To share the actual definition of antisemitism

[LemonyTicket]

The boards have been full for a week with cries of woe that you can't criticise Israel without being accused of antisemitism. So to make life easy, below is a summary of what defines antisemitism as agreed by more or less the leading experts in the world. If you'd like to discuss Israel without being antisemitic, you can follow these guidelines to say what you would like to say without causing pain to Jewish people:

POINT 1
What is particular in classic antisemitism is the idea that Jews are linked to the forces of evil. This stands at the core of many anti-Jewish fantasies, such as the idea of a Jewish conspiracy in which “the Jews” possess hidden power that they use to promote their own collective agenda at the expense of other people. This linkage between Jews and evil continues in the present: in the fantasy that “the Jews” control governments with a “hidden hand,” that they own the banks, control the media, act as “a state within a state.

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.

So when you're criticising Israel, please do so without implying Jews, Israel or anything relating to Jews is part of a plot to control things or act in evil ways generally or that Jews or any Jewish organisation have control over institutions. This isn't how other countries are spoken about and it's particularly antisemitic in line with Nazi propaganda.

POINT 2
Antisemitism can be manifested in words, visual images, and deeds. Examples of antisemitic words include utterances that all Jews are wealthy, inherently stingy, or unpatriotic. In antisemitic caricatures, Jews are often depicted as grotesque, with big noses and associated with wealth

This is one most people instinctively know is racist - to apply certain characteristics to Jews - like having lots of money or big noses etc.

POINT 3
Antisemitism can be direct or indirect, explicit or coded. For example, “The Rothschilds control the world” is a coded statement about the alleged power of “the Jews” over banks and international finance. Similarly, portraying Israel as the ultimate evil or grossly exaggerating its actual influence can be a coded way of racializing and stigmatizing Jews. In many cases, identifying coded speech is a matter of context and judgement, taking account of these guidelines

This means, don't be antisemitic when using any words which clearly refer to Jews in particular. "Jews own the banks" is antisemitic. It remains antisemitic when you substitute words, like "The Israel lobby owns the banks" or "Zionists own the banks" or "George Soros owns the banks". Substituting code words is not a free pass for being antisemitic.

POINT 4
Denying or minimizing the Holocaust

A pretty obvious one which needs no explanation.

POINT 5
Applying the symbols, images and negative stereotypes of classical antisemitism to the State of Israel

So this means taking classic antisemitic tropes or canards, such as "The Jews are puppet masters" and applying the same language to the only Jewish state. We see right through this, please don't do it!

POINT 6
Requiring people, because they are Jewish, publicly to condemn Israel or Zionism (for example, at a political meeting)

This means making a Jewish person, anywhere, anytime feel obligated, pressured or required in any way to condemn Israel or Zionism. It means you don't "put them on the spot" in public by singling them out as a Jew to ask their opinions on Israel's atrocities. Their views of these things will be coloured by a completely different perspective to yours, and likely more personal knowledge, their family history and so on - so please be respectful of their right to determine their Jewish identity and opinions without your critique.

POINT 7
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion

Another one which should be obvious, but clearly "gas the Jews" is unacceptable.

POINT 8
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

Again, fairly obvious.

POINT 9
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

This is a common form of prejudice in Britain where Jews are frequently accused of being in on some plot with Israel, or part of a group of Jews acting against their own country for the benefit of Israel. It's madness, and please don't do it.

POINT 10
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

Jews, like everyone else, have a right to self-determination. If you don't make other countries feel ashamed of existing or if you don't make other groups feel ashamed of their national identity; then Jews should be entitled to the same. You are free to have your own opinion on if Israel should be a country or not, and how it should be. You are not free to deny Jews the right to decide that for themselves though.

POINT 11
Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation

Another very common one, where Israel is often held to a very different standard to other countries. An allowance can be made for the fact surrounding countries generally aren't democracies and as such are generally held to a different standard, but you should aim to treat Israel in the same, balanced way that you would treat any other country.

POINT 12
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis

This is another very common one. Do not compare things which are incomparable just for the sake of hyperbole. It's very offensive. Almost every Jew in existence lost family in the Shoah. Please don't use it to attack.

Those are the things you can't do. What you can do is criticise Israel robustly, like you would any other country

50% of people believe the definition is correct. I don't know about other posters but I think that is a good outcome actually. We already knew that mainly people that wanted to rip the definition apart would be drawn to this thread. So I for one thought the amount of people that agreed would be fairly small.

Very hopeful and pleasing result considering everything.

@EdithStourton

so Russia took by force and annexed some lands that isn’t hers (Donetsk, Kherson, Mariupol)
Russia has common history with these lands for about 1000 years and can to an extent claim these are Russian lands

many Ukranian people previously living there were displaced and either already left or slowly leaving

Russia is sending its people from other parts to take over administration, jobs, and repopulate the lands

Ukranians are fighting back including by firing drones and rockets into Russian territory
there have been a couple of terrorist explosions inside Russia too (by Ukranians)

so far so good?
parallels are pretty clear, no?

so let’s say Russia manages to hold on to these lands for 50 years or so by which time lots of people will forget how it got these lands

and will completely repopulate it with its ethnic Russians (all the while giving people of Ukranian origin in these territories separate/second class treatment)
and let’s say Ukraine will grow desperate and will revert to rocket firing into Russia and more brutal terrorist attacks

What would you say?
does Ukraine have a right to fight for its lands?
or is Russia allowed to crush it with all its might because it has a right to defend itself?

I think that is a good outcome actually.

Ouch.

Re definition I only have a problem with last point. If Israel will do similar things that Nazi Germany did, then logically I have an issue with a ban on this comparison.
however I’m not aware of formal document on “final solution” and overall it’s more like South African apartheid (so methods like boycott are similar)

Well like I said this type of thread draws people that what to rip the definition apart. Therefore 50% is a good outcome. I mean currently some people will automatically click disagree without even reading the ops first post simply because they hate anything Jewish at present. A lot of emotions going on at present and some people want to place blame at Jews I general.

Nazis is clearly not appropriate when you could pick any other evil regime to compare if you want too. Only antisemitism do this. It is just Jew haters wanting to hurt all Jews by sayingthis and nothingto do with Israel. Personally always hear this and right of any idea they care about Palestinians. It just says I am out protesting or posting stuff to have a kick at all Jews.

Though you are entitled to criticize the Israel government as we all are and I often do. You should be aware that the apartheid thing started with one of the biggest Jew haters there has been Desmond Tutu. He was responsible for the “apartheid wall” mythology that has been one of the most repugnant propagandistic manipulations that Israel has ever suffered, because it is based on ignoring of the cause-effect nexus. All decent people know that Israel is not Soweto. But Tutu resembles those Christian bishops who fomented the Final Solution by the idea that the wandering Jew is the symbol of God's rejection of the Jewish people.

Tutu has demonized the “Jewish lobby” as too “powerful” and “scary," resorting to a vile myth rooted in anti-Jewish stereotype, whereby the Jews control Washington. According to Tutu’s horrific and false accusation against the Jewish people, Israel is a sadistically colonialist entity, a blind persecutor of children, and a mad builder of apartheid walls.

Tutu has ideologically built this conceptual mousetrap of “Zionist apartheid," where the Jewish question is the cheese and the victim. The Archbishop perfectly knows that charging Israel with apartheid is simply a blood libel, as Arabs and Jews live and work together in Israel, while sharing all public facilities (hospitals, schools, malls, buses, cinemas, parks.)

He has minimized the suffering of those killed in the Holocaust. He has attacked the “Jewish” – not Israeli – “lobby” as too “powerful” and “scary.” He has invoked classic anti-Semitic stereotypes and tropes about Jewish “arrogance”, “power” and “money.” He has characterized Jews a “peculiar people,” and has accused “the Jews” of causing many of the world’s problems. He once even accused the Jewish state of acting in an “unChristian” way.

He has minimized the suffering of those murdered in the Holocaust by asserting that “the gas chambers” made for “a neater death” than did Apartheid.

He has complained of “the Jewish Monopoly of the Holocaust,” and has demanded that its victims must “forgive the Nazis for the Holocaust,”

He has compared Israel to Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union and Apartheid South Africa, saying that they too were once “very powerful” but they “bit the dust,” as will “unjust” Israel.

When confronted with his double standard against Jews, he has justified it on phony theological grounds: “Whether Jews like it or not, they are a peculiar people. They can’t ever hope to be judged by the same standards which are used for other people.” There is a name for non-Jews who hold Jews to a double standard: It is called anti-Semitism.

