home.social

#antisemitism — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #antisemitism, aggregated by home.social.

  1. The Blogs: Political Aggression Is Now Normal in the West | Monica Osborne

    Last week in Florence, Italy, I watched a woman get physically attacked near an anti-Israel protest in front…
    #NewsBeep #News #BreakingNews #Activism #antisemitism #breakingnews #Europe #Israel #Italy
    newsbeep.com/562755/

  2. DATE: May 27, 2026 at 04:37AM
    SOURCE: SOCIALPSYCHOLOGY.ORG

    TITLE: Justice Department Sues University of California Over Alleged Antisemitism

    URL: socialpsychology.org/client/re

    Source: United Press International - Health News

    Federal prosecutors are suing the University of California, alleging civil rights violations were committed in connection with pro-Palestinian campus protests—the latest lawsuit by the Trump administration, which has targeted universities over issues from anti-Semitism to their hiring practices. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday, focuses on an encampment erected on the UCLA campus in April 2024 as protests erupted across the U.S. against Israel's war...

    URL: socialpsychology.org/client/re

    -------------------------------------------------

    DAILY EMAIL DIGEST: Email [email protected] -- no subject or message needed.

    Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: clinicians-exchange.org

    Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot

    NYU Information for Practice puts out 400-500 good quality health-related research posts per week but its too much for many people, so that bot is limited to just subscribers. You can read it or subscribe at @PsychResearchBot

    Since 1991 The National Psychologist has focused on keeping practicing psychologists current with news, information and items of interest. Check them out for more free articles, resources, and subscription information: nationalpsychologist.com

    EMAIL DAILY DIGEST OF RSS FEEDS -- SUBSCRIBE: subscribe-article-digests.clin

    READ ONLINE: read-the-rss-mega-archive.clin

    It's primitive... but it works... mostly...

    -------------------------------------------------

    #psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #JusticeDept #UCAlawuits #Antisemitism #CampusProtests #CivilRights #UCLA #PalestineProtests # antisemitismoncampus #HigherEducationNews #FederalLawsuit

  3. DATE: May 27, 2026 at 04:37AM
    SOURCE: SOCIALPSYCHOLOGY.ORG

    TITLE: Justice Department Sues University of California Over Alleged Antisemitism

    URL: socialpsychology.org/client/re

    Source: United Press International - Health News

    Federal prosecutors are suing the University of California, alleging civil rights violations were committed in connection with pro-Palestinian campus protests—the latest lawsuit by the Trump administration, which has targeted universities over issues from anti-Semitism to their hiring practices. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday, focuses on an encampment erected on the UCLA campus in April 2024 as protests erupted across the U.S. against Israel's war...

    URL: socialpsychology.org/client/re

    -------------------------------------------------

    DAILY EMAIL DIGEST: Email [email protected] -- no subject or message needed.

    Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: clinicians-exchange.org

    Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot

    NYU Information for Practice puts out 400-500 good quality health-related research posts per week but its too much for many people, so that bot is limited to just subscribers. You can read it or subscribe at @PsychResearchBot

    Since 1991 The National Psychologist has focused on keeping practicing psychologists current with news, information and items of interest. Check them out for more free articles, resources, and subscription information: nationalpsychologist.com

    EMAIL DAILY DIGEST OF RSS FEEDS -- SUBSCRIBE: subscribe-article-digests.clin

    READ ONLINE: read-the-rss-mega-archive.clin

    It's primitive... but it works... mostly...

    -------------------------------------------------

    #psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #JusticeDept #UCAlawuits #Antisemitism #CampusProtests #CivilRights #UCLA #PalestineProtests # antisemitismoncampus #HigherEducationNews #FederalLawsuit

  4. Jewish doctor says US medical union ‘demonizes Israel and Zionists’

    “It’s absurd for a medical union to ignore other issues and just demonize Israel and Zionists,” American Jewish…
    #Israel #News #Antisemitism #Antizionism #bds #Discrimination #doctor #Hamas #Hezbollah #hospital #jerusalem #philadelphia #terrorism
    europesays.com/3020964/

  5. Whenever I come across people who love The Strokes I just automatically use that they probably have pretty unsavory beliefs about the Jewish people and their culture. Cause I definitely know Julian Casablancas does, among his many conspiracy theory obessions.

    #antisemitism #music #indierock #indie #rock #conspiracy

  6. Whenever I come across people who love The Strokes I just automatically use that they probably have pretty unsavory beliefs about the Jewish people and their culture. Cause I definitely know Julian Casablancas does, among his many conspiracy theory obessions.

    #antisemitism #music #indierock #indie #rock #conspiracy

  7. Whenever I come across people who love The Strokes I just automatically use that they probably have pretty unsavory beliefs about the Jewish people and their culture. Cause I definitely know Julian Casablancas does, among his many conspiracy theory obessions.

    #antisemitism #music #indierock #indie #rock #conspiracy

  8. Whenever I come across people who love The Strokes I just automatically use that they probably have pretty unsavory beliefs about the Jewish people and their culture. Cause I definitely know Julian Casablancas does, among his many conspiracy theory obessions.

  9. Whenever I come across people who love The Strokes I just automatically use that they probably have pretty unsavory beliefs about the Jewish people and their culture. Cause I definitely know Julian Casablancas does, among his many conspiracy theory obessions.

    #antisemitism #music #indierock #indie #rock #conspiracy

  10. Australian Jews testifying at Bondi commission report harassment, intimidation

    The head of the Australian government commission looking into the Bondi Beach terror attack reported Tuesday that witnesses…
    #Israel #News #AnthonyAlbanese #Antisemitism #Antizionism #australia #BondiBeachmassshooting #diaspora
    europesays.com/3019748/

  11. RE: babka.social/@raf/116642032931

    The fact that Jews are banned from PRIDE is a clear act of discrimination, and that's bolstered by their reasoning.

