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

It isn't saying you can't "challenge" them.

It's saying you can't challenge them differently.

You must be aware that bigots will often focus on one particular state, people, religion etc. for criticism they do not levy at anyone else.

Equality means treating all the same.

Sorry, I am posting the last post again as it came out unreadable and I can't edit it!

I will keep this on copy and paste for each time @MadderthanMorris tries to come to this thread to undermine the point of the thread – which is to explain to people what antisemitism is.

The IHRA definition is the definition currently approved by almost every country, every organisation and the majority of Jews.

The Jerusalem declaration is very, very similar and the ONLY reason they have been amalgamated for this post is that whilst not the currently “approved” version, the JD offers longer, more helpful wording to help identify antisemitism, so that was included because it is useful for the purposes of those GENUINELY trying to recognise antisemitism.

The point of this post is to help people understand. No one, with a clear intention of understanding antisemitism would have any cause to object to both being used.

I will now post the definitions side by side so people can see they are almost identical and this poster is deliberately trying to undermine the points made and also trying to attack my credibility rather than respect the point of the thread.

First off, I will show the points that are the same on both definitions, but show the different ways they are worded:

THE JERUSALEM DECLARATION

Denying or minimizing the Holocaust by claiming that the deliberate Nazi genocide of the Jews did not take place, or that there were no extermination camps or gas chambers, or that the number of victims was a fraction of the actual total, is antisemitic.

THE IHRA
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

This is the first point that is the same, but worded differently

THE JERUSALEM DECLARATION
Assuming that non-Israeli Jews, simply because they are Jews, are necessarily more loyal to Israel than to their own countries.

THE IHRA

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.

Another which is basically saying the same thing

THE JERUSALEM DECLARATION
It is racist to essentialize (treat a character trait as inherent) or to make sweeping negative generalizations about a given population. What is true of racism in general is true of antisemitism in particular.

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,” and are responsible for spreading disease (such as Covid-19).

All these features can be instrumentalized by different (and even antagonistic) political causes.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. Examples of antisemitic deeds are: assaulting someone because she or he is Jewish, attacking a synagogue, daubing swastikas on Jewish graves, or refusing to hire or promote people because they are Jewish.

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.

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

THE IHRA
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.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Again, as you can see these are making the same points, but as the JD explains it in much more detail, I have included that detail to aid readers with fully understanding exactly what is antisemitic

THE JERUSALEM DECLARATION
Holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s conduct or treating Jews, simply because they are Jewish, as agents of Israel.

THE IHRA
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.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

So another point which is basically saying the same thing so no point me saying it twice

There is ONE point which appears on the Jerusalem declaration but which does NOT appear on the IHRA definition, which is:

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

However, most people feel this is covered by the ideas of not holding Jewish people to account for the actions of Israel, and not denying them self determination. That said, it is very useful language to have included on this post because I personally have been called on SEVERAL time in my life in political or social settings to do exactly this - so worth people being aware - this behavior is antisemitic. In much the way you would not call on a Muslim, because they were Muslim, to condemn ISIS or deny the right of Palestine to exist.

Now there are a few points which appear on the IHRA definition which were not on the JD, which are as follows:

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis

and

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

and

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

All three of those points are included on the current, widely accepted definition then anyone genuinely wishing to know "what is antisemitism", would accept that most states, Jews and organisations would classify those as antisemitic and act accordingly.

The final point which is worded differently and seems to be such a huge bone of contention for certain cranks who wish to dress up antisemitism under the socially acceptable guise of "anti zionism" relates to the right of self determination.

The IHRA defines this as antisemitic:

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

There is furious obfuscating from some, who point out the Jerusalem Declaration does permit anti zionism, but they omit to outline the full meaning of the concept.

As it states, it is antisemitic to:

Deny the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in accordance with the principle of equality

Included on the Jerusalem declaration is a list of things which are NOT antisemitic, which was not posted on this thread because that is not what the point of the thread is (to determine the opposite), however, as identified and underlined in the OP, all criticism of Israel is permitted unless it breaches any of the above.

