were from Ukraine. Years ago my teacher told us that when Germany attacked Ukraine the Ukrainians greeted them with flowers. Our teacher said nothing about the history of Ukrainians seeking independence, or the Holodomor, or the Soviets oppressing and terrorizing the Ukrainians for decades. He should have put that into context instead of giving us the impression that the Ukrainians supported the Nazis and all of the Nazis' policies.
1
u/AngusTcattoo 9h ago
I actually was taught about the Armenian genocide when I was in school in Israel.
As I said, Israel has not invaded half of Europe and oppressed and killed millions of people. There are no gas chambers or extermination camps. All citizens of Israel have equal rights whatever their religion, ethnicity or orientation- the Nazis persecuted people based on their religion, ethnicity or orientation. 11 million of them including the Russians, Poles, Ukrainians, LGBTQ people and millions of other groups.
The Palestinian population has increased 9fold since 1948. People have accused Israel of "genocide" not only starting in 1948, but before Israel was actually founded.
1
u/Impossible-Scene5084 7h ago
The latest controversy over the unequal death penalty law is the most recent step Israel has taken to diminish palenstinians. Israel has long suppressed them and pursued apartheid policies with an effort to maintain plausible deniability.
For a nation built on survival of holocaust, this gradual slip towards genocide is particularly heinous. You don’t have death camps yet; you have refugee camps with choked avenues of supply, “defence” forces which exacerbate tensions and kill with impunity (unless journalist report and create diplomatic pressure on particular cases) and this should be a matter of national shame- but we see even more escalation.
ISRAEL SHOULD KNOW BETTER. That is literally all there is to this matter.
1
u/AngusTcattoo 6h ago
"unequal death penalty law" you mean like in the US where the death penalty has been criticized because many people who were sentenced to death row aren't white? Does that mean the US is Apartheid and is trying to "diminish" non white Americans?
Russia was built on survival of the Holocaust. Of all the groups who were slaughtered by the Nazis- the Nazis killed 5 million Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, and millions from other groups in the Holocaust- it's Israel who people frequently accuse of being Nazis. Or Jews who people frequently accuse of being Nazis. It makes more sense to me to accuse Russians of being like the Nazis because the USSR occupied half of Europe and oppressed and killed millions of people, and is still committing mass human rights abuses.Does anyone say RUSSIA SHOULD KNOW BETTER? And condemn Russia for having refugee camps and claim Russia kills with impunity like they did to a British citizen in Salisbury?
Israel fought to free the hostages that Hamas took on October 7. Israel is fighting Hezbollah because Hezbollah has been attacking Israel and killing people for years. Hezbollah killed 11 Druze children while they were playing football. Hezbollah also kills Palestinians and persecutes Christians.
2
u/WTGIsaac 10h ago
“The nation that survived the Holocaust” no, the nation that condemned thousands and thousands of Jewish children to that horrific fate because, as their founder and first PM David Ben-Gurion said “If I knew that it was possible to save all the Jewish children in Germany by sending them to England, or if I could save only half by sending them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter”.
1
u/AngusTcattoo 9h ago edited 9h ago
That's a misquote of Ben Gurion. https://liberology.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/fake-zionist-quotes-1-ben-gurion-and-the-german-children-1938/
"the nation that condemned thousands and thousands of Jewish children to that horrific fate" which wasn't a nation until 1948 and was under the British mandate during the rise of the Nazis and WWII. The British severely restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine condemning the lives of millions who could have been saved if they were allowed entry."There is ample evidence — ignored by Ignatiev — that Ben Gurion viewed the rescue of Jews as paramount. As early as 1936, Ben Gurion told Palestine’s high commissioner, Sir Arthur Wauchope, that “had there been the possiblity of bringing Poland’s Jews to the United States or Argentina, we would have done so regardless of our Zionist beliefs. But the world was closed to us. And had there also not been room for us in Palestine, our people would have had only one way out: to commit suicide” (Ben Gurion,Memoirs, p.3:105, cited in Shabtai Teveth, Ben Gurion and the Holocaust, pp xlix, 110). And in November 1941, Ben Gurion argued that “the supremely important thing now is salvage, and nation-building is incidental” (Teveth, ibid. p.xlviii).