    They argue Jews must denounce Israel and Zionism to be included and that these Jewish organizations haven't done so to the level that satisfies them.

    This demand for loyalty pledges and denouncement isn't new. This is what was demanded of Jews in Spain during the inquisition, and more recently in the Soviet Union when Jews were accused of secret loyalty to Israel or a Jewish Cabal.

    ajc.org/translatehate/dual-loy

    If you are a Queer non-Jew and you care about inclusivity, you must take this opportunity to stand by your Jewish siblings for their rights. Be an ally.

    #LGBTQ #PRIDE #Hate #Discrimination #Antisemitism #Inclusion #Italy #Rome #JewHatred #Allyship

  12. RE: babka.social/@raf/116642032931

    The fact that Jews are banned from PRIDE is a clear act of discrimination, and that's bolstered by their reasoning.

    They argue Jews must denounce Israel and Zionism to be included and that these Jewish organizations haven't done so to the level that satisfies them.

    This demand for loyalty pledges and denouncement isn't new. This is what was demanded of Jews in Spain during the inquisition, and more recently in the Soviet Union when Jews were accused of secret loyalty to Israel or a Jewish Cabal.

    ajc.org/translatehate/dual-loy

    If you are a Queer non-Jew and you care about inclusivity, you must take this opportunity to stand by your Jewish siblings for their rights. Be an ally.

    #LGBTQ #PRIDE #Hate #Discrimination #Antisemitism #Inclusion #Italy #Rome #JewHatred #Allyship

  13. RE: babka.social/@raf/116642032931

    The fact that Jews are banned from PRIDE is a clear act of discrimination, and that's bolstered by their reasoning.

    They argue Jews must denounce Israel and Zionism to be included and that these Jewish organizations haven't done so to the level that satisfies them.

    This demand for loyalty pledges and denouncement isn't new. This is what was demanded of Jews in Spain during the inquisition, and more recently in the Soviet Union when Jews were accused of secret loyalty to Israel or a Jewish Cabal.

    ajc.org/translatehate/dual-loy

    If you are a Queer non-Jew and you care about inclusivity, you must take this opportunity to stand by your Jewish siblings for their rights. Be an ally.

    #LGBTQ #PRIDE #Hate #Discrimination #Antisemitism #Inclusion #Italy #Rome #JewHatred #Allyship

  14. RE: babka.social/@raf/116642032931

    The fact that Jews are banned from PRIDE is a clear act of discrimination, and that's bolstered by their reasoning.

    They argue Jews must denounce Israel and Zionism to be included and that these Jewish organizations haven't done so to the level that satisfies them.

    This demand for loyalty pledges and denouncement isn't new. This is what was demanded of Jews in Spain during the inquisition, and more recently in the Soviet Union when Jews were accused of secret loyalty to Israel or a Jewish Cabal.

    ajc.org/translatehate/dual-loy

    If you are a Queer non-Jew and you care about inclusivity, you must take this opportunity to stand by your Jewish siblings for their rights. Be an ally.

    #LGBTQ #PRIDE #Hate #Discrimination #Antisemitism #Inclusion #Italy #Rome #JewHatred #Allyship

  15. Trump administration sues UCLA, alleging antisemitic environment festered

    The Trump administration on Tuesday sued the University of California alleging that UCLA is “deliberately indifferent” to antisemitic…
    #Environment #Antisemitism #campus #civilrightlaw #frenk #justicedepartment #million #palestinegroup #reform #student #thirdlawsuit #trumpadministrationsuesucla #ucsystem #UCLA #university #year
    europesays.com/3019363/

  16. The IHRA’s definition of #antisemitism is being brought to court in the UK for being incompatible with the grounds of free speech in a modern democracy.

    You are welcome to send a donation on CrowdJustice to cover the legal costs of this trial.

    The IHRA definition is, by its own admission, a non-legally binding working definition.

    You can’t detain people nor limit their freedom of expression on the grounds of a non-legally binding working definition.

    It was first published in 2005 by the European Monitoring Centre of Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), a EU agency, but the EUMC’s successor, the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), removed if from its website in 2013, as it’s basically a non-official document with no legal validity.

    It is a definition strongly pushed by the same Israeli far-right groups that are perpetrating a genocide in Gaza right now, and by all the Zionist think-tanks that keep casting their lobbying shadows over European and American political institutions.

    It is a very problematic definition because, out of the 11 illustrative examples of antisemitism attached to it, 7 related to criticism of Israel as a country rather than prejudice against Jews.

    It is so controversial that it split Jewish academics along partisan lines. Many Jewish lawyers and academics have proposed the Jerusalem Definition of Antisemitism (JDA) in response to the IHRA. They want to keep the definition of antisemitism focused on prejudice and hatred towards Jews, rather than towards an allegedly democratic political entity that, as such, should be called accountable for its actions.

    Take this example of antisemitism reported in the IHRA:

    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.

    Notice how it squarely focuses on the right for Jews to have their own State, but deliberately omits any reference to self-determination for the indigenous Arab populations, and it omits the fact that expelling people out of their lands on the basis of their ethnicity is, objectively, a racist endeavor.

    Or:

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

    Notice how it characterizes an act of political criticism towards a democratic country, no matter if legitimate or not, as an act of antisemitism.

    Assume that I criticize the Italian government, and that perhaps I have expectations about its actions that are higher than those I’d expect from another democratic country. Does it mean that I’m a racist anti-Italian? Are Jewish academics who criticize the political acts of Israel and call what’s happening in Gaza a genocide also antisemitic?