The point @MadderthanMorris seems to be missing in her interpretation of the Jerusalem declaration is that it REQUIRES Jews in the state of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively, as Jews, in accordance WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUALITY.

Therefore in order to advocate against Zionism as a solution, you would be required to advocate for an alternative solution that guaranteed those principles of equality for Jews in Israel.

In terms of a binational, one state solution, that would by very definition HAVE to include agreement from the Palestinian majority to enshrine equal rights for Jews under law. Something that has never happened in history, and which no Palestinian group or party has ever offered. Actually Hamas are rather openly calling for the elimination of Jews entirely from the planet.

So as the JD says on the face of it it is not antisemitic, but it certainly would be if the proposal you are advocating is subjugation of Jews, murder of Jews or for Jews to be exported elsewhere.

Those things are antisemitic by any definition.

For those taking a keen interest here, it's worth noting that in defining the definitions of antisemitism and islamophobia over the last few years there is always pushback.

Those who genuinely wish to not be racist have the option to accept what's widely considered as racist by the minority group, or if they feel they have cause, they can debate them of course.

There are many who are fuming with anger over the IHRA definition as it denies them the right to refuse Israel's right of existence, or to compare Israel to Nazis. You can judge those people as you see fit.

The consensus is that within the bounds of reality (which is that Palestinians have never in 100 years said they wanted a western style multicultural state with Jews with equal rights), that the existence of Israel is actually the only option aside from Jews not living there AT ALL.

I will point out there is similar furious debate on the definition of islamophobia from certain types who believe making it racist to imply Muslims are terrorists or paedophiles is similarly silencing "free speech". You can probably imagine what types of people those are and exactly what sort of "free speech" it is that they are so upset about losing.

@LemonyTicket

thanks for clarifying - meant Islamophobia definition.
source of antisemitism definition was already referenced in your second post

To further elucidate a "for instance" where anti zionism would cease to deny Jews the principles of equality, let's imagine this scenario.

Let's say there is a Palestinian election tomorrow and Gaza and the West Bank elect a new government who want equality for all. Let's say they want to then propose a binational, multicultural state where Jews, Muslims, Christians and all live in equality - women, gays, ALL, enshrined in law, human rights protected - the lot.

Then that would make it possible to advocate the version of anti zionism that the Jerusalem declaration explicitly states as the only acceptable one, to quote: "It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants “between the river and the sea,” whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form"

Advocating for anything other than that, is antisemitic. You are basically saying you either want Jews to be killed, expelled or subjugated. None of those is a response that is not discriminatory against Jews.

So you are indeed able to believe a single, multicultural state is the best solution, but until Palestinians propose that as an option - it is a fantasy isn't it?

Yes, sorry, just a lot of people haven't really read it so I wasn't sure which you meant :)

@LemonyTicket

Again, that is your interpretation about how such things would play out in practice (which I basically agree with). It's not what the JD actually SAYS. What it says is:

C. Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are not antisemitic

12. Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean...

The key point is "OR". Both clauses "criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism" and "arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements..." are, taken singularly and independently of each other, NOT on the face of it antisemitic. Someone doing the first of those things does not have to simultaneously do the second (as you suggest they must) to avoid being antisemitic.

If someone simply comes on here and writes, with no previous context: "I am opposed to zionism so I believe that Israel should not exist as a jewish state" then that's not, according to the JD, antisemitic on the face of it. Further discussion may elucidate whether that person is or isn't antisemitic, but on the basis of a simple statement like that, they're not.

The reason this matters is that you went much further in your opening to this thread than simply giving a reasoned view of what you consider to be antisemitic and some sources as background. You insisted that there was a singular, non-negotiable, near-universally agreed definition of antisemitism that has the authority of so many venerable institutions behind it that we mere mortals would be ever so arrogant (not to mention antisemitic) to question it. I'm a skeptic about all things by nature so I'm unlikely to accept such an appeal to authority, but fair enough - you can make it and others can accept it if they want. But you can't then come back and split hairs about the bits that you don't like. It's either a single indivisible Statement Of Truth that we all have to accept whether we agree with all the details or not, or it's a starting point for discussion that we are each entitled to accept or reject parts of, "interpret" and give reasoned objections to. It can't be both.

