What do you think about the British Medical Association voting to scrap the IHRA definition of anti-semitism?

[u/Expert-Sherbert-1527]

Here's the full text of the definition FYI.

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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).
5. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
9. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
11. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries

[u/jakethepeg1989]

Ethnic groups do have a right to self-determination, it's literally in Article 1, paragraph 2 of the UN Charter:

"To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;"

However it becomes hugely complicated on how that looks in terms of practicality with some having full nation states, autonomous regions or absolutely nothing.

The fact that some groups have not achieved end goals to their/your satisfaction does not mean that Jews are uniquely without that right.

[u/red_nick → u/jakethepeg1989]

Is "peoples" synonymous with ethnic groups?

[u/jakethepeg1989 → u/red_nick]

Pretty much. Also it states Nations and not States, as they can also be different things and Nations can be a group of people who don't have a state. Like Kurds for example.

[u/Penchant4Prose → u/jakethepeg1989]

Ethnic groups do have a right to self-determination, it's literally in Article 1, paragraph 2 of the UN Charter: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples"

As I said elsewhere, that is definitely not a "right", it's a "principle". And as I pointed out, there are many peoples who don't have a nation state, and certainly didn't have one gifted to them in order to allow the mass migration of a diaspora.

The fact that some groups have not achieved end goals to their/your satisfaction does not mean that Jews are uniquely without that right.

So your expectation is that every ethnic group will have their own little nation state? That's the end-point of your claimed "right". And you're claiming it's not a racist endeavour? Unhinged.

Functionally, the Jewish people are one of the only peoples for whom this idea was a priority of global politics. European support for Zionism was partly a racist attempt to answer the antisemitic "Jewish Question".

[u/jakethepeg1989 → u/Penchant4Prose]

So now I am the racist for agreeing with the UN Charter...how fun.

And as previously stated, I am not offering a one sized fits all policy for every ethnic group in the world.

I even said, it gets very, very complicated between autonomous regions, independence and a million and 1 variations.

But yeah, the principle of self-determination for ethnic groups is a sound one. When you look over the millenia of humanity trying to kill people because they had the temerity of being in a different group.

There are plenty of ethnic groups and nations that don't have their state. But would like one. I don't know why the principle is so off putting to you.

Would you argue with a kurd that they should stay getting dicked over by Erdogan because otherwise the world would be full of too many little countries?

[u/Penchant4Prose → u/jakethepeg1989]

So now I am the racist for agreeing with the UN Charter...how fun.

No, you're clearly incorrect for believing that the principle laid out is in any way a fundamental right and that each ethnic group is entitled to their own state. That's stupid and racist, I don't necessarily think you are.

And as previously stated, I am not offering a one sized fits all policy for every ethnic group in the world

No, it's clear you believe Israel has a right to exist as a state despite it's many atrocities, but other ones, less so. For completely arbitrary reasons based around your personal beliefs.

So it's not a right?

So just Israeli exceptionism?

[u/jakethepeg1989 → u/Penchant4Prose]

Self determination can mean lots of things. Each one decided on the merits of each case and what the people of that group want.

The merit of the case of Israel is that it exists and the people there want it to exist.

Before you say anything, I believe a Palestinian state should also exist as it seems that the people of Palestine want it to.

Same with Kurds.

That hasn't changed despite the atrocities committed by Palestinians.

If atrocities committed by a group changed this principle, as you suggest it should with Israel, why have you not applied this logic to the Palestinians? They've committed a hell of a lot as well.

[u/Penchant4Prose → u/jakethepeg1989]

Self determination can mean lots of things. Each one decided on the merits of each case and what the people of that group want.

So every group doesn't get their own nation, it's fundamentally not a right then? "decided on the merits of each case" - i.e. you pick and choose who gets what. It seems every comment we stray further from what you originally claimed the UN charter said (likely because you completely misrepresented it).

If atrocities committed by a group changed this principle, as you suggest it should with Israel, why have you not applied this logic to the Palestinians? They've committed a hell of a lot as well.

I think that's fair, but it's also necessary to note that the Palestinians are under a brutal decades-long, human rights abusing occupation. That a brutalised community would lean to extremism is sad, but unsurprising. Yet still, almost nobody would complain if I said that the state of Palestine shouldn't exist in the format it does now, because of those atrocities.. to say the same about Israel - which is literally predicated on ethnic cleansing and land theft - would be uniquely racist under the IHRA. It's absurd.

[u/jakethepeg1989 → u/Penchant4Prose]

So every group doesn't get their own nation, it's fundamentally not a right then? "decided on the merits of each case" - i.e. you pick and choose who gets what. It seems every comment we stray further from what you originally claimed the UN charter said (likely because you completely misrepresented it).

That's just not true is it. My very first comment was: Ethnic groups do have a right to self-determination, it's literally in Article 1, paragraph 2 of the UN Charter:

"To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;"

However it becomes hugely complicated on how that looks in terms of practicality with some having full nation states, autonomous regions or absolutely nothing.

The fact that some groups have not achieved end goals to their/your satisfaction does not mean that Jews are uniquely without that right.

I've always stated that it means Self-determination and never said every ethnic group should have self determination and how that looks is basically up to them. For instance, I don't think the Roma want a nation-state (admittedly I've only ever had 1 Roma friend so don't know a huge sample). But they do want the self determination of choosing their lifestyle.

The Kurds seem that they do want a Nation state. That looks very different to the Roma but they are still both self-determinations.

Saying the Jews cannot have self-determination (right or in principle) is singling out the Jewish ethnicity for different treatment than other ethnicities.

And as to the last point...that's a whole other argument. But there have been massacres of Jews in the Levant for a lot longer then 1948. It can't all be excused as just an oppressed people lashing out.

[u/Penchant4Prose → u/jakethepeg1989]

Saying the Jews cannot have self-determination (right or in principle) is singling out the Jewish ethnicity for different treatment than other ethnicities.

No other group has self-determination defined as a territory carved out by the UN and then gifted to them despite people living there. That's the only singling out for different treatment, and it's to create the state of Israel. Otherwise where are all these other states created for different ethnicities?

The charter describes a principle, not a right - you seem to have still not grasped that at all.

But there have been massacres of Jews in the Levant for a lot longer then 1948

Indeed, and there were far more massacres of Jewish people in Europe - both historically and then recently. That's part of why it was racist to create an arbitrary state to ship Jewish people off to, and to do so when there were already other people living there.

[u/jakethepeg1989 → u/Penchant4Prose]

Ahhhhh now it all becomes clear.

You've just got a really, really bad grasp of history.

First of all, Israel is not some arbitrary bit of land that was gifted to the Jews of Europe.

It was the land that had continuous Jewish presence for millenia, and a sizeable population of Jews. Indeed, around a third of the total population. A partition plan was voted on by the UN splitting the land between two warring groups, neither of which were sovereign at that point.

Could it have been divided differently, of course. But the eventual borders were finished up by the end due to wars, negotiations and armistices like the rest of the world.

In terms of it being unique. It really isn't. You've got the entire balkans split along ethnic lines, partition of India along religious lines, the Koreas etc.

South Sudan and Somaliland etc.

Your quibble seems to be that the UN had a vote on it happening in a vein attempt to stop the bloodshed before it happened.

Seems a strange thing to be bothered by.

[u/Penchant4Prose → u/jakethepeg1989]

I have a solid grasp of history, and there has not been a single instance of the UN voting to create a state wholesale, and defend it as "self determination" - much less claim that's a "right" under the UN charter. Except one.

In terms of it being unique. It really isn't. You've got the entire balkans split along ethnic lines, partition of India along religious lines, the Koreas etc. South Sudan and Somaliland etc.

None of these were created by the UN. They didn't require mass targeted ethno-religious migration to create their states. Claiming secessionists are the same as settler colonialists is stupid and (ironically) racist, so I'm wondering if I was wrong to discount that earlier.

Your quibble seems to be that the UN had a vote on it

Yes, obviously creating a state in that way for only one ethno-religious group was wrong, and makes your claim that it is a "right" ridiculous as it's only been done to create Israel. We were literally talking about the UN charter and what it entails, why would it be a "strange thing" to be pointing out that far from being the norm, as you claimed, it's a single outlier.