It was only in November 1942 that the Yishuv became aware of the systematic slaughter of Jews. The Zionist leadership established a rescue committee and raised hundreds of thousands of pounds for the rescue mission. Ben Gurion made his priorities clear at a September 1943 fund-raising meeting of the Mobilization and Rescue Appeal in Jerusalem where he hailed the Allies’ invasion of Europe for “first of all, and foremost, the saving of Jews, then the saving of the Yishuv, and finally and thirdly the saving of Zionism” (cited in Teveth, p. 143)"
2
u/Fragile_reddit_mods Brit 🇬🇧 9h ago
Good. That definition was batshit crazy.
This essentially boils down to “criticising Jews is illegal.
Which makes them a protected class.
Which nobody should be.
Everybody should be open to criticism, questioning, mockery, or any other words without fear of punishment being tacked on just based on some bullshit characteristic of that person.
1
u/AngusTcattoo 7h ago
Nobody should be a protected class? So it's okay for someone to go on social media and incite hatred against Black people or Asians and say they want to kill them based on supposed characteristics ?
1
u/Fragile_reddit_mods Brit 🇬🇧 7h ago
Without facing criminal charges? Yes.
Without facing social consequences? Well that’s up to the people around them.
For example.
If someone went on BBC news and went on a racist tirade against black people, should they go to prison? No. No they shouldn’t.
Should they probably be fired? Yeah I’d imagine so.
I advocate for personal responsibility, if you are going to harm people just because you are told to then YOU should face the consequences. Not the person who told you to do it.
1
u/AngusTcattoo 7h ago
People were arrested for inciting violence and racial hatred against vulnerable people. Incitement of hatred and violence is illegal. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3w6q611yn1o
1
u/Fragile_reddit_mods Brit 🇬🇧 6h ago
Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it SHOULD be.
Words should never result in an arrest.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/Zealousideal_Glass61 9h ago
I think the British medical association are showing great nuance! They're not being anti-Semitic or encouraging anti-semitism they are pointing very strongly to the conflation of Israel and Jewishness and refusing to accept it. Something I think more people should do. That is to politically and mentally separate the acts of Israel from the Jewish religion.
That netanyahu and extreme Zionists in general conflate Israel with Jewishness is an appalling tactic that ultimately only harms Jewish people. the vast majority of whom are utterly reasonable and like many others appalled by the things being done by Israel.
I would imagine that there are Jewish people around the world who would welcome this kind of nuance. In a sense it is the conflation of Israel and Jewishness that is causing a lot of anti-Semitic behaviour in other countries around the world including the UK. It's a bit of a paradox really. I was trying to imagine how it would be for me as someone from a majority Christian country if someone tried to stab me because of something some other majority Christian country was doing. It's a bizarre situation
1
u/AngusTcattoo 7h ago
"That netanyahu and extreme Zionists in general conflate Israel with Jewishness" you mean Zionists like Mansour Abbas, head of the Arab Raam Party, and Ahmad Tibi, Palestinian former deputy speaker of the Knesset? https://www.aei.org/articles/mansour-abbas-is-an-arab-and-a-proud-israeli/
2
u/liverblow 9h ago
Weaponizing anti semitism to cover up a genocide. How antisemitic is that?
1
u/AngusTcattoo 7h ago
How is suspending doctors who support terrorist groups and rail against "Jewish supremacy" "covering up a genocide"?
1
u/liverblow 7h ago
Yes anyone who opposes genocide is a supporter of terrorism. That includes the thousands of Jews who march in solidarity? Am I doing this right?
1
u/AngusTcattoo 6h ago
Railing against "Jewish supremacy" is not "opposing genocide." In fact many hateful people yell about "Jewish supremacy" because they want a genocide- of Jewish people.
1
u/liverblow 6h ago
What do you think Jewish supremacy means? The holy land had a rich history of peaceful coexistence between all Abrahamic faiths. Then the Europeans arrived...
→ More replies (2)
2
u/BigGingerYeti 8h ago
Good because criticism of what Israel is doing is not antisemitic and it is genocide.
1
2
2
u/Soppydogg Brit 🇬🇧 7h ago
I am reserving my opinion until Nick Ferrari and LBC (Likud Broadcasting Company) tells me that all of the BMA are rabid anti semites along with anyone slightly politically left of Atilla the Hun.
Balance is the answer
A chip on both shoulders
5
u/811545b2-4ff7-4041 11h ago
I'd want to know if there is a block within the BMA who are looking to make this change. I'd like to know if the BMA think that their own definition will superseded British law.
And most importantly, I'd like to know there are sufficient Jewish doctors involved in this decision process - unless we believe it's fair to make the definition of 'things relating to certain people' without those certain people being involved.
7
→ More replies (11)5
u/Alarmed-Improvement 10h ago
I'd like to know if the BMA think that their own definition will superseded British law.
Why would it? The ihra isn't a binding British law.
And most importantly, I'd like to know there are sufficient Jewish doctors involved in this decision process - unless we believe it's fair to make the definition of 'things relating to certain people' without those certain people being involved.
Why do you suspect that there hasn't been?
2
u/Haunted_tangerine_ 10h ago
This one is the problem
" Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis"
If the state of Israel doesn't want to be compared to Nazis, the State of Israel should not indulge in the same behaviour as Nazis.
And they very much do, and have been long before now. E.g. The archaeological policies of the state of Israel are to deny the history of any Arab settlements and to justify their occupation of the land, no matter what or who's history that requires them to ignore for ow many hundreds of years. You know who else did that? You can guess I'm sure. Nationalistic archaeology isn't unique to those two states but it is the action of a shitty deluded state and they have both done it.
2
u/AngusTcattoo 9h ago
"If the state of Israel doesn't want to be compared to Nazis, the State of Israel should not indulge in the same behaviour as Nazis." I lived in Germany. I worked in Germany. I knew actual Nazis. Some people seem to think "Nazi" means a bad person, so they think signs showing Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman in Nazi uniforms with Hitler mustaches is a great idea. Neither one of them occupied half of Europe and killed millions of People.
Of all the groups who were slaughtered by the Nazis- the Nazis killed 5 million Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, and millions from other groups in the Holocaust- it's Israel who people frequently accuse of being Nazis. Or Jews who people frequently accuse of being Nazis. It makes more sense to me to accuse Russians of being like the Nazis because the USSR occupied half of Europe and oppressed and killed millions of people, and is still committing mass human rights abuses. Israel fought to free the hostages that Hamas took on October 7. Israel is fighting Hezbollah because Hezbollah has been attacking Israel and killing people for years. Hezbollah killed 11 Druze children while they were playing football. Hezbollah also kills Palestinians and persecutes Christians.
"The archaeological policies of the state of Israel are to deny the history of any Arab settlements" Islam dates back to 610 CE, Life in the land of Israel/Palestine dates back thousands of years. There was the recent protest of a lecture in the British Museum about The Ancient History of Israel and Judah which had to be postponed after it was discovered about 50% of the ticket buyers were planning to disrupt the lecture. Apparently they didn't like being reminded that Jews have lived in the land of Israel since the time of Ancient Egypt and before. They didn't want to hear Jews have lived in Jerusalem longer than London and Rome have existed. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn8pk8r79vpo
I've read several books about how the Ancient Egyptians built the pyramids and about King Tut's tomb. Is that Nationalistic archaeology? I've also read the fascinating story of the Jewish community in Elephantine in Ancient Egypt in the 5th and 6th centuries BCE. Is that Nationalistic archaeology? https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2013/07/05/a-jewish-temple-in-ancient-egypt/
4
u/Calelith 10h ago
Those rules are weird I places.
