At various times during discussion of Israel and Palestine on Daily Kos, pro-Israelis will come up with a reference to the European Union having a definition of antisemitism and claiming that it has been officially adopted by the “European Commission”.
The matter is fudged on Wikipedia under the entry for “New antisemitism” (in part}
In September 2004, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, a part of the Council of Europe, called on its member nations to ensure that anti-racist criminal law covers antisemitism. In 2005, the EUMC offered a definition of antisemitism, [98] one that the British government was urged to adopt by a 2006 all-party parliamentary inquiry. Some contemporary examples included, but were not limited to:
There then follows a list of actions.
This set me off further investigating as those of you who know anything of European and EU institutions will know that the Council of Europe is not an EU body. Having tried to navigate the EU’s sometimes labarynthine web sites, not helped by a change in the name of the body, I contacted the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Today I received an answer to my email which states quite simply at the end:
Finally I stress once again that “working definition” is part of an ongoing process with no legal basis whatsoever.
This was the main part of my email to the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA):
I have great difficulty in finding on your site or the main Europa site a definition of “anti-semitism”. Is there one separate from the general treaties, including the Treaty of Amsterdam? Does it list activities which are automatically regarded as anti-semite and are there ones which must be judged separately?
If a separate definition exists, what status does this have within the acquis? Which EU bodies have endorsed this?
These questions are prompted by assertions I have had from certain pro-Zionists that I have encountered which claim the EU regards criticising actions by the state of Israel’s actions towards the Palestinians is defined by it as anti-semitism. This has also been
phrased in terms of “the oppressed becoming the oppressors”. Does the EU regard comparisons of actions by the Israeli governments to action by the Nazis or the apartheid regimes of South Africa to be automatically anti-semitic remarks? These appear to be the interpretations presented by those Americans I have encountered and it would seem that this would
have the effect of restricting criticism of another form of Xenophobia.
The response makes it clear that the “definition” is a working definition used by the FRA and its allied agencies for the purpose of data collection and “supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism”. The exact definition is solely:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed towards Jews and non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
It indeed lists actions and opinions which might be regarded as antisemitism but, and this is the part frequently omitted, “taking into account the overall context”.
The FRA also directed me to the background on this working definition.
The EUMC Report on Antisemitism published in March 2004 highlighted both the lack of operational definitions of antisemitism in most EU Member States and the insufficient data comparability due to the different methodologies used by primary data collectors.
In order to support the collection of more specific and relevant data and to have a very precise view on the developments of anti-Semitism the EUMC and OSCE/ODIHR consulted Jewish organisations like the European Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee , other major Jewish NGO’s and prominent academics. Informal discussions were held with a view to develop a common “working definition” in line with the theoretical arguments elaborated in the EUMC’s antisemitism report, whose author was also consulted to ensure that the working definition is compatible with the theoretical considerations outlined in the report, which was adopted by the EUMC’s Management Board.
This working definition has a practical purpose acting as a basic guide to both official and non-official primary data collecting agencies highlighting possible examples of antisemitism, taking into account the overall national context.
The text was sent to the EUMC’s RAXEN network (organizations based in each EU Member State contracted by the EUMC to collect data) for distribution among data collecting agencies in order to get feedback regarding its functionality, effectiveness and relevance to their country specific situation. The role of the network does not include primary data collection. However, since they interact with both official and non-official primary data collectors, they were asked to discuss this working definition with them and provide the EUMC with feedback regarding their views on its functionality. The text will be reviewed again with all those involved in the process and the next steps will be discussed with OSCE/ODIHR and the Jewish organisations.
For the EUMC the “working definition” is developed as a practical tool to support more accurate data collection and is part of an ongoing process having no legal basis. Similar “working definitions” for data collection proposes, improving comparability and effectiveness, will be also developed in the future for other subjects.
The OSCE/ODIHR’s involvement is particularly important, since they have announced that they will also be collecting data on antisemitism in the near future, and is therefore worthwhile to make an effort to ensure coherence and consistency.
What is clearly a tool to provide common standards of data collection has somehow been transformed into official EU policy in the eyes of some on Kos. It is also interesting to note that changes in definitions also have an affect on the data collected. To take one example, the number of racist incidents reported by the police in the UK rose significantly when the victim was asked if he considered the incident racist. Clearly country by country increases in antisemetic incidents can be recorded where the country’s definition remains the same. On the other hand, EU wide statistics may well be affected by the adoption of a common working definition and its accompanying notes.
with this diary? I refer to your posting it, deleting it, reposting it, and redeleting it?
And why post a diary here making allegations about conduct at Daily Kos?
“why post a diary here making allegations about conduct at Daily Kos?”
Ya gotta be kidding. Ya really gotta be kidding.
To an extent, BMT has become the unwitting repository of all things dkos. Unfortunately many here are dkos refugees for whom agent orange holds little fascination.
I haven’t been around dailykos enough to understand the reference to agent orange.
Now I do understand about agent purple as Canada was developing something far worse than agent orange to use against the Vietnamese people, even though we were not at war against the Vietnamese people. It’s ok though as we exposed our soldiers to it first. You know – with friends like Canada… or is that the government will look after you… But I am pretty sure that this is not what you are talking about.
Here’s what the paper has to say about criticism of Israel:
Obviously, this explication of the working definition rests on certain assumptions. One assumption, for example, appears to be that “contemporary Israeli policy” is not meaningfully similar “to that of the Nazis.”
I confess I have not closely followed discussions at Daily Kos about the EUMC working definition. Inasmuch as you felt moved to post a diary accusing some members of Daily Kos of misusing the definition, I would appreciate the diarist providing some representative examples of alleged this alleged misuse together with a substantive commentary explaining why the examples constitute misuse. And I would invite you to do so at Daily Kos, so that the people you accuse can have fair notice and an opportunity to respond.
But the qualifying phrase — “taking into account the overall context could include” — means that the assumption is that there may be contexts where any of the listed rhetoric could be legitimate and not anti-Semitic. (And the working group definition doesn’t imply that all such comparisons are wrong or illegitimate.)
For example, a comparison of Israel to the Nazi regime when the context shows it are nonsensical could be an example of antisemitism. But, my interpretation is, if the comparison is accurate and compares to ‘uniquely Nazi’ aspects of the Nazi regime, it might be legitimate.
Example of illegitimate comparison, even if true:
Israel and the Nazis both built very strong militaries.
Example of legitimate comparison, if true:
Israeli and Nazi soldiers both killed kids from victimized ethnic groups for sport.
The above said, I still think Nazi comparisons are generally an incredibly counterproductive debate tactic.
The above said, I still think Nazi comparisons are generally an incredibly counterproductive debate tactic.
However, to say that genocide was bad when the Nazis did it, but good when Israel does it, is the very essence of the corruption of discourse.
It is a corruption that some of us have lost patience for.
This corruption is not an accident, it is deliberate and malicious, and is generated by Zionists seeking to cover up great crimes.
Yes, they are criminals, and they are BLAMEWORTHY.
We should quit being deceived by them.
by applying it to vastly different acts. Ethnic cleansing is bad enough, and I’m sure it legitimately applies to what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians. Israel is not doing genocide, as that word was understood before its meaning was widened into incoherence during the 1990s anti-Yugoslavia ‘human rights’ era.
Actually I tend to agree with you in that the Genocide Convention has a very precise definition of Genocide which includes a matter of intent. This in part is why the former UN Secretary General’s envoy to Darfur refused to characterise that situation as falling within the definition. In fact I wrote a diary on Kos making just that point, something that the petty Likudniks refuse to acknowledge.
That however was the situation last year. I am starting to come to the opinion that the current Israeli government’s policy in Gaza is edging closer to the definition. The arming of one side of the government looks suspiciously like it is trying to forment a civil war. In addition, they have recently re-occupied the area in the north of the Gaza strip where the tragedy of the sewage works spill cost lives. That further delays the necessary repair and upgrade work which had already been delayed by continued Israeli shelling of the immediate area.
From Article III of the 1948 convention:
The crime of genocide has two elements: intent and action. “Intentional” means purposeful. Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders. But more often, it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts.
Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorrial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.
The phrase “in whole or in part” is important. Perpetrators need not intend to destroy the entire group. Destruction of only part of a group (such as its educated members, or members living in one region) is also genocide. Most authorities require intent to destroy a substantial number of group members – mass murder. But an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group.”
Looks like to me any old country lawyer could get a slam dunk on the “systematic pattern of coordinated acts”…
Of course Isr is engaging in genocide..so-mo genocide, but still genocide.
And as for the nazi reference arguement..since I don’t practice political correctness I go along with Col Lang’s guide to critical thinking…..”if it walks, talks and quacks like a duck then it’s a damn duck” ..same goes for nazis.