    Or:

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

    Notice how this prevents any objective historical comparison. If you establish an apartheid State and perpetrate a genocide like a Nazi, we can’t say that it’s something that a Nazi would do too - because that definition prevents you from saying that even when it’s objectively true.

    In general, the IHRA definition suppresses political dissent by placing the onus on Israel’s critics to demonstrate they are not antisemitic.

    Antony Lerman, the former director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, went as far as saying that “the case against IHRA is so strong that the fundamental principle is that IHRA is so flawed it should be abandoned“.

    The list of academics who openly criticized the IHRA definition is so long to deserve 5 pages on Wikipedia.

    We can’t even say that the IHRA definition is bad because it doesn’t have sufficient academic consensus. It’s so bad that the academic consensus over it is actually very strong. Most of the actual academic experts in the matter consider it a piece of pseudo-legal garbage.

    Yet, such a controversial, polarizing and non-legally binding definition is the one that the politicians of most of the countries in the EU and the US, often without going through a process of Parliament ratification, have formally or informally adopted.

    Some of its corollaries can also be found here on the Fediverse, in the form of memes that anonymous Hasbara accounts and propaganda pages like the Movement Against Antizionism keep posting.

    Those memes and those acts of harassment have a very precise political purpose.

    To lobby or pressure instance admins into applying the IHRA definition in their moderation activities, hence suppressing any speech that is critical of Israel and about the most uncompromising Zionist policies.

    To create a sense of de facto validity around a non-legally binding definition that academics consider a piece of extremist propaganda garbage.

    Those arrested in the UK because of their pro-Palestine activism were arrested on the basis of a non-legally binding definition with no academic nor political consensus.

    It is time to ditch the IHRA and call it for what it is - a sophisticated act of nationalist propaganda that actually does more harms than good to the Jews because it misses the point on actual antisemitism, while fostering grudge towards an illiberal political entity that claims to speak in their name, while conflating political criticism and objective reporting with racism and prejudice.

    It is time to call the IHRA something worth of the propaganda body of a fascist regime and not of a democratic country.

    It is time to acknowledge that the IHRA definition is incompatible with America’s First Amendment and with the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and it poses unacceptable dangers to the tenure of our democratic fabric, all while providing a blanket excuse for a genocidal regime to pursue their colonial activities with impunity.

    It is time to start taking this definition to courts, and make sure that there’s no space for this garbage in a civilized society.

  17. The IHRA’s definition of #antisemitism is being brought to court in the UK for being incompatible with the grounds of free speech in a modern democracy.

    You are welcome to send a donation on CrowdJustice to cover the legal costs of this trial.

    The IHRA definition is, by its own admission, a non-legally binding working definition.

    You can’t detain people nor limit their freedom of expression on the grounds of a non-legally binding working definition.

    It was first published in 2005 by the European Monitoring Centre of Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), a EU agency, but the EUMC’s successor, the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), removed if from its website in 2013, as it’s basically a non-official document with no legal validity.

    It is a definition strongly pushed by the same Israeli far-right groups that are perpetrating a genocide in Gaza right now, and by all the Zionist think-tanks that keep casting their lobbying shadows over European and American political institutions.

    It is a very problematic definition because, out of the 11 illustrative examples of antisemitism attached to it, 7 related to criticism of Israel as a country rather than prejudice against Jews.

    It is so controversial that it split Jewish academics along partisan lines. Many Jewish lawyers and academics have proposed the Jerusalem Definition of Antisemitism (JDA) in response to the IHRA. They want to keep the definition of antisemitism focused on prejudice and hatred towards Jews, rather than towards an allegedly democratic political entity that, as such, should be called accountable for its actions.

    Take this example of antisemitism reported in the IHRA:

    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.

    Notice how it squarely focuses on the right for Jews to have their own State, but deliberately omits any reference to self-determination for the indigenous Arab populations, and it omits the fact that expelling people out of their lands on the basis of their ethnicity is, objectively, a racist endeavor.

    Or:

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

    Notice how it characterizes an act of political criticism towards a democratic country, no matter if legitimate or not, as an act of antisemitism.

    Assume that I criticize the Italian government, and that perhaps I have expectations about its actions that are higher than those I’d expect from another democratic country. Does it mean that I’m a racist anti-Italian? Are Jewish academics who criticize the political acts of Israel and call what’s happening in Gaza a genocide also antisemitic?

    Or:

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

    Notice how this prevents any objective historical comparison. If you establish an apartheid State and perpetrate a genocide like a Nazi, we can’t say that it’s something that a Nazi would do too - because that definition prevents you from saying that even when it’s objectively true.

    In general, the IHRA definition suppresses political dissent by placing the onus on Israel’s critics to demonstrate they are not antisemitic.

    Antony Lerman, the former director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, went as far as saying that “the case against IHRA is so strong that the fundamental principle is that IHRA is so flawed it should be abandoned“.

    The list of academics who openly criticized the IHRA definition is so long to deserve 5 pages on Wikipedia.

    We can’t even say that the IHRA definition is bad because it doesn’t have sufficient academic consensus. It’s so bad that the academic consensus over it is actually very strong. Most of the actual academic experts in the matter consider it a piece of pseudo-legal garbage.

    Yet, such a controversial, polarizing and non-legally binding definition is the one that the politicians of most of the countries in the EU and the US, often without going through a process of Parliament ratification, have formally or informally adopted.

    Some of its corollaries can also be found here on the Fediverse, in the form of memes that anonymous Hasbara accounts and propaganda pages like the Movement Against Antizionism keep posting.