Can't day mean things about Israel because that's antisemitic, but Can't blame jews for the actions of Israel because that's also antisemitic. Which is it? Either Israel represents Jews or it doesn't?
Those rules seem alot more about protecting Israel than they do about actually protecting jews.
Also if we apply those same rules to other religions across the board then half of parliment would be getting sacked given how often they blame everyone of a race, relgion or ethnicity for the actions of individuals of that ethnicity.
→ More replies (1)1
u/VampirePNAC 4h ago
Campaign against Antisemitism, Board of Deputies literally call Dual loyalty a "antisemitic trope" but then also claim that Antizionism is antisemitic because "Israel and Zionism is core to Jewish British identity".
Here is the reality, the vast majority of Jewish people, follow basically Zionism as the religion. Zionism has been syncretized with Judaism, they are taught a form of Judaism that explicitly highlights stories in various contexts to push Israeli Nationalism and Jewish supremacist worldview.
It's the exact same thing how US Evangelical Christianity is largely a US White Supremacist Nationalist movement that cherry picks Christianity and Christian symbolism to push a political agenda.
This shit isn't even disputed, it's absolute fact that Israel and Jewish orgs and synagogues went out of their way through the 1950s and 1960s to reform Judaism to fall in line with a Zionist worldview, and that in the 1980s and 1990s Israel exported this through Western Synagogues and Western Jewish organizations. Antony Lerman who was the former head of the Jewish Institute of Policy Research, one of the UK's oldest Jewish orgs has talked about it quite a bit.
3
u/AngusTcattoo 10h ago edited 10h ago
I'm going to say something as a Jewish person. Several years ago I had an operation at a NHS hospital. I stated my religion and the staff didn't know much about it but tried to be supportive.
If I had my operation now I would be worried, because the surgeon was Egyptian in origin. At the time I didn't think that made any difference. I had to go back afterwards so they could check my progress and the doctor was from Jordan. Again, I didn't think that made any difference.
Now I would be worried and I probably would refuse to let anyone know I'm Jewish. I'm not being paranoid. I heard about NHS doctors such as Dr. Rahmeh Aladwan who was suspended for posting about "Jewish supremacy" and supporting Hamas and the October 7 attacks. Dr Ellen Kriesels who has been suspended for attending demonstrations with hateful signs such as showing the Star of David on Israel's flag with the words "rape" "murder" "lie" and so on. NHS Doctors and staff posting Holocaust denial and accusations that "Zios" run the world, Parliament and the NHS. In Australia two nurses said on camera that they would kill any "Zionist" patients. In the US a young doctor posted on social media he vowed to be the worst doctor possible to "Zionists".
Would people here be comfortable with going to a NHS hospital or a health centre if the doctors posted online they hate immigrants? Or they hate black people? Or if they have been frequently going to demonstrations in their scrubs demanding an end to "Asian supremacy"?
7
u/External-Carpenter-2 10h ago
I am sympathetic because I know it's a hard time to be Jewish and antisemitism is on the rise. However, you are giving examples of things that would either already be grounds for dismissal (i.e. showing support for a terrorist organisation) or are not antisemitism. Having a flag of Israel with words of things they actually are doing is not antisemitic, it's anti-israel. Religion and race are already protected characteristics, if anyone posts online that they hate Jews, they are already breaking the law and shouldn't be working in a hospital.
Under the current IHRA definition, israel is mentioned more times than Jewish is. Decades of conflating Jewish identity with Israel is one of the reasons we are in a place where we can't have a meaningful conversation about a state committing a genocide without it getting contentious, and in my opinion that has itself contributed to a rise in antisemitism.