All this means that the whole use of the apartheid started out as an antisemitic thing to bash Jews with and it wasn't really only about Israel. Therefore problematic in its own way. We could debate if Israel fits this title but that is really for another thread and not one about antisemitism.

@Trulywonderful

i am not comparing Israel to Nazi Germany but LOGICALLY if Israel at some point did exactly what Nazi Germany did (and not what Khmer Rouge, Stalin, Hutu, Pinochet, whoever else did) the comparison cannot be off limits just because of Shoah.
there were lots of regimes that were horrible but in different ways

Stalins purges are quite different from Holocaust (even though at the same time there were antisemitic policies in Soviet Union and some purges targeted them)

it is just an illustration that horrible regimes aren’t horrible in the same way, I don’t want to get into debate on the specific degrees of evil

i dont agree that people criticising Israel’s policies towards Palestinians who live in Israel as apartheid all got it from Desmond Tutu. Most people living now will barely remember him btw. Given there is a large number of people including Jewish people outside Israel and Israeli citizens calling current regime an apartheid maybe its worth considering and maybe just maybe they got it from being aware of actual current facts and their own analysis, but we are not here to debate that are we.

If the surrounding Arab states hand over there Palestinians and Israel roll out gas chambers etc, you have a point. Until that time it all is not compare able.

I didn't say Palestinian supporters now the history. What I said was it originated from a antisemite. This is how it started. This is when people started saying it and why people started saying it. Yes I doubt many people realise where it started. They just repeat it because of hearing about reports and social media. Their is a debate to be had about whether it is true oblivious. There where several threads on here in 2021. It is an interesting debate. Not sure I have seen one on here this time. Like the whole Zionist thing people have been their done that and debated it to death maybe. Posters seen to have new stuff they want to hash out.

I didn't say Palestinian supporters now the history. What I said was it originated from a antisemite. This is how it started. This is when people started saying it and why people started saying it. Yes I doubt many people realise where it started. They just repeat it because of hearing about reports and social media. Their is a debate to be had about whether it is true oblivious. There where several threads on here in 2021. It is an interesting debate. Not sure I have seen one on here this time. Like the whole Zionist thing people have been their done that and debated it to death maybe. Posters seen to have new stuff they want to hash out

can you re write that pls, so it actually makes sense, and isn’t infact a load of nonsense, and perhaps had a vaguely understandable point to it?

it doesn’t matter much where it started IMHO because noone is referencing Desmond Tutu’s opinion or credibility when they say that. From what I see people look up definition of apartheid (just like you provide established definition of anti-semitism, there is one for apartheid), look up actual current Israeli policies and draw parallels from there. And even if it was from Desmond Tutu then anyway a broken clock is right twice a day.

so your speech seems to aim to discredit this opinion but without addressing it on its merit)

And yes, UNTIL THEN (and I’m sure this will not happen) Israel is not comparable with Nazi Germany. However it can’t be part of the definition that it cannot ever be comparable, that’s what I mean

No because other than my phone automatically changing 3 words, hate it when that happens. It is perfectly understandable. Just because you don't understand something fairly straightforward doesn't mean people have to rewrite posts.

It is very important where things come from or start. That is true about most current events and issues. If we don't understand how we got to a situation or issue it will never change. I suggest you do a mumsnet search and look at the old threads on apartheid or start a thread about it. Like I said it has been discussed in depth before, I am not sure why it isn't currently a thread because some people like saying it. Just am old topic I suppose.

Fair enough you have your opinion but you don't get to decide what any ethic group other than your own finds offensive. Even if you want to hold off on it incase the gas chambers are introduced!

(Well that last sentence is something I never thought I would have to say to someone 😮)

I have very little issue with the definition of Anti-Semitism. I somewhat get the hypothetical issues that some people seem to have around drawing comparisons to Nazism but, even in the theoretical instances where there would be a sound basis for making the comparison, it would remain incredibly inflammatory and feed into the wider culture of more purposeful antisemitism. The arguments for omitting it from the definition also have, more often than not, a tinge of “I don’t see colour” about them.