    Those memes and those acts of harassment have a very precise political purpose.

    To lobby or pressure instance admins into applying the IHRA definition in their moderation activities, hence suppressing any speech that is critical of Israel and about the most uncompromising Zionist policies.

    To create a sense of de facto validity around a non-legally binding definition that academics consider a piece of extremist propaganda garbage.

    Those arrested in the UK because of their pro-Palestine activism were arrested on the basis of a non-legally binding definition with no academic nor political consensus.

    It is time to ditch the IHRA and call it for what it is - a sophisticated act of nationalist propaganda that actually does more harms than good to the Jews because it misses the point on actual antisemitism, while fostering grudge towards an illiberal political entity that claims to speak in their name, while conflating political criticism and objective reporting with racism and prejudice.

    It is time to call the IHRA something worth of the propaganda body of a fascist regime and not of a democratic country.

    It is time to acknowledge that the IHRA definition is incompatible with America’s First Amendment and with the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and it poses unacceptable dangers to the tenure of our democratic fabric, all while providing a blanket excuse for a genocidal regime to pursue their colonial activities with impunity.

    It is time to start taking this definition to courts, and make sure that there’s no space for this garbage in a civilized society.

  18. The IHRA’s definition of #antisemitism is being brought to court in the UK for being incompatible with the grounds of free speech in a modern democracy.

    You are welcome to send a donation on CrowdJustice to cover the legal costs of this trial.

    The IHRA definition is, by its own admission, a non-legally binding working definition.

    You can’t detain people nor limit their freedom of expression on the grounds of a non-legally binding working definition.

    It was first published in 2005 by the European Monitoring Centre of Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), a EU agency, but the EUMC’s successor, the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), removed if from its website in 2013, as it’s basically a non-official document with no legal validity.

    It is a definition strongly pushed by the same Israeli far-right groups that are perpetrating a genocide in Gaza right now, and by all the Zionist think-tanks that keep casting their lobbying shadows over European and American political institutions.

    It is a very problematic definition because, out of the 11 illustrative examples of antisemitism attached to it, 7 related to criticism of Israel as a country rather than prejudice against Jews.

    It is so controversial that it split Jewish academics along partisan lines. Many Jewish lawyers and academics have proposed the Jerusalem Definition of Antisemitism (JDA) in response to the IHRA. They want to keep the definition of antisemitism focused on prejudice and hatred towards Jews, rather than towards an allegedly democratic political entity that, as such, should be called accountable for its actions.

    Take this example of antisemitism reported in the IHRA:

    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.

    Notice how it squarely focuses on the right for Jews to have their own State, but deliberately omits any reference to self-determination for the indigenous Arab populations, and it omits the fact that expelling people out of their lands on the basis of their ethnicity is, objectively, a racist endeavor.

    Or:

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

    Notice how it characterizes an act of political criticism towards a democratic country, no matter if legitimate or not, as an act of antisemitism.

    Assume that I criticize the Italian government, and that perhaps I have expectations about its actions that are higher than those I’d expect from another democratic country. Does it mean that I’m a racist anti-Italian? Are Jewish academics who criticize the political acts of Israel and call what’s happening in Gaza a genocide also antisemitic?

    Or:

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

    Notice how this prevents any objective historical comparison. If you establish an apartheid State and perpetrate a genocide like a Nazi, we can’t say that it’s something that a Nazi would do too - because that definition prevents you from saying that even when it’s objectively true.

    In general, the IHRA definition suppresses political dissent by placing the onus on Israel’s critics to demonstrate they are not antisemitic.

    Antony Lerman, the former director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, went as far as saying that “the case against IHRA is so strong that the fundamental principle is that IHRA is so flawed it should be abandoned“.

    The list of academics who openly criticized the IHRA definition is so long to deserve 5 pages on Wikipedia.

    We can’t even say that the IHRA definition is bad because it doesn’t have sufficient academic consensus. It’s so bad that the academic consensus over it is actually very strong. Most of the actual academic experts in the matter consider it a piece of pseudo-legal garbage.

    Yet, such a controversial, polarizing and non-legally binding definition is the one that the politicians of most of the countries in the EU and the US, often without going through a process of Parliament ratification, have formally or informally adopted.

    Some of its corollaries can also be found here on the Fediverse, in the form of memes that anonymous Hasbara accounts and propaganda pages like the Movement Against Antizionism keep posting.

    Those memes and those acts of harassment have a very precise political purpose.

    To lobby or pressure instance admins into applying the IHRA definition in their moderation activities, hence suppressing any speech that is critical of Israel and about the most uncompromising Zionist policies.

    To create a sense of de facto validity around a non-legally binding definition that academics consider a piece of extremist propaganda garbage.

    Those arrested in the UK because of their pro-Palestine activism were arrested on the basis of a non-legally binding definition with no academic nor political consensus.

    It is time to ditch the IHRA and call it for what it is - a sophisticated act of nationalist propaganda that actually does more harms than good to the Jews because it misses the point on actual antisemitism, while fostering grudge towards an illiberal political entity that claims to speak in their name, while conflating political criticism and objective reporting with racism and prejudice.

    It is time to call the IHRA something worth of the propaganda body of a fascist regime and not of a democratic country.

    It is time to acknowledge that the IHRA definition is incompatible with America’s First Amendment and with the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and it poses unacceptable dangers to the tenure of our democratic fabric, all while providing a blanket excuse for a genocidal regime to pursue their colonial activities with impunity.

    It is time to start taking this definition to courts, and make sure that there’s no space for this garbage in a civilized society.

  19. The IHRA’s definition of #antisemitism is being brought to court in the UK for being incompatible with the grounds of free speech in a modern democracy.

