IHRA: The Politics of a Definition
JVL Introduction
We are reposting a report on the IHRA Working Definition and the shenanigans behind its adoption and propagation.
First published in April 2021, this powerful report by Jamie Stern-Weiner has lost none of its relevance and perceptiveness, both about the manoeuvrings around the adoption of the definition, and its potential and actual use to undermine legitimate criticism of the state of Israel.
Since then its malign influence has grown and it is constantly – and misleadingly – wielded as a weapon to justify weaponised allegations of antisemitism.
It has been directed particularly strongly against the non-violent BDS movement.
Those who are called on to counter its use will benefit enormously from reading this nuanced analysis of the people and forces behind its adoption and its continued, ideologically motivated, deployment.
RK
This article was originally published by Free Speech on Israel on Sat 24 Apr 2021. Read the original here.
IHRA: The Politics of a Definition
Loading article text…
Talking of shenanigans and free speech, the Jerusalem Post makes interesting reading
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-862928
Yes this is a staggering admission of the plotting that went into attacking Corbyn but it also understates the role of other powerful actors who would seem to “lose out” with a government more committed to achieving fairness and a decent standard of living and decent services for working class people. It also dangerously overstates the role of Jews and assumes all Jews supported their actions.
I am lobbying Cumberland Unitary Authority to urge them to repudiate the IHRA definition.
Edinburgh University is discussing un-adoption.
(This is the second time I have tried to post a comment in order to point out that) …. Professor Avi Shlaim in his foreword says much more than your article states: He says, “The report ought to lead any government or organisation that is considering the adoption of the IHRA definition to think again and those that have already signed on to it to reverse their decision.” It is good therefore to note in your comments that Edinburgh Uni is considering this reversal of policy. It would be interesting to know whether organisations who have been misled into adopting the IHRA definition in this form, will also consult their lawyers to find out if the named individuals in the report can be held personally liable for the time and expense of adopting a fraudulent document.