Your argument is partly why I am moving towards regarding the position in Gaza as meeting the definition of Genocide under the Convention. In particular it is the systematic destruction of the means of living, ie by the creation of a near-ghetto where there are limited opportunities to find employment so that there is dependency on food aid; The withholding of tax revenue and the promotion of aid boycotts which have restricted the availability of medical supplies; The restriction on movement into Israel where many were formerly employed; the destruction of the power station leaving the strip dependent on imported electricity; The continued incursions into the area in the north of the strip and its bombardment that led to the loss of life following the sewage works collapse.
It is interesting that neither the USA not Israel have ratified the first and second protocols to the Geneva Conventions which deal with non-state conflicts. In part they also recognise the right to form resistance against an occupying power. Here there is a legitimate comparison with Europe in WWII. There is another in the illegal annexation of land in Jerusalem in particular with the Nazi annexation of the Sudetenland.
The last is also the aspect I find most revolting about some of the pro-Israeli posters on Kos, namely the belief in the right of conquest with the excuse that the annexed lands were won in a defensive war and that the other country should be “punished” for aggression. By that criterion the US should be handing over southern Iraq to the Quwaitis. There also appears to be a growing movement in the areas round the Strip to drive the Palestinians into the sea, film of just such a chant was part of an Al Jazeera English’s station ident although I would like to have the translation verified.
The real question is how the actions of the Israeli governments can be tested against the Genocide Convention. Any action through the UN would be blocked by the USA. The only option appears to be the court of public opinion and the propaganda machine looks like it is finely tuned to close down legitimate debate there.
Yep…the US and their “strongarming” other members of the UN thru various means of carrots and sticks on their own country’s interest has kept the UN from moving to examine Israel on the 1948 conventions.
Quite ironic isn’t it…considering how the Conventions came to exist in the first place.
Those were part of a definition of antiSemitism supplied by an EU organization by a right wing Likudnik ZIonist organization in America, the American Jewish Committee. Next to the Zionist Organization of America, the AJC is probably the worst exemplar of an AIPAC laison in the country.
Criticism of Israel being antiSemitic is probably the worst of the lot, hidden among quite appropriate symptoms of antiSemitism, thus giving them equal significance.
This is really a checklist of antiSemitism so that it is no longer necessary to understand the basis for a criticism of Israel. It mere fact is enough. And that Israelis and even a rabbi, I believe, made comparisons of Israel’s behavior toward Palestinians in the West Bank with Nazi behavior. That is troubling. Before long they will add comparisons to apartheid South Africa as being antiSemitic. Of course, such a comparison is not appropriate, since we now have South Africans like Bishop Tutu claiming that Blacks were never treated the way Israelis treat Palestinians.
Contemporary Israeli policy “is” similar to that of the nazis.
In fact I would say they are almost exact if you look at the early stages of the nazis actions against the jews…the Israelis just haven’t gone as far as the nazis…Yet. But no doubt in my mind if the world wasn’t watching they would.
Dont’ see how it could be any plainer.
I made this request to the EU for clarification because at least one on Kos had claimed that either the European Parliament or the Commission had passed it. I found no evidence of that on their site and therefore asked them. It is surprising (or perhaps not) that the Wikipedia piece selectively quotes the list of “evidence” but fails to either quote the definition itself or the question of context.
When I made the search, the Europa portal and the Agency’s site were undergoing a revamp making searching on it even more difficult.
I should explain that last point. The EUMC was changed to the Agency for Fundamental Rights by a Council (of Ministers) order in February to reflect a different role within the Treaty of Amsterdam. When I asked the question, most of the links on the Europa portal site were broken as the change in name meant a major revamp of their site, including a change of site name from EUMC.EU to FRA.EU Subsequently the links on the Wikipedia site were restored. I have now edited the “New Antisemitism” page on Wiki so it more accurately reflects the situation.
The point in answer to the Kos question is that the EUMC/FRA working definition which had a specific purpose of unifying data collection was being represented as having the status as part of the acquis. It is clear from the list of people consulted that the EUMC asked people with a distinct bias for a definition and they included aspects which cut down debate on Israel/Palestine matters, especially when the caveat about “context” is eliminated.
Judging by the swamping of my posting of this on Kos, the usual suspects find this unacceptable. Similarly they freely use “Islamofascist” as an acceptable term but object to the use of “Judeofascist” to describe actions like those of the US rabbi who went to Israel to get the Gay Pride march in Jerusalem banned as “this is the Holy Land, not Homo Land”.
One of the People, your troll rating-tacting is pure D.Kos.
Maybe you should go back there with the thugs where you are at home.
Agreed. Enough with the troll-rating bullshit.