    You are welcome to send a donation on CrowdJustice to cover the legal costs of this trial.

    The IHRA definition is, by its own admission, a non-legally binding working definition.

    You can’t detain people nor limit their freedom of expression on the grounds of a non-legally binding working definition.

    It was first published in 2005 by the European Monitoring Centre of Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), a EU agency, but the EUMC’s successor, the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), removed if from its website in 2013, as it’s basically a non-official document with no legal validity.

    It is a definition strongly pushed by the same Israeli far-right groups that are perpetrating a genocide in Gaza right now, and by all the Zionist think-tanks that keep casting their lobbying shadows over European and American political institutions.

    It is a very problematic definition because, out of the 11 illustrative examples of antisemitism attached to it, 7 related to criticism of Israel as a country rather than prejudice against Jews.

    It is so controversial that it split Jewish academics along partisan lines. Many Jewish lawyers and academics have proposed the Jerusalem Definition of Antisemitism (JDA) in response to the IHRA. They want to keep the definition of antisemitism focused on prejudice and hatred towards Jews, rather than towards an allegedly democratic political entity that, as such, should be called accountable for its actions.

    Take this example of antisemitism reported in the IHRA:

    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.

    Notice how it squarely focuses on the right for Jews to have their own State, but deliberately omits any reference to self-determination for the indigenous Arab populations, and it omits the fact that expelling people out of their lands on the basis of their ethnicity is, objectively, a racist endeavor.

    Or:

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

    Notice how it characterizes an act of political criticism towards a democratic country, no matter if legitimate or not, as an act of antisemitism.

    Assume that I criticize the Italian government, and that perhaps I have expectations about its actions that are higher than those I’d expect from another democratic country. Does it mean that I’m a racist anti-Italian? Are Jewish academics who criticize the political acts of Israel and call what’s happening in Gaza a genocide also antisemitic?

    Or:

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

    Notice how this prevents any objective historical comparison. If you establish an apartheid State and perpetrate a genocide like a Nazi, we can’t say that it’s something that a Nazi would do too - because that definition prevents you from saying that even when it’s objectively true.

    In general, the IHRA definition suppresses political dissent by placing the onus on Israel’s critics to demonstrate they are not antisemitic.

    Antony Lerman, the former director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, went as far as saying that “the case against IHRA is so strong that the fundamental principle is that IHRA is so flawed it should be abandoned“.

    The list of academics who openly criticized the IHRA definition is so long to deserve 5 pages on Wikipedia.

    We can’t even say that the IHRA definition is bad because it doesn’t have sufficient academic consensus. It’s so bad that the academic consensus over it is actually very strong. Most of the actual academic experts in the matter consider it a piece of pseudo-legal garbage.

    Yet, such a controversial, polarizing and non-legally binding definition is the one that the politicians of most of the countries in the EU and the US, often without going through a process of Parliament ratification, have formally or informally adopted.

    Some of its corollaries can also be found here on the Fediverse, in the form of memes that anonymous Hasbara accounts and propaganda pages like the Movement Against Antizionism keep posting.

    Those memes and those acts of harassment have a very precise political purpose.

    To lobby or pressure instance admins into applying the IHRA definition in their moderation activities, hence suppressing any speech that is critical of Israel and about the most uncompromising Zionist policies.

    To create a sense of de facto validity around a non-legally binding definition that academics consider a piece of extremist propaganda garbage.

    Those arrested in the UK because of their pro-Palestine activism were arrested on the basis of a non-legally binding definition with no academic nor political consensus.

    It is time to ditch the IHRA and call it for what it is - a sophisticated act of nationalist propaganda that actually does more harms than good to the Jews because it misses the point on actual antisemitism, while fostering grudge towards an illiberal political entity that claims to speak in their name, while conflating political criticism and objective reporting with racism and prejudice.

    It is time to call the IHRA something worth of the propaganda body of a fascist regime and not of a democratic country.

    It is time to acknowledge that the IHRA definition is incompatible with America’s First Amendment and with the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and it poses unacceptable dangers to the tenure of our democratic fabric, all while providing a blanket excuse for a genocidal regime to pursue their colonial activities with impunity.

    It is time to start taking this definition to courts, and make sure that there’s no space for this garbage in a civilized society.

  20. The IHRA’s definition of #antisemitism is being brought to court in the UK for being incompatible with the grounds of free speech in a modern democracy.

    You are welcome to send a donation on CrowdJustice to cover the legal costs of this trial.

    The IHRA definition is, by its own admission, a non-legally binding working definition.

    You can’t detain people nor limit their freedom of expression on the grounds of a non-legally binding working definition.

    It was first published in 2005 by the European Monitoring Centre of Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), a EU agency, but the EUMC’s successor, the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), removed if from its website in 2013, as it’s basically a non-official document with no legal validity.

    It is a definition strongly pushed by the same Israeli far-right groups that are perpetrating a genocide in Gaza right now, and by all the Zionist think-tanks that keep casting their lobbying shadows over European and American political institutions.

    It is a very problematic definition because, out of the 11 illustrative examples of antisemitism attached to it, 7 related to criticism of Israel as a country rather than prejudice against Jews.

    It is so controversial that it split Jewish academics along partisan lines. Many Jewish lawyers and academics have proposed the Jerusalem Definition of Antisemitism (JDA) in response to the IHRA. They want to keep the definition of antisemitism focused on prejudice and hatred towards Jews, rather than towards an allegedly democratic political entity that, as such, should be called accountable for its actions.

    Take this example of antisemitism reported in the IHRA:

    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.