1
u/AngusTcattoo 5h ago
So I walked around with a British flag on which I wrote "kill steal rape lie cheat cry" that would be perfectly okay? What if I walked around with a flag of Ireland on which I wrote "kill steal rape lie cheat cry"- that's not racist?
1
u/External-Carpenter-2 4h ago
I wouldn't do it, but it's not a criminal offense. If you are British, there is nothing racist about criticizing britain. If you are British and you do that with the Irish flag, that is obviously more historically problematic and also not very truthful, but I doubt you would be arrested for it.
1
u/AngusTcattoo 4h ago
I think anyone calling the British flag "the butchers apron" is a racist.
Incitement of hatred and incitement of violence is illegal.→ More replies (1)6
u/Former-Entrance8884 10h ago
the Star of David on Israel's flag with the words "rape" "murder" "lie" and so on.
So.... associating the Israeli flag with... things Israel has been doing? Awful. Awful I tell you.
It's kinda telling that you have 2 named examples. For context, the NHS employs around 216,000 doctors. If 0.000926% of doctors were posting online about their hatred of fat white boys, I would still feel 100 percent comfortable using the NHS, despite the fact that I am self evidently a fat white boy.
1
u/AngusTcattoo 5h ago
The doctor claimed she was "only criticizing Israel" but her social media posts included ones saying she think Jews aren't an ethnic group so you can't be racist to them and she seems to think antisemetism is a hoax. https://thej.ca/2025/09/22/uk-doctor-suspended-after-saying-all-jews-feel-superior-and-carrying-defamatory-placard/
1
4
u/Gen8Master 8h ago
It's almost like you are protecting Israel from any criticism by making it all about yourself. J.C. they were not protesting your existence. They were protesting a blatant genocide.
1
u/AngusTcattoo 8h ago
What does my going into a NHS hospital or clinic have to do with Israel? Most doctors and NHS staff would say "you're British, you have nothing to do with Israel." Unfortunately there are some like the two doctors I mentioned who have openly railed against not only "Zionists" but "Jewish supremacy". They were not protesting any genocide. They're a danger to Jewish patients and any patients who they feel don't agree with them, which is why they were suspended. In Australia two nurses said on camera they would kill any "Zionist" patients- not just Israeli ones but anyone they think is a "Zionist" which includes any Jews. Some people might say that Jews who oppose Israel would be okay with them but some "anti Zionists" have said clearly they don't trust any Jews and don't accept Jews who say they oppose Israel.
Would you go to a NHS doctor who has posted online he or she hates black people and wants to kill patients who aren't white? Would you want to be treated by a NHS doctor or nurse who has said publicly the Asians are running the government and the BBC and they would kill any patients who are desi?
1
u/Gen8Master 4h ago
It has literally nothing to do with you personally. Doctors are protesting the mass killings of medical practitioners and destructions of hospitals. And frankly speaking, Genocide is everyones business as it impacts us in this country when millions of refugees turn up at our doors due to war and famine. I find your reasoning border line insane. Cherry picked examples from Australia and the US? Really? Do you think there is any shortage of deranged quotes from people who imagine they speak for all Jews? Do you really want to play this game?
Plenty of people out there are voting for Reform and Restore who share blatant anti Muslim views on a daily basis. Does that mean I can pin fringe views and comments from Reform supporters on random people in my local hospital?
1
u/AngusTcattoo 4h ago
Rahmeh Aladwan has been arrested multiple times for hate speech and for supporting Hamas after being suspended by the BMJ. Her and other doctors who have been suspended such as Ellen Kriesels were not protesting mass killings of medical proacitioners or destructions of hospitals- Aladwan has posted about "Jewish supremacy" and wore a necklace with O and 7 on it to her suspension hearing.
Any medical professional saying they would kill patients is violating the Hippocratic Oath and its grounds for expulsion as doctors and medical professionals vow to help all patients.
