![]() The letter said the first example can be used to suppress claims that Israel is breaching international laws against apartheid and is violating conventions to end racial discrimination. These include “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” and “applying double standards by requiring of a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”. The letter to Guterres said the problem lies with seven of the 11 “contemporary examples of antisemitism” attached to the definition to guide its application. ![]() Earlier this year, Stern successfully urged the American Bar Association against adopting the definition because it has been used as “a blunt instrument to label anyone an antisemite”. ![]() The letter notes that application of the definition has been widely criticised including by Ken Stern who, as the American Jewish Committee’s antisemitism expert, led its drafting two decades ago. Some of the signatories are concerned that if Guterres formally adopts the IHRA definition it will be used to curb criticisms of Israeli policies by UN bodies including the special rapporteur for the occupied territories. Signatories include Israel’s largest human rights group, B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Israeli and Palestinian civil society groups. In practice, however, the IHRA definition has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism, including in the US and Europe,” the letter said. “Adoption of the definition by governments and institutions is often framed as an essential step in efforts to combat antisemitism.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |