Post

so legally "my jewish principles require palestinian freedom," which is a true statement and not a rare one among american jews, is legally antisemitic now. fuck everything about this.

it is sickeningly abhorrent that in the middle of widespread pro-palestinian protests and encampments demanding a ceasefire, the house has responded by passing a bill that legally defines being anti-zionist or criticizing israel as anti-semitic for the purposes of enforcing anti-discrimination laws.

of course the post that goes viral is the one where i elide an understanding of the american legislative process in favor of pith. at least it's for being principled and not a shitpost.

Not yet! It still has to get past the Senate, and be signed by the President. But it’s pretty disgusting that it got this far, and got as many votes as it did from both parties.

And as horrific as it is, it's specifically for the department of education for title vi discrimination claims. So far.

I want to ask a very clear and specific question: what would possibly make you think that Senate and President Biden do not adore, and would not gladly endorse this bill?

He never said they wouldn't. He made a simple factual statement: It's not yet law.

If the Senate passes it tomorrow, and Biden signs it on Friday, would that change the fact that right now, on Wednesday, it is not yet the law of the land?

if you have no intent to comply, and no quislings report you: no difference whatsoever

The thing is, I don't think there's any way this doesn't pass the Senate, and I bet Biden will sign it

Brought forward by two guys who are not Jewish. Fuck this bill, its cosponsors, and everyone who voted for it

Schumer cannot bring this bill to the Senate floor otherwise he's a traitor and wants the first amendment to be abolished.

Marj valiantly refused to vote for this law, let’s not worry too much about why

Gawd! 🤮

Well we know she isn’t antisemitic because she’s got Israel’s back

😦 ffs - please, Jebus, rapture her up now!!!

In her case? The correct direction is *down*; rapture her ass DOWN.

Well, no. The definition is fairly milquetoast, but it was accompanied by 11 illustrative examples that are explicitly endorsed in this bill. Several of those examples are problematic, but none suggest that your statement qualifies. Definition and list: holocaustremembrance.com/resources/wo...

What is antisemitism?holocaustremembrance.com With the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, the IHRA built international consensus around an answer to the question, what does antisemitism mean?

There's an error establishing a database connection, somehow, that I realized when clicking the link.

Oh, huh. Me too. It was definitely working when I posted it. Must be getting some heavy traffic tonight.

I'm sorry but I don't understand. What part of the IHRA definition this bill uses makes that sentence antisemitic? holocaustremembrance.com/resources/wo...

What is antisemitism?holocaustremembrance.com With the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, the IHRA built international consensus around an answer to the question, what does antisemitism mean?

supporting palestinian rights is counter to the israeli government policy, therefore the assertion constitutes criticism of said government. the fact that it is *explicitly* based in a common stream of jewish principles/philosophy/theology is irrelevant to the new legal definition of "a = b".

if you want to say that i am wrong on the facts, you should make that assertion without getting into tedious socratic bullshit. and then explain how/why. this isn't a classroom.

Nothing in the IHRA says you are not able to criticize Isreal and it's government unless I'm missing something. I was hoping you could point out what I was missing and thought it was nicer to not just say "you're wrong" but my bad for the pop quiz

the IHRA principles used for this are vague and undefined enough to give cover for misuse, is the problem. I don't want this done at all, I don't want them involved and I don't want congress involved because neither of them have proven trustworthy actors in this stuff

What the actual *&$+ is politics coming to any more....

all of it.

How did you get that idea?

supporting palestinian rights is counter to the israeli government policy, therefore the assertion constitutes criticism of said government. the fact that it is *explicitly* based in a common stream of jewish principles/philosophy/theology is irrelevant to the new legal definition of "a = b".

Well then, why would you imagine that criticising Israel's government is illegal? I'm starting to wonder whether you have actually read the IHRA principles, or the bill adopting them as guidance for determining whether people have been discriminated against, at all.

the IHRA principles have been criticized many times by Jewish activists because they're purposely vague enough to give cover for 'well it doesn't SAY you can't criticize Israel but criticizing Israel makes me feel unsafe soooo' bullshit. They do this every time Israel is being criticized.

Please, do go on about the sly tactics used by Jews complaining about your antisemitism.

Joe I'm literally Jewish

Don't worry if you haven't, no one who voted for it did either