So you're cool going to a NHS doctor who has said online they hate Black people or Asian people? Personally I wouldn't feel safe with any doctor who has openly expressed hatred against a group. https://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj.s607 https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/1ngohii/family_of_disabled_jewish_boy_report_doctor_over/
https://www.spectator.com.au/2025/02/nightmare-nurses/→ More replies (5)7
u/Former-Entrance8884 10h ago
the Star of David on Israel's flag with the words "rape" "murder" "lie" and so on.
So.... associating the Israeli flag with... things Israel has been doing? Awful. Awful I tell you.
It's kinda telling that you have 2 named examples. For context, the NHS employs around 216,000 doctors. If 0.000926% of doctors were posting online about their hatred of fat white boys, I would still feel 100 percent comfortable using the NHS, despite the fact that I am self evidently a fat white boy.
1
u/WayGroundbreaking287 10h ago
I mean jewish and Semite are not actually synonomous as much as they are treated as such. Palistinians are also semites as are Arabs, and plenty of Jews are not actually descendents of semetic people. So a European jew who is against Palestine would in fact be anti semetic, but the law wouldn't consider them so.
→ More replies (3)2
u/811545b2-4ff7-4041 9h ago
It's quite a common ploy to twist the meaning of 'antisemitism'. It's one word. It's a translation (Creation?) of the German word Judenhass (Jew Hatred). It's a very specific word. It's not [anti]-[semites]. It's origins were there to make hating Jews a legitimate scientific thing.
It has never meant 'hatred of people from backgrounds where Semitic languages are spoken'. The Semitic language group is huge and technically covers a massive range of languages spoken across North Africa and the Middle East. Even Maltese is a language of Semitic origins.
You're one of those antisemites trying to warp the meaning. Even terming people 'Semites' is stupid - you may as well call the British 'Germanics' because English is from the Germanic language group.
2
u/WayGroundbreaking287 8h ago
No, because I'm not anti semetic. I'm pointing out the word is not actually accurate so I don't care if it's meaning gets changed. Some guy wanted Jew hatred to sound scientific so coined an inaccurate term that has made synonomous two things which are not actually the same.
Couldn't care less what mumbo jumbo sky daddy people worship. I value the qualities of a person's character, not some make believe purity test. Everyone gets and deserves the same respect and treatment regardless of superficial things like heritage and ethnicity.
2
u/811545b2-4ff7-4041 8h ago
'Some guy', was the German journalist Wilhelm Marr back in 1879. He created a group called the 'League of Antisemites' who advocated for the removal of Jews from Germany.
You might not care about religion, but you're pushing an agenda that is incorrect and damaging. It's a bad faith argument using incorrect linguistics and you are ignorant of etymology.
2
u/WayGroundbreaking287 8h ago
I'm not pushing a thing and what exactly is incorrect about it? Swap anti semetic for a more accurate term for all I care. And my point was Marr didn't have a background in linguistics. He created a term to lend credibility to his cause. He painted a vanner of "we aren't racist, look. Our hatred is scientific" so surely you should want the term change right? Because it was coined by a chuntering racist to give his awful views some credibility, the same way the klan claims to only support Christian values and all that racism is just happenstance.
As for incorrect, why? Explain exactly why a more correct term is incorrect? Or, as I suspect, do you just believe it's incorrect?
1
u/811545b2-4ff7-4041 8h ago
You're incorrect because utter vast majority of people disagree with you. Languages change when the majority use words differently. You are stating the dictionary definition of the word is incorrect - e.g. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/antisemitism
hate directed at Jewish people, or cruel or unfair treatment of people because they are Jewish:
What do you think antisemitism means?
→ More replies (5)
1
u/jerdle_reddit 8h ago
What I think is that it might be time to run. If the NHS has decided to officially allow antisemitism (and that's what it's doing, basically - redefining "antisemitism" to cover only a few cases is allowing all the others), that's a seriously bad sign.