    Notice how it squarely focuses on the right for Jews to have their own State, but deliberately omits any reference to self-determination for the indigenous Arab populations, and it omits the fact that expelling people out of their lands on the basis of their ethnicity is, objectively, a racist endeavor.

    Or:

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

    Notice how it characterizes an act of political criticism towards a democratic country, no matter if legitimate or not, as an act of antisemitism.

    Assume that I criticize the Italian government, and that perhaps I have expectations about its actions that are higher than those I’d expect from another democratic country. Does it mean that I’m a racist anti-Italian? Are Jewish academics who criticize the political acts of Israel and call what’s happening in Gaza a genocide also antisemitic?

    Or:

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

    Notice how this prevents any objective historical comparison. If you establish an apartheid State and perpetrate a genocide like a Nazi, we can’t say that it’s something that a Nazi would do too - because that definition prevents you from saying that even when it’s objectively true.

    In general, the IHRA definition suppresses political dissent by placing the onus on Israel’s critics to demonstrate they are not antisemitic.

    Antony Lerman, the former director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, went as far as saying that “the case against IHRA is so strong that the fundamental principle is that IHRA is so flawed it should be abandoned“.

    The list of academics who openly criticized the IHRA definition is so long to deserve 5 pages on Wikipedia.

    We can’t even say that the IHRA definition is bad because it doesn’t have sufficient academic consensus. It’s so bad that the academic consensus over it is actually very strong. Most of the actual academic experts in the matter consider it a piece of pseudo-legal garbage.

    Yet, such a controversial, polarizing and non-legally binding definition is the one that the politicians of most of the countries in the EU and the US, often without going through a process of Parliament ratification, have formally or informally adopted.

    Some of its corollaries can also be found here on the Fediverse, in the form of memes that anonymous Hasbara accounts and propaganda pages like the Movement Against Antizionism keep posting.

    Those memes and those acts of harassment have a very precise political purpose.

    To lobby or pressure instance admins into applying the IHRA definition in their moderation activities, hence suppressing any speech that is critical of Israel and about the most uncompromising Zionist policies.

    To create a sense of de facto validity around a non-legally binding definition that academics consider a piece of extremist propaganda garbage.

    Those arrested in the UK because of their pro-Palestine activism were arrested on the basis of a non-legally binding definition with no academic nor political consensus.

    It is time to ditch the IHRA and call it for what it is - a sophisticated act of nationalist propaganda that actually does more harms than good to the Jews because it misses the point on actual antisemitism, while fostering grudge towards an illiberal political entity that claims to speak in their name, while conflating political criticism and objective reporting with racism and prejudice.

    It is time to call the IHRA something worth of the propaganda body of a fascist regime and not of a democratic country.

    It is time to acknowledge that the IHRA definition is incompatible with America’s First Amendment and with the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and it poses unacceptable dangers to the tenure of our democratic fabric, all while providing a blanket excuse for a genocidal regime to pursue their colonial activities with impunity.

    It is time to start taking this definition to courts, and make sure that there’s no space for this garbage in a civilized society.

  21. To elaborate:

    It is not #antisemitism if you criticize #Israel for their war crimes, that new death penalty that's exclusive for Palestinians, the clear ethnic cleansing they are doing when they are flattening Palestinian settlements and building Israeli settlements that replace them. Condemning these is very legitimate.

    However, it _is_ antisemitism when you pretend that Israel is the only nation involved in the conflicts of the Middle east who has their own agency. And when you claim that Israel somehow "makes other nations do their bidding", that's when we verge into "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" shit. Yeah, Israel lobbies other countries. But every country does that, and the nation that support Israel have their own reasons for doing so.

    Take the #USA . They have a _powerful_ voting block of Christian fanatics who want Israel to be restored "in its historical borders" (whatever _that_ is supposed to mean) so that they can reach another milestone along their path to the literal End Times. So of course they are not just going to "support Israel", but the very worst people in Israel who are all in on the ethnic cleansing.

    Furthermore, Israel is an ideal testbed for surveillance technology. All those technologies that are currently field tested on Palestinians will soon be used against black and Latin people in the USA - with the goal of upholding #WhiteSupremacy . From the perspective of shitty American leaders, both of these are excellent reasons to "support Israel" beyond somehow "being made to do Israel's bidding".

    And reactionaries in both North America and Europe find the Israel-Palestine conflicts _very_ useful for their agenda. By supporting Israel, they can claim: "We are not bigots - look how we are supporting Jews, one of the most persecuted minorities! It's all those Muslims who are doing all the antisemitism in our lands (ignore the Nazi members in our movements)!" I sincerely doubt if most of them even care whether Jews and Muslims are killing each other - but they care very much about purging the Muslims from Europe and North America, and this conflict provides a never-ending source of excuses for stating that "Muslims do not belong to Europe/the USA!"

    And then there are nations like #SaudiArabia who have not-so-covert alliances with Israel. Their biggest regional rival is #Iran - and the Sunni-Shiite conflict is far older than the founding of modern-day Israel. So of course they are going to support anything that takes Iran down a peg, as long as they themselves are not overly inconvenienced by the fallout.

    Political leaders of other countries who support Israel's policies do so for their own reasons. They _choose_ this, and had full agency in their decision - Israel did not somehow "force" them to do this.

    And pointing this out does not make me an "apologist for #Zionism " or some such nonsense. I merely refuse to accept the narrative that Israel, and Israel alone, is somehow the source of all evils in the Middle East.

  22. To elaborate:

    It is not #antisemitism if you criticize #Israel for their war crimes, that new death penalty that's exclusive for Palestinians, the clear ethnic cleansing they are doing when they are flattening Palestinian settlements and building Israeli settlements that replace them. Condemning these is very legitimate.

    However, it _is_ antisemitism when you pretend that Israel is the only nation involved in the conflicts of the Middle east who has their own agency. And when you claim that Israel somehow "makes other nations do their bidding", that's when we verge into "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" shit. Yeah, Israel lobbies other countries. But every country does that, and the nation that support Israel have their own reasons for doing so.

    Take the #USA . They have a _powerful_ voting block of Christian fanatics who want Israel to be restored "in its historical borders" (whatever _that_ is supposed to mean) so that they can reach another milestone along their path to the literal End Times. So of course they are not just going to "support Israel", but the very worst people in Israel who are all in on the ethnic cleansing.

    Furthermore, Israel is an ideal testbed for surveillance technology. All those technologies that are currently field tested on Palestinians will soon be used against black and Latin people in the USA - with the goal of upholding #WhiteSupremacy . From the perspective of shitty American leaders, both of these are excellent reasons to "support Israel" beyond somehow "being made to do Israel's bidding".

    And reactionaries in both North America and Europe find the Israel-Palestine conflicts _very_ useful for their agenda. By supporting Israel, they can claim: "We are not bigots - look how we are supporting Jews, one of the most persecuted minorities! It's all those Muslims who are doing all the antisemitism in our lands (ignore the Nazi members in our movements)!" I sincerely doubt if most of them even care whether Jews and Muslims are killing each other - but they care very much about purging the Muslims from Europe and North America, and this conflict provides a never-ending source of excuses for stating that "Muslims do not belong to Europe/the USA!"

    And then there are nations like #SaudiArabia who have not-so-covert alliances with Israel. Their biggest regional rival is #Iran - and the Sunni-Shiite conflict is far older than the founding of modern-day Israel. So of course they are going to support anything that takes Iran down a peg, as long as they themselves are not overly inconvenienced by the fallout.

    Political leaders of other countries who support Israel's policies do so for their own reasons. They _choose_ this, and had full agency in their decision - Israel did not somehow "force" them to do this.

    And pointing this out does not make me an "apologist for #Zionism " or some such nonsense. I merely refuse to accept the narrative that Israel, and Israel alone, is somehow the source of all evils in the Middle East.

  23. To elaborate:

    It is not #antisemitism if you criticize #Israel for their war crimes, that new death penalty that's exclusive for Palestinians, the clear ethnic cleansing they are doing when they are flattening Palestinian settlements and building Israeli settlements that replace them. Condemning these is very legitimate.

    However, it _is_ antisemitism when you pretend that Israel is the only nation involved in the conflicts of the Middle east who has their own agency. And when you claim that Israel somehow "makes other nations do their bidding", that's when we verge into "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" shit. Yeah, Israel lobbies other countries. But every country does that, and the nation that support Israel have their own reasons for doing so.

    Take the #USA . They have a _powerful_ voting block of Christian fanatics who want Israel to be restored "in its historical borders" (whatever _that_ is supposed to mean) so that they can reach another milestone along their path to the literal End Times. So of course they are not just going to "support Israel", but the very worst people in Israel who are all in on the ethnic cleansing.

    Furthermore, Israel is an ideal testbed for surveillance technology. All those technologies that are currently field tested on Palestinians will soon be used against black and Latin people in the USA - with the goal of upholding #WhiteSupremacy . From the perspective of shitty American leaders, both of these are excellent reasons to "support Israel" beyond somehow "being made to do Israel's bidding".

    And reactionaries in both North America and Europe find the Israel-Palestine conflicts _very_ useful for their agenda. By supporting Israel, they can claim: "We are not bigots - look how we are supporting Jews, one of the most persecuted minorities! It's all those Muslims who are doing all the antisemitism in our lands (ignore the Nazi members in our movements)!" I sincerely doubt if most of them even care whether Jews and Muslims are killing each other - but they care very much about purging the Muslims from Europe and North America, and this conflict provides a never-ending source of excuses for stating that "Muslims do not belong to Europe/the USA!"

    And then there are nations like #SaudiArabia who have not-so-covert alliances with Israel. Their biggest regional rival is #Iran - and the Sunni-Shiite conflict is far older than the founding of modern-day Israel. So of course they are going to support anything that takes Iran down a peg, as long as they themselves are not overly inconvenienced by the fallout.

    Political leaders of other countries who support Israel's policies do so for their own reasons. They _choose_ this, and had full agency in their decision - Israel did not somehow "force" them to do this.

    And pointing this out does not make me an "apologist for #Zionism " or some such nonsense. I merely refuse to accept the narrative that Israel, and Israel alone, is somehow the source of all evils in the Middle East.

  24. To elaborate:

    It is not #antisemitism if you criticize #Israel for their war crimes, that new death penalty that's exclusive for Palestinians, the clear ethnic cleansing they are doing when they are flattening Palestinian settlements and building Israeli settlements that replace them. Condemning these is very legitimate.

    However, it _is_ antisemitism when you pretend that Israel is the only nation involved in the conflicts of the Middle east who has their own agency. And when you claim that Israel somehow "makes other nations do their bidding", that's when we verge into "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" shit. Yeah, Israel lobbies other countries. But every country does that, and the nation that support Israel have their own reasons for doing so.

    Take the #USA . They have a _powerful_ voting block of Christian fanatics who want Israel to be restored "in its historical borders" (whatever _that_ is supposed to mean) so that they can reach another milestone along their path to the literal End Times. So of course they are not just going to "support Israel", but the very worst people in Israel who are all in on the ethnic cleansing.

    Furthermore, Israel is an ideal testbed for surveillance technology. All those technologies that are currently field tested on Palestinians will soon be used against black and Latin people in the USA - with the goal of upholding #WhiteSupremacy . From the perspective of shitty American leaders, both of these are excellent reasons to "support Israel" beyond somehow "being made to do Israel's bidding".