@MadderthanMorris

It's not my interpretation

You have missed out half the paragraph. the full paragraph says:

Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants “between the river and the sea,” whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form

You are missing out the second, very vital, half of the point.

If someone simply comes on here and writes, with no previous context: "I am opposed to zionism so I believe that Israel should not exist as a jewish state"

No, it's not technically but if the alternative to zionism they are proposing does not advocate a solution for Jews to live in Israel with full equal rights, regardless of religion, ethnicity, gender, sexuality and so on - then it is discriminatory as clearly explained.

All that is of course academic, as the JD is not the currently accepted definition by most organisations, so if people are trying not to be antisemitic then they'd presumably not say something like that.

However, carrying on the hypothetical, if a person says "I am opposed to zionism so I believe that Israel should not exist as a jewish state" then it follows they must believe in something else as an alternative. Doesn't it?

SCENARIO 1
It might be that they are simply daft as a brush and have not thought remotely what the meaning of their words is. For example, they have not considered that Palestinians do not want a multicultural state with equal rights and what happens to Jews if that's the case. I'd personally judge this type of person as not necessarily antisemitic, but certainly massively ignorant - because it's a helluva a political statement to make (I mean, denying the right of a country to EXIST) without ever having even thought through the basics! Potentially this demonstrates anti Jewish bias, I would think? I'd generally take it in context with their other behavior and attitudes to establish if they were antisemitic or merely quite daft.

SCENARIO 2
It also might be that they might be imposing their ideals of a Western style multicultural state on Palestinian people without any respect for the fact that self-determination for Palestinian people doesn't actually mean imposing a Western way of life on them. I heard a man on Twitter this morning do exactly this. "I live by my American values of peace and equality" he said - and on that basis he was anti zionist. Irrelevant to him is the fact that Palestinian people might not actually want his "American values". I'd file this under Western arrogance. Not antisemitic, but unbelievable arrogant.

SCENARIO 3
The third possibility is that they are aware Palestinians don't want a multicultural, western style state and simply don't give a fuck about the rights of Jews, and only Jews, to live safely, flourish, enjoy equality and all the benefits they advocate for others. They're more or less saying they are fine with them all being murdered, exiled or mistreated - in which case, I think almost nobody could defend this as not antisemitic.

People often try and bend things to fit their own aims, and there is no question those on the left of politics in the UK have spent some time trying to argue that denying the rights of Jews and only Jews to self determination is not racist because they're not advocating death to Jews, or for Jews to be second class citizens, or for Jews to be exiled from Israel. But the practical reality is that is all they can possibly be arguing for.

Palestinians are not now, and have never offered nor indicated in any way, shape or form that they want a binational state with equal rights for Jews. They have said the complete opposite of that. Arguing for different two state solutions is realistic, but that still includes a Jewish state so is not anti zionism.

So then you have to ask yourself why? What is the point of advocating for, demanding at protests or otherwise screaming your lungs out for years for Palestinian people to be given something they have outright said they do not want?

The point, the IHRA believes (and I do too) is to allow a socially acceptable form of blatant antisemitism to take root - under the guide of anti zionism. It means some people can scream and shout "free palestine" and endlessly demonise the Jewish state, implying (falsely) that the only thing stopping this utopian "we are all equal state" is the blasted Jews!

In other words - it's a fairly blunt instrument for propagating Jew hate under the guise of virtue signalling for Palestinian people.

And even the statement of the IHRA includes the words “taking into account the overall context” which gives a certain amount of wiggle room - perhaps, for instance, for a small number of religious Jews who think that Israel has no business to exist until the coming of the Messiah. That that isn’t antisemitic is debatable of course, but then what isn’t.

