Our Joke Congress--"Anti-Semitism"
Our Joke Congress voted yesterday to potentially enable censorship of criticism of Israel, specifically including criticism of genocidal policies of the state of Israel. This is naturally done under cover of awareness of “anti-Semitism”. Why do I enclose that word in quotation marks? Because all depends on the definition of that word, and the “definition” that it adopts is explictly not a definition at all. What the House has adopted is the “working definition” of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. As the phrase “working definition” indicates, the “definition” is, in fact, not a definition. It is, instead an impressionistic collection of “examples” that is clearly intended to chill the speech of anyone criticizing the state of Israel under cover of humanitarian concerns.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene @RepMTG
Antisemitism is wrong, but I will not be voting for the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6090) today that could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews. Read the bill text and contemporary examples of antisemitism like #9.
Now, Matt Walsh, below, states point blank that this bill is “a bill to criminalize criticisms of the Israeli government.” My reading of the bill is that it contains no criminal provisions. It is no less pernicious for that. It is clearly intended to have a “chilling effect” on Americans who inclined to criticize the genocidal policies of the Israeli government—despite any protestations to the contrary. If you follow the link (below) to Johnson speaking with CNN’s Erin Burnett you’ll quickly be aware of the slipperiness of his protestations. The very vagueness and generality of the “definition” is a strong indication of that intent to exert a chilling effect—or to appear to be doing to satisfy Johson’s AIPAC paymasters. It is fully intended to chill Americans from exercising their First Amendment rights in that regard. In particular, it is aimed at Free Speech in educational settings but, in general, will be used to harass and intimidate anyone seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights to criticize Israel.
The vast majority of Republicans just voted for a bill to criminalize criticisms of the Israeli government. If the bill passes you will be guilty of hate speech if you “apply double standards” to the government of Israel or accuse it of genocide. This is honestly one of the most insane pieces of legislation I’ve ever seen.
Quote
Jake Sherman @JakeSherman
HOUSE PASSES antisemitism bill, 320-91
Make no mistake about it—this is a genuinely Bad Idea and will probably prove to be Bad for the Jews. Rather than suppressing criticism of Israeli genocide as its primary effect, it will probably increase anger at, and distrust of, the Ruling Class and its puppet Congress. And rightly so, because it’s primary intended effect is the suppression of First Amendment rights. It’s that simple. This result should not come as a surprise, because this “working definition” has long been criticized by eminent Jewish academics for the same reasons I have outlined:
In March 2005, Brian Klug argued that this definition proscribed legitimate criticism of the human rights record of the Israeli Government by attempting to bring criticism of Israel, and criticism of Israeli actions and criticism of Zionism as a political ideology into the category of antisemitism and racially based violence towards, discrimination against, or abuse of, Jews.[186]
In December 2016, David Feldman wrote: "I fear this definition is imprecise, and isolates antisemitism from other forms of bigotry." He also said: "The text also carries dangers. It trails a list of 11 examples. Seven deal with criticism of Israel. Some of the points are sensible, some are not." He added: "Crucially, there is a danger that the overall effect will place the onus on Israel's critics to demonstrate they are not antisemitic."[65]
In February 2017, a letter signed by 243 British academics, who asserted that the "violation of the rights of Palestinians for more than 50 years" should not be silenced, contends "this definition seeks to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism" and raised concerns about muddying the definition of anti-Semitism and restricting free debate on Israel.[187][non-primary source needed]
In July 2018, Antony Lerman wrote: "investing all in the IHRA working definition of antisemitism is just making matters worse. ..."[29] He later stated that "the case against IHRA is so strong" and "...the fundamental principle that IHRA is so flawed it should be abandoned..."[4] In August 2019, he wrote: "The vagueness of the 'working definition' of antisemitism has licensed a free-for-all of interpretation, delighting opponents of Palestinian demands for equal rights."[150]
…
In August 2018, Rebecca Ruth Gould, Professor of Islamic world and comparative literature at the University of Birmingham, published the first extended scholarly critique of the IHRA definition: "Legal Form and Legal Legitimacy: The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism as a Case Study in Censored Speech" in the journal Law, Culture and the Humanities. Gould described "the IHRA definition as a quasi-law" and documents the meaning of the IHRA document's self-description as "legally non-binding," the history of its application, and the legal dynamics bearing on its deployment in university contexts.[189] In a later opinion piece, Gould stated that "These dimensions are made all the more contentious by its imprecise content and the significant ambiguity around its legal status. On the basis of the many ways in which the IHRA definition has been used to censor speech, particularly on university campuses" and "that the definition's proponents have not paid enough attention to the harms of censoring Israel-critical speech."[190] In the journal article, she also noted that since the adoption of the IHRA definition "at least five universities [in the UK], and likely many more, have had planned events cancelled or otherwise censored due to a perceived need to comply with this definition, even in the absence of its legal ratification."[189]
…
How will the education establishment react to this? My guess is that this example from the highly politicized Chicago Public School system could prove typical in the months ahead:
CPS students protest Gaza war, march to University of Chicago encampment
Anti-war protests have swept college campuses in recent weeks as students support Palestinians in Israel’s attacks on Gaza, decry what they call censorship from their universities and call on institutions to divest from weapons manufacturers and companies supporting Israel.
Follow the link for details and 17 photographs.
The Republican party has identified itself with suppression of criticism of genocide by having the Trump endorsed, Dem supported, Speaker go to Columbia University to engage in outrageously mendacious speech. It has thereby renounced any intention of engaging in any outreach to the disaffected base of the Dem party—you’ll see what I mean if you peruse the 17 photos. Trump and Johnson have also, for public perception purposes, identified the GOP as the party of “Christian” “Zionists”. Does that seem smart to you? Me neither. What’s next? Having sicced local LE forces on the rising generation of college students, will they next do the same to HS students? Where does this stop? Yes, I realize that leftists and these students are well aware that it is a Dem administration that has lined America up as a participant in genocide. But why would Republicans forfeit their claim to uphold the Constitution for the sake of supporting a criminal administration?
Congress outlaws the Epistles of Paul. What occasion will the use for the assault on the Gospels?
Why?
AIPAC is that powerful.
It's good for everyone (even the people with 50 IQs) in the USSA to finally see who their true boss is.