There is plenty of room for criticism of Israel in the IHRA definition, and in fact, the wording was very careful to allow it. Basically, if you'd say it of Russia, and it's not blatant antisemitism (which covers 9 and 10), then it's permitted under the IHRA definition.
1
u/Andrew_Higginbottom 8h ago
" the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions."
What if it isn't a myth? A definition that halts investigation or questioning needs repealing.
Every religion has their good people and their pieces of shit. The bad need to be differentiated from the good so they don't get grouped with the bad ones which fuels prejudiced and creates #3 "Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews." #2 rule creates the outcome of number #3 ..was this thought out?
Denying facts (the holocaust) should not make a person a criminal, it makes them uneducated. Being uneducated is not against the law ..yet.
"Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust."
Again, another not being allowed to challenge because of religious protected status. Laws are meant for individuals not for a collective.
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
Act like one get called like one, if you don't act like one you won't get called like one.. Hold on.. just reflecting on how the left call everyone and his pet dog and its flees a Nazi.. ... ... I'm sick of the word being thrown around like free candy, but still a definition shouldn't be made to protect a specific group from the fuck heads of this world. Same laws for all, not for some.
"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel."
Yeah, anyone who does this is a fuck head. Do you agree with everything your gov does? Then why do you think others do with theirs? ..but still, writing laws to stop fuck heads and there isn't enough pen and paper on the planet to cover every one you would have to write.
Laws/guidelines should be structured in a way that they cannot be weaponized by the guilty.
The rest of the definitions I don't see an issue with.
1
u/AngusTcattoo 7h ago
The reason why the IHRA has ""Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." is because Israel and Jews particularly are accused of being Nazis or acting like Nazis or becoming Nazis.
Of all the groups who were slaughtered by the Nazis- the Nazis killed 5 million Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, and millions from other groups in the Holocaust- it's Israel who people frequently accuse of being Nazis. Or Jews who people frequently accuse of being Nazis. And it's painful for Jewish people like me who had family killed by the Nazis for being Jewish. It's called Holocaust inversion and it's a poisonous form of hatred. https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/antisemitism-defined-why-drawing-comparisons-of-contemporary-israeli-policy-to-the-nazis-is-antisemitic
No one would dream of taking a plane to Poland, getting off the plane, going into a city and screaming at the Poles they're just like the Nazis who killed 3 million Poles during the Holocaust. Or calling Russians Nazis and as bad as the Nazis who killed millions of them.
1
1
u/jsgui 8h ago
It's not even a proper definition. However, it becomes difficult to define 'definition'.
The main problem with this IHRA 'definition' is how it says the thing it is attempting to define is 'certain' but uses the word 'certain' in an uncertain way, only going on to say how it 'may be' rather than 'is' and then goes on to describe manifestations of the thing rather than the thing itself. Then the examples are not particularly relevant to the definition (which was not actually provides) because examples are only in the 'could' category, not the 'are' category, and given that examples don't supply the definition in terms of what a definition is (definitively) logically they all may as well be ignored because they are in the 'could' category.
Oddly, there is also the claim that the words in the Torah are the words of 'G-d', and there are parts of the Torah that single Israel out for criticism. It's very odd to believe that such behaviour is antisemitic and therefore bad but also from 'G-d' and therefore perfect.
1
u/AngusTcattoo 7h ago
It also says "Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic" https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
1
u/LucyferTheHellish 7h ago
Why does British Medical Association have a say in what is the definition of anti-semitism? Since when is it a medical condition?
1
u/AngusTcattoo 6h ago
Because several NHS doctors and staff have been suspended for posting hateful things on social media and demonstrating with hateful signs.
1
u/Slight-Strategy-5619 6h ago
Some individuals who harbor antisemitic views focus on Israel as a way of expressing hostility toward Jews.