Yeah there has to be wiggle room to account for stuff like that. People might have views such as:

The orthodox view that the Messiah is coming
The anarchist view that neither Israel or Palestine should exist nor any other country

I wouldn't say either of those could be described as antisemitic as they do not seek to uphold rights and principles of people based on race, religion or otherwise.

Generally there is a context to things people say and that can be easy to figure out. If they are on Twitter all day posting about how bad "zionists" are, implying they are controlling the world or are otherwise uniquely evil whilst characterising Hamas as freedom fighters, or poor, downtrodden souls "resisting" the evil zionists, then you've got a hell of a red flag that the person talking is probably a very considerable antisemite.

The very nature with which they are connecting to these two groups is a give away.

But, because you didn’t post the actual definition(s) and left out the introduction to the IHRA illustrations, you didn’t allow this wiggle room. You gave the impression there is no wiggle room.

Where are you going with this?

This is the IHRA's introduction in full -

The IHRA is the only intergovernmental organization mandated to focus solely on Holocaust-related issues, so with evidence that the scourge of antisemitism is once again on the rise, we resolved to take a leading role in combating it. But to begin to address the problem of antisemitism, there must be clarity about what antisemitism is

The experts in the IHRA’s Committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial built international consensus around a non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism, which was then adopted by the Plenary. By doing so, the IHRA set an example of responsible conduct for other international fora and provided an important practical tool for its Member Countries

The working definition has empowered many to address this rise in hate and discrimination at their national levels. Information on endorsement and adoption of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism can be found here

Are you suggesting a number of Mumsnet readers are Orthodox Jews or anarchists who don't believe any countries should exist and that I have hence misled them by not including the above paragraph?

The point of this thread is to put in as simple terms as possible all the most widely recognised signs of antisemitism and explanations for what me, and most Jews I know experience constantly. Which is very useful given that Jews are experiencing a 1300% rise in hate crime, and these boards as well as our streets are absolutely full of it.

Some people have used it for endless straw manning and sealioning though. It's so achingly typical to what we experience constantly! Even trying to define antisemitism we get accused of some kind of sneaky behavior don't we!

I don’t think you are being sneaky. I just think you’ve made a complete hash of it.
I don’t like being told these are the rules when in fact they aren’t. It’s not for you to decide what in the IHRA statement is relevant to Mumsnet and what isn’t. Thanks for posting it in full.

Yes, many of us grasp with complete clarity how cross some of you get at being "told" what antisemitism is :) 😀

I posted the list of Islamophobia 4 times on this thread and never included the introductory paragraph. And if I'm posting something it is entirely for me to decide actually!

You're ever so transparent!

LemonyTicket

Can you also post the whole of the Human rights act. Not one with just the important bits and explanations that is easy for people to read.

Yes, many of us grasp with complete clarity how cross some of you get at being "told" what antisemitism is :) 😀

It's almost like we're adults with our own ability to understand and appraise different points of view, and not obedient schoolchildren.

Sorry Miss.

Won't happen again, Miss.

@LemonyTicket

Based on my experience, FWIW with all its limitations, I think by far the most common situation on the left is scenario 2. Historically, people assume that if the region had not been partitioned upon the end of the mandate it would have ended up as one big western-style democracy with room for all religions to rub along equally and happily. Currently, they think that because Israel is (in their view) an illegitimate state (and because it is the more powerful party, and they naturally side with the underdog) the onus is on it to at least withdraw to pre-1967 borders, not on anyone else to accept its legitimacy.

I think they're wrong, but I don't think most of them have come to that wrong point of view due to antisemitism. I think they've just got an incomplete and mistaken understanding of the history, combined with kneejerk anti-imperialism and anti-Americanism.

Here's the thing.

If a Muslim posted this thread, bearing in mind their definition of Islamophobia is more or less identical and they included elements of two definitions which were both very important, it would never have occurred to the posters above to come to it and speak to a Muslim like this.

