AMMAN — According to a report published in The Intercept,
the administration of US President Joe Biden is being criticized for adopting a
definition that blurs criticism of Israel with antisemitism, a move that has
previously hindered freedom of the press in Europe.
اضافة اعلان
The report points to a recent speech by Yemeni-American
student Fatima Musa Muhammad, where she criticized Israeli settler colonialism
and called for resistance against "capitalism, racism, imperialism, and
Zionism," leading to a renewed discussion on the distinction between
criticizing Israel and promoting antisemitism.
Confusion over definition
In response to the speech, Republican lawmakers swiftly
introduced a draft resolution in Congress that would withdraw federal support
from academic institutions that "approve antisemitic events".
The resolution refers to a definition of antisemitism that
has been promoted by Israel and its supporters, claiming that it blurs
prejudice against Jews with criticism of Israel and Zionism.
This comes after Biden endorsed the definition of
antisemitism as part of the National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism in May.
The 60-page document referred to a definition formulated by the International
Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and presented it as the primary
definition adopted by the administration.
The resolution refers to a definition of antisemitism that has been promoted by Israel and its supporters, claiming that it blurs prejudice against Jews with criticism of Israel and Zionism.
However, the administration emphasized that the definition
holds no legal value, does not supersede existing laws, and does not serve as
binding guidance for public agencies and local governments.
Nonetheless, the door was left open for lobbyists to adopt
it.
Conservative and pro-Israel groups saw this as a partial
victory, as the document did not fully endorse the IHRA's definition as the
sole basis of federal policy.
Debate over the definition's influence
Lara Friedman, Head of the Middle East Foundation for Peace,
noted that some groups, such as the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish
Committee, and the Simon Eisenthal Center, treat the document as if the
definition has been fully adopted.
She argued that what the document states is not significant,
as demonstrated in the case of City University, New York.
Limited success
Efforts to encourage US entities to adopt the IHRA's
definition of antisemitism have faced limited success.
While 31 states, as well as numerous regions and municipal
councils, have implemented decisions related to the definition, its application
is challenging due to the strong constitutional protection of freedom of
expression.
While 31 states, as well as numerous regions and municipal councils, have implemented decisions related to the definition, its application is challenging due to the strong constitutional protection of freedom of expression.
In Europe, where the definition was formulated, many
countries and institutions have adopted it. However, a report by the European
Legal Support Center, released on Tuesday, argues that this has resulted in
human rights violations.
The center documented 53 examples between 2017 and 2022,
including cases in Germany, Austria, and Britain, where the definition was used
to expel individuals, revoke job offers, cancel events, and seize assets. The
report highlights that those accused of anti-Semitism are often defenders of
Palestinian rights, and when the accusations are challenged legally, they are
frequently found to be baseless.
Alice Garcia, an expert, explains that the ratification of
the definition by European countries and its repeated references have given it
the status of a "soft law”.
While the EU has maintained that the definition does not
violate freedom of expression since it is non-binding, Garcia argues that it
carries significant weight and can effectively restrict freedom of expression,
assembly, and become effectively binding.
Read more Region and World
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