    And reactionaries in both North America and Europe find the Israel-Palestine conflicts _very_ useful for their agenda. By supporting Israel, they can claim: "We are not bigots - look how we are supporting Jews, one of the most persecuted minorities! It's all those Muslims who are doing all the antisemitism in our lands (ignore the Nazi members in our movements)!" I sincerely doubt if most of them even care whether Jews and Muslims are killing each other - but they care very much about purging the Muslims from Europe and North America, and this conflict provides a never-ending source of excuses for stating that "Muslims do not belong to Europe/the USA!"

    And then there are nations like #SaudiArabia who have not-so-covert alliances with Israel. Their biggest regional rival is #Iran - and the Sunni-Shiite conflict is far older than the founding of modern-day Israel. So of course they are going to support anything that takes Iran down a peg, as long as they themselves are not overly inconvenienced by the fallout.

    Political leaders of other countries who support Israel's policies do so for their own reasons. They _choose_ this, and had full agency in their decision - Israel did not somehow "force" them to do this.

    And pointing this out does not make me an "apologist for #Zionism " or some such nonsense. I merely refuse to accept the narrative that Israel, and Israel alone, is somehow the source of all evils in the Middle East.

  25. To elaborate:

    It is not #antisemitism if you criticize #Israel for their war crimes, that new death penalty that's exclusive for Palestinians, the clear ethnic cleansing they are doing when they are flattening Palestinian settlements and building Israeli settlements that replace them. Condemning these is very legitimate.

    However, it _is_ antisemitism when you pretend that Israel is the only nation involved in the conflicts of the Middle east who has their own agency. And when you claim that Israel somehow "makes other nations do their bidding", that's when we verge into "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" shit. Yeah, Israel lobbies other countries. But every country does that, and the nation that support Israel have their own reasons for doing so.

    Take the #USA . They have a _powerful_ voting block of Christian fanatics who want Israel to be restored "in its historical borders" (whatever _that_ is supposed to mean) so that they can reach another milestone along their path to the literal End Times. So of course they are not just going to "support Israel", but the very worst people in Israel who are all in on the ethnic cleansing.

    Furthermore, Israel is an ideal testbed for surveillance technology. All those technologies that are currently field tested on Palestinians will soon be used against black and Latin people in the USA - with the goal of upholding #WhiteSupremacy . From the perspective of shitty American leaders, both of these are excellent reasons to "support Israel" beyond somehow "being made to do Israel's bidding".

    And reactionaries in both North America and Europe find the Israel-Palestine conflicts _very_ useful for their agenda. By supporting Israel, they can claim: "We are not bigots - look how we are supporting Jews, one of the most persecuted minorities! It's all those Muslims who are doing all the antisemitism in our lands (ignore the Nazi members in our movements)!" I sincerely doubt if most of them even care whether Jews and Muslims are killing each other - but they care very much about purging the Muslims from Europe and North America, and this conflict provides a never-ending source of excuses for stating that "Muslims do not belong to Europe/the USA!"

    And then there are nations like #SaudiArabia who have not-so-covert alliances with Israel. Their biggest regional rival is #Iran - and the Sunni-Shiite conflict is far older than the founding of modern-day Israel. So of course they are going to support anything that takes Iran down a peg, as long as they themselves are not overly inconvenienced by the fallout.

    Political leaders of other countries who support Israel's policies do so for their own reasons. They _choose_ this, and had full agency in their decision - Israel did not somehow "force" them to do this.

    And pointing this out does not make me an "apologist for #Zionism " or some such nonsense. I merely refuse to accept the narrative that Israel, and Israel alone, is somehow the source of all evils in the Middle East.

  26. 📰#PresaIsraeliană: Fișierele scurse pe internet dezvăluie campania de influență antisemită a Rusiei.
    Agenți aflați în legătură cu #Kremlinul, implicați în acte de vandalism la sinagogi din #Paris.

    🔗 wp.me/p9KpFA-5iV5

    #Știri #Franța #Israel #Rusia #Antisemitism #Rasism

  27. 📰#PresaIsraeliană: Fișierele scurse pe internet dezvăluie campania de influență antisemită a Rusiei.
    Agenți aflați în legătură cu #Kremlinul, implicați în acte de vandalism la sinagogi din #Paris.

    🔗 wp.me/p9KpFA-5iV5

    #Știri #Franța #Israel #Rusia #Antisemitism #Rasism

  28. 📰#PresaIsraeliană: Fișierele scurse pe internet dezvăluie campania de influență antisemită a Rusiei.
    Agenți aflați în legătură cu #Kremlinul, implicați în acte de vandalism la sinagogi din #Paris.

    🔗 wp.me/p9KpFA-5iV5

    #Știri #Franța #Israel #Rusia #Antisemitism #Rasism

  29. 📰#PresaIsraeliană: Fișierele scurse pe internet dezvăluie campania de influență antisemită a Rusiei.
    Agenți aflați în legătură cu #Kremlinul, implicați în acte de vandalism la sinagogi din #Paris.

    🔗 wp.me/p9KpFA-5iV5

    #Știri #Franța #Israel #Rusia #Antisemitism #Rasism

  30. 📰#PresaIsraeliană: Fișierele scurse pe internet dezvăluie campania de influență antisemită a Rusiei.
    Agenți aflați în legătură cu #Kremlinul, implicați în acte de vandalism la sinagogi din #Paris.

    🔗 wp.me/p9KpFA-5iV5

    #Știri #Franța #Israel #Rusia #Antisemitism #Rasism