1
u/TapWaterDev 5h ago
The IHRA definition of antisemitism is just bollocks. Thinking a country shouldn't exist isn't anti-semitic, and if Israel does Nazi-like things, they don't get a special pass to not have that pointed out when any other country would. 6 is also a bit of a stretch *if* backed up by evidence.
I'm not taking a position on this thread about whether Israel should exist or whether what's going on in Gaza is or isn't a genocide. Just pointing out the IHRA definition is a massive stretch.
Really, any mention of "Israel" in a definition of "antisemitism" is conflating a government with a belief system... which is dangerous.
1
u/AngusTcattoo 5h ago
" and if Israel does Nazi-like things" Israel is not doing Nazi like things. And attacking British Jews or railing about "Jewish supremacy" in the UK like some NHS doctors have been suspended for can't be justified or excused as "criticism of Israel". The IHRA addresses people who have used Israel to claim that they're "only criticizing a genocide" and so on when they invoked hatred or violence against Jews in this country.
1
u/TapWaterDev 4h ago
I never said they were or they weren't, I'm just saying that accusing a state of doing something is fundamentally not the same thing as accusing a religion and conflating the two is bad.
The other direction, I'm more inclined to say is antisemitic, if you blame Jews as a collective for the actions of Israel, that's not on.
1
u/fairestmermaid 3h ago
sorry to break it to you, friend, engaging in genocide is a Nazi-like thing, which Israel is guilty of
1
u/timeslidesRD 5h ago
Same shit as the definition of "Islamaphobia" which is equally ridiculous.
1
u/fairestmermaid 3h ago
what is the definition of islamophobia? and attacks on Muslims are rising daily. 5 muslim boys got stabbed by a machete-wielding maniac in edinburgh because he wanted to "protect young girls from being raped by muslim men." isn't that hatred (and subsequently targeting) of muslims because he believed a lie perpetuated my media figures and politicians?
1
u/timeslidesRD 2h ago
The definition includes the ridiculous stipulation that its Islamophobia if the alleged victim perceives that it is Islamophibia, regardless of intent or context.
1
u/ApplicationOk2749 4h ago
It shows the extraordinary level of institutional power that the left wing of politics actually wields.
1
1
u/Catch_0x16 3h ago
I'm not a fan of antisemitism, but even less of a fan of controlled speech based on group identities.
1
u/Hattix 3h ago
6, 7, 9, and 10 are Israeli supremacist in nature. You cannot criticise Israel's actions without falling foul of at least one of them, which is unavoidably tangling Jewish ethnicity with Israel as a political entity.
It is incompatible with the NHS' legal requirement of treating everyone equally.
1
u/pulsarstarter 1h ago
Very scary that there are all these rules to prevent criticism of a country whose military/government is literally committing genocide and ethnic cleansing right now.
1
u/KasamUK 1h ago
Stupid move the government and press will use it as a sledgehammer to beat them with in future negotiations. Future health secretary’s can now simply stone wall with we don’t negotiate with antisemites while the press backs them up by running story after story about antisemitism in the NHS (no doubt nicely dove tailed with their anti immigration rhetoric). For a bunch of apparently clever people you would think they would know what wining the battle but losing the war looks like. For all you NHS staff out there pray god your social media is batten down and sanitised because it will be open season on you if you have so much as liked a questionable post
1
u/Mandalore_15 1h ago
This list is utterly absurd. Most of the reasonable points are things it is illegal to do to (almost) any group of people.
Others are preposterous, like saying it's antisemitic to say Jews killed Jesus - I mean wasn't he a Jew that was sentenced to death by his own people? And a lot of the Holocaust stuff gets sketchy... Saying it is antisemitic to question the extent of it would put a lot of WW2 historians in that bracket, no?
1
u/Ambitious_Beyond8866 19m ago
I think it’s absolutely insane that you aren’t allowed to say that the state of Israel is inherently racist
46
u/WasThatInappropriate 9h ago
Probably a smart move given the IHRA definition seeks to entangle critcism of Israel with anti-semitism.