Shapiro: "First, calling the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism “ideologically charged” fails to reckon with that definition on its own terms.."
And by focusing only on the definition - as the author does - fails to recon with the examples supplied on the IHRA site …
Shapiro: "First, calling the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism “ideologically charged” fails to reckon with that definition on its own terms.."
And by focusing only on the definition - as the author does - fails to recon with the examples supplied on the IHRA site as forms antisemitism may take. Specifically, quoted:
"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:
...
* 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.
* Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
..."
So she's being a bit pedantic....and perhaps a bit disingenuous. Sure, IHRA's 2-sentence definition doesn't include the items noted in the original FP article (or much of the commentary on this topic), but the reality is many of those items (or similar statements) ARE included on the IHRA as examples. And yes, those examples matter. So if she has a problem with people using those examples, then perhaps the better approach would be to write a letter to the IHRA arguing that they be removed.
This passage is a bit disingenuous:
Shapiro: "First, calling the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism “ideologically charged” fails to reckon with that definition on its own terms.."
And by focusing only on the definition - as the author does - fails to recon with the examples supplied on the IHRA site as forms antisemitism may take. Specifically, quoted:
"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:
...
* 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.
* Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
..."
So she's being a bit pedantic....and perhaps a bit disingenuous. Sure, IHRA's 2-sentence definition doesn't include the items noted in the original FP article (or much of the commentary on this topic), but the reality is many of those items (or similar statements) ARE included on the IHRA as examples. And yes, those examples matter. So if she has a problem with people using those examples, then perhaps the better approach would be to write a letter to the IHRA arguing that they be removed.