On the apartheid issue that has popped up, though, can I get a source for the charge that the accusation started with Desmond Tutu? I don’t know if it’s an accurate statement (see https://forward.com/news/468379/timeline-term-apartheid-israel/?amp=1).

@Trulywonderful

i really am not interested in how mumsnet discussed apartheid before

looking it up, apartheid term re Israel was first used by Hendrik Verwoerd, SA PM, in the 60ies

however since then the definition of apartheid was agreed internationally in Rome statute in 2002 (as one of crimes), and later on two Israeli NGOs concluded that Israeli policies have reached the threshold of apartheid. Human Rights Watch in 2021 the first major international human rights body to say Israel had crossed the threshold. Amnesty International since then called the policies apartheid too. There have been reports of UN special rapporteur confirming this view etc.
Not all political and international organisations obviously agree that threshold has been reached, it is being debated.

so there are actually prominent international organisations using this comparison, not just ditzy mumsnetters who listened to Desmond Tutu
(not once I’ve seen Desmond Tutu mentioned as origin of this comparison).

@HelinaHandcart

fair enough re definition

There is a lot more information on who/when on wiki actually

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid

We all know there has and are wider organisations that have used the term. However that wasn't our conversation. Myself and you have not been discussing the whether apartheid has happened. We have been discussing antisemitism and the use of certain words. Therefore I stated who made this word main stream years again. This was before Amnesty or any main stream organisations decided to use it. I then explained to yourself that he wasn't likely to be saying out of good intentions because he was known for his out spoke antisemitism. He said some appauling things as I examples.

I have also told you there is a conversation to be had on the topic or apartheid. That it has had many threads in the past and I don't know why people that use that word or argue it haven't got a thread at the moment. That I can only assume they are more interested in the latest issues regarding I and G or whatever.

I can keep having the same conversation with you and answering the same things but this seems pretty much like going in a circle.

You've completely ignored the UN partition plan back in the 1940s, on which basis Israel was founded.

You've also ignored the fact that Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005 (iirc) hoping to exchange land for peace. And look where that has ended up: the biggest pogrom in almost 80 years.

And this is derailing the thread.

As for the apartheid comparisons, there are Arabs in the Knesset and in senior posts in the Israeli court system. I saw apartheid in action. Black people couldn't even use the same doors and benches as white people.

My research was done on this topic in 2021. So I can give you what I have quoted at the time down at the time and then I suppose you Google him. Just Google: 'Tutu Israel' or 'Tutu antisemitism' then you will find a lot of stuff. I only gave a few examples here.

"As the Presbyterian Church USA holds its 2014 general assembly in Detroit from 14-21 June, Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town Desmond Tutu has issued this call on delegates to vote in favor of divestment from companies that assist “apartheid” Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian people:
As the Presbyterian Church USA holds its 2014 general assembly in Detroit from 14-21 June, Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town Desmond Tutu has issued this call on delegates to vote in favor of divestment from companies that assist “apartheid” Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian people"

I can't see from by notes on this, what I have looked back on when the first time he used the word was. However I may have it on my old laptop files. You should be able to get that by Googling anyway.

How are Jews a racial group when you get Jewish people of all ethnicities?

@EdithStourton

No I haven’t ignored it. Otherwise I would say “let’s say Russia managed to hold on to these lands for 70 years” ;)

Israel illegally occupied the landsbeyond UN mandate after 6 day war in 1967 (let’s for now ignore tiny extra strip they got after Arab Israeli war, especially as they were attacked first)

@EdithStourton

re pulling out of Gaza strip in 2005 - I think you need to check pre-1967 map and current map of Israel. Gaza Strip is tiny portion as compared to the territory they magically annexed. If they pulled out of ALL of it, maybe it would make a difference

maybe it is derailing the thread or maybe it is pointing out that some countries are treated differently when they do the same thing (and in this case comparison to Russia is valid and Israel is treated more favourably)

Jews are an ethnoreligion. They are an ethnic group and religion. However they can be ethnicly Jewish but not be religious.

Jews being an ethnoreligion are not one race. You get Yemen Jews, Iraq Jews Britain Jews, American Jews, Ethiopian Jews etc. So many different skin colours and looks.

Antisemitism is officially under the umbrella of racism term legally in most countries. I believe islamophobia is also classed as racism as is hating someone just for being Hindu etc.