These same people would not have come here to tell the Muslim they had it wrong, they'd done a bad job, they'd misled people by omitting the introduction, or saying "ah, but in theory this might not be islamophobia if [insert unbelievably unlikely circumstances]". Or to spend the past several pages trying to come up with "wiggle room" around denying Palestinians the right to self determination.

Not in a million years would these same people do that.

they wouldn't want to do it.

In fact, I bet if they read someone else doing it they'd probably feel sick watching such behavior.

They are doing it because I am Jewish, because I have dared to write about antisemitism, and because some of the things on these lists are things they do, and want to continue doing thank you very much.

This in itself is a massive lesson for anyone wanting to understand antisemitism in Britain. Of course sometimes it's "gas the Jews", but actually most of the time it's just being treated completely differently (and not in a good way) but people who hold very deep prejudices and treat you in ways they would not in a million years treat any other minority.

That's your assumption.

I can only speak for myself but I have in fact had very similar arguments online with muslims about what is Islamaphobia and what isn't. I'm happy to aknowledge people's different experiences to my own (with the caveat that this is an online forum so none of us really know each other), but I simply don't accept the idea of unquestionable authority about discrimination based on being a member of the discriminated group.

I might be right, I might be wrong in that. But the point is it's a general, skeptic thing. It's not a jew thing.

Well I have posted the definition of islamophobia four times on this thread and not had a peep out of you! Nor anyone else!

It's quite shocking to me that Jews are experiencing a 1300% increase in hate crimes, and people on "the left" are attending protests baring placards calling for Jews to be vamoosed to "clean up the world - and some people think the big problem here is that they're not allowed to go far ENOUGH?

Thank you @LemonyTicket I agree with your point, Jewish people feel somewhat singled out in their ability to define what counts as racism towards them.

YANBU

One thing I would like is for people to stop shouting "antisemitism" at any discussion about Israeli lobbying and influence though.

Given that international relations and geopolitics relies on counties lobbying each other and influencing each other and countries making decisions on the global stage based on what suits their interests, I think it should be fine to question whether the UK/US position is influenced by lobbying (just like with any other topic).
(Edit to add - i think in a lot of modern conflicts there's large powers making decisions based on what's in their interests, this is not a few specific to Israel before someone comes at me)

There's been disgusting anti-Semitism on here lately. There's also been some posters who are throwing around "antisemitism" whilst saying "you can criticise Israel and Israeli foreign policy but if you touch any of these areas then you're antisemitic".
I don't think the second group are helping the cause because all it does is give actual antisemites grounds to say "see you can't say anything" and emboldens them, and my concern is that people who are interested in current events and are still learning lurking on threads are met with a wall of "no can't say that, no that's antisemitic, that's also not an ok thing to question, no you can't talk about genocide because that's antisemitic to say". It means that the posters who are offering a lot of insight get lost.

I’m sorry if that’s how you see it. I did consider posting that I don’t think self-determination is a right (you can have a United Ireland or not, for example) and according to you that means I’m Islamophobic and antisemitic, but I didn’t because I need to give the matter more thought.
Of course you can decide what you post but some of the questions that arose, such as in what hypothetical circumstances it might be legitimate to compare the Israeli government to the Nazis, show that you were wrong to say that examples intended to illustrate the definition were the definition.
I’m sorry you think I’m unreasonable. I actually do like rules more than anyone I know. (That’s why I like Jeeves). It’s just that I take them seriously.
I’d better leave it there.

🙄

There is a conflict between two UN charter principles: right to self-determination and territorial integrity principles.
Because self determination can of course lead to secession of a territory.
self determined is a right, but it’s a bit irrelevant here because:

• Israel was already established with UN mandate in 1947 so yeah its citizens can continue to exercise self determination
• self determination cannot apply to lands acquired after 1967, because the people who lived there were pushed out and territories were acquired in violation of several UN principles (territorial integrity, pacific resolution of disputes etc etc)

now, palestinian people living in the West bank/East Jerusalem should have a self determination right but they are not given it. because it’s pretty clear what the outcome would be