The United States House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed a bill that would expand the federal definition of anti-Semitism, despite opposition from civil liberties groups.
The bill passed the House on Wednesday by a margin of 320 to 91, and it is largely seen as a reaction to the ongoing antiwar protests unfolding on US university campuses. It now goes to the Senate for consideration.
If the bill were to become law, it would codify a definition of anti-Semitism created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
IHRA’s working definition of anti-Semitism is “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities”.
According to the IHRA, that definition also encompasses the “targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity”.
The group also includes certain examples in its definition to illustrate anti-Semitism. Saying, for instance, that “the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” would be deemed anti-Semitic under its terms. The definition also bars any comparison between “contemporary Israeli policy” and “that of the Nazis”.
Rights groups, however, have raised concerns the definition nevertheless conflates criticism of the state of Israel and Zionism with anti-Semitism.
In a letter sent to lawmakers on Friday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) urged House members to vote against the legislation, saying federal law already prohibits anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment.
“Instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism.”
bro you need to chill out. I’m all for criticizing Israel but if you use a name that has a bad ring to it (for example nazi) but is defined on an entirely different era, set of crimes, and political landscape, you cannot put forward a well-reasoned argument. if people continue to get up in their feelings and stray from reality, they’ll never change anything that is based in reality
There is a world of difference between taking issue with someone making a poorly received argument and a government deciding that making that argument is inherently illegal.
Shut up nazi
everyone who upvoted this comment is a brainlet social media activist and never did anything good for Palestine 👌😂 go on and confirm by downvoting here, polls are open.
Shut up nazi
shut up idiot 😂😂 (see, got it right. all i needed to do is use a dictionary, there’s an entry for you)
Fine fine. They aren’t Nazis. They are Ashka-Nazis
Hun, your slavish devotion to optics are shackles. Worse, you’re policing your peers, prioritizing the abstract appeal of your optics to a hypothetical other over their reality anchored and literal praxis.
Kill the cop in your head, babe. We’ll be over here when you’re ready.
where’s this from?