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.”
I’m a little confused why this is in the news. First off, it’s just a House Resolution. It’s has no legally binding repercussions. It’s basically the House of Representatives as a group making a statement: “We don’t like anti-Semitism”. The definition of anti-Semitism they decided to point to is the thing that’s really in contention. But again, this affects nobody but the US House of Representatives.
Secondly, the vote on this took place in December. So it seems kind of late to be raging over it.
Full text of the resolution: https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hres894/BILLS-118hres894ih.pdf
Summary of action: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/894/all-infoIf you’re in the US and it really bugs you, I’d suggest looking up how your district representative voted and let them know how you feel about it.
No, this definitely seems different and new from all the recent articles about it I’ve seen. This vote passed Wednesday, not in December. It’s a response to the protests at universities. And it’s a bill, so it can be passed into law. I think you’re confusing two different things.
This expands the definition of antisemitism to bring critical of Israel at all or comparing Zionism to Nazism, and would codify it into law if it, passes the Senate and is signed by the President. So there is still time to stop this, and it’s a big deal, so people should be angry about it.
Honestly, this was a helpful comment. And now I am super extra charged to vote Jimmy Gomez out.
I have contacted all my reps several times about Palestine and cease fire and the only response has been that they fully support Israel against the terrorists. They don’t care about our opinion.
Democracy amirite
Get it in writing and share it
If the Israelis don’t want to be compared to Nazis maybe they ought to stop acting like Nazis
It would also help if more than a handful of people in the House knew semitic is a pretty archaic term and would include Palestinians in Gaza as well as Israelis and people from several other countries as well.
Protected classes are race, religion, national origin, age, pregnancy status, gender, citizenship, disability or veteran, family status or generic information. Nobody gets protections for genocide.
Ah, free speech in the land of the free
Only free for zionists and the corporations. You know, the wealthy people. Not for the silly plebes.
This would make more sense if Israel weren’t actively being nazis right now! Like, if they weren’t being nazis, it’d be really annoying to get called a nazi when you aren’t being a nazi, but these guys… i mean, they’re kinda just being nazis, there’s not really two ways about it. Admittedly the palestinians are hitting back harder than the jews were able to at the time, but trying to wipe people out is kinda enough to get called a nazi, and rightly so, even if they are defending themselves however poorly
Admittedly the palestinians are hitting back harder than the jews were able to at the time,
No they are not. A few Israelis killed here and there is not “harder”. Just modern weapons are different.
Are all Israelis Jewish? The US is such a fucking joke at this point. And it’s tedious to block community after community on lemmy to avoid the noise of vapidness. Good luck with your fucked up politics.
PS: I’d recommend excluding US specific news from “world news”. Not sure if this stuff is moderated, or if those who do, give af about it.
Being Jewish is not the same as being Zionist. One of them has Nazi moral intent, and it’s not the Jews that oppose Zionism.
3/4 are Jewish which is an overwhelming majority but I also think there are great reasons to separate the classifications of Israeli and Jew. Mainly because the state is not led by the religion but instead by elected leaders.
Though that separation of church and state does seem to be diminishing as Bibi and his far right ultraorthodox cronies do seem to be slowly turning it into more of an authoritarian state.
The politics of the global hegemon affects the entire world, as much as we hate it. Specially when it’s regarding a country they’re currently committing genocide in.
lol fuck off morons.
What the fuck?
Fuck zionists and their disproportionate amount of control over the world.
Good thing their silly religious stories will never come true.
Imagine being disappointed for eternity.
Zionism is a racist colonial ideology, merely using religion as a tool. Theodor Herzl, founder of zionism, said so himself
“We should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence.” Source [II]
It used religion simply as a component of typical XIX-century romantic nationalism. It was a secular ideology until the last 10-20 years.
The genocidal world order. The civilized nations see them for the monsters that they are.
Wonder what other things they’ll make illegal to compare to Nazis. Cause once your banning disparaging speech, why stop there?
As heavily as they’re censoring outlets to the point a tiktok ban suddenly isn’t laughable, I’m surprised they didn’t pass a law making calling it genocide a hate crime.
So it’s ok to call students that are protesting against a genocide Nazis but not the people actually committing the genocide. Got it.
That’s what modern Nazis do - try very hard to defame their opponents as Nazis. Sometimes even their victims. Then any argument from that side is disadvantaged.
Why the fuck I’m even writing this here, it’s obvious, only unless I find a way to kill some bad people doing this, I won’t help things.
It’s OK to call anyone not aligned with the Republican Party a Nazi, because it’s important that words have no real meaning. Once words have no meaning, the ideas behind them fade as well. This is double plus ungood.
Like triplespeak.
Zionists are also thieves because they are buying stolen Gaza land.
I have sat at passover with Zionists and they are the dumbest shittiest people just like the crazy evangelicals. Just shit people.
Good luck on getting them to admit any type of fault.
Nazis: “we will fight to the death for your right to speak it!”
Divest israel: “Believe it or not, jail, right away.”
Nazi rhetoric already fits the definition of antisemitism though.
Calling for a divestment of Israel isn’t being made illegal or even defined as antisemitism by this bill, so both examples don’t really make sense.
The highest order of interference in the US comes from AIPAC, it must go
Thereby rendering the definition of antisemitism meaningless.
Having it in the laws as something separate from racism was racist in the first place.
at least you have freedom dont ya, us?
Freedom of speech. Except the speech we don’t like.
Note that this isn’t going anywhere; the senate won’t take it up.
Hope you’re right!
