Latest news with #Zionism
Wall Street Journal
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
‘Zionist' Contains Multitudes
Am I a Zionist? Yes and no. Either answer is true. The word, something of a war cry these days, seems to have lost a clear meaning. In truth it has multiple. Teasing out each can help us understand Jews, antisemitism and the Middle East.
Sydney Morning Herald
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism was adopted in 2016 as an educational and data-collection tool. It is deliberately non-legally binding and begins with a clear, universal sentence: 'Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.' Thirty-plus democratic governments, the European Parliament, the UN secretary-general, and tech giants such as Meta, have endorsed or incorporated the definition. Australia's special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, grounded her national plan released this month in the same wording, citing a 316 per cent surge in antisemitic incidents. All 39 Australian universities have endorsed or adopted a similar version to the IHRA definition. The universities do not include some of the IHRA's specific examples of antisemitism but do refer directly to criticism of Zionism as potentially being antisemitic, unlike the IHRA definition, which does not mention Zionism. The definition has become the world standard because it provides 11 practical illustrations that police, teachers and human rights watchdogs can map onto real-world cases – swastikas on playgrounds, synagogue bomb threats, or, yes, demonisation of Israel when it slips into Nazi analogies. Since Segal released her plan, there have been several recurring objections: 'It chills free speech.' Amnesty International warns the plan 'threatens people's rights to freedom of expression and assembly'. 'It stifles criticism of the Israeli government.' Labor MP Ed Husic has said the 'definition instantly brings into question whether or not people will be able to raise their concerns of the actions, for example, of what the Netanyahu government is doing in Gaza.' 'It will be weaponised to defund universities and media.' Headlines warn of an 'inappropriate definition' used to strip funding from institutions. 'Weaponising antisemitism insists on the exceptionalism of the Jewish community'. Some argue that the 'Jewish establishment' is insidious in using antisemitism for nefarious ends. At first blush, these arguments sound like principled liberal concerns. Probe a little and they dissolve into a curious double standard that leaves every minority except Jews entitled to define the hatred they face. Why the 'free speech' objection misfires is because the IHRA definition is diagnostic, not punitive. The document itself states it is 'non-legally binding.' No one is jailed for foot-faulting it. While the special envoy has called for punitive action if patterned institutional antisemitism is not dealt with, the IHRA definition itself does not demand sanction. It is a working guide to what anti-Jewish racism looks like.
The Age
13 hours ago
- Politics
- The Age
Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism was adopted in 2016 as an educational and data-collection tool. It is deliberately non-legally binding and begins with a clear, universal sentence: 'Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.' Thirty-plus democratic governments, the European Parliament, the UN secretary-general, and tech giants such as Meta, have endorsed or incorporated the definition. Australia's special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, grounded her national plan released this month in the same wording, citing a 316 per cent surge in antisemitic incidents. All 39 Australian universities have endorsed or adopted a similar version to the IHRA definition. The universities do not include some of the IHRA's specific examples of antisemitism but do refer directly to criticism of Zionism as potentially being antisemitic, unlike the IHRA definition, which does not mention Zionism. The definition has become the world standard because it provides 11 practical illustrations that police, teachers and human rights watchdogs can map onto real-world cases – swastikas on playgrounds, synagogue bomb threats, or, yes, demonisation of Israel when it slips into Nazi analogies. Since Segal released her plan, there have been several recurring objections: 'It chills free speech.' Amnesty International warns the plan 'threatens people's rights to freedom of expression and assembly'. 'It stifles criticism of the Israeli government.' Labor MP Ed Husic has said the 'definition instantly brings into question whether or not people will be able to raise their concerns of the actions, for example, of what the Netanyahu government is doing in Gaza.' 'It will be weaponised to defund universities and media.' Headlines warn of an 'inappropriate definition' used to strip funding from institutions. 'Weaponising antisemitism insists on the exceptionalism of the Jewish community'. Some argue that the 'Jewish establishment' is insidious in using antisemitism for nefarious ends. At first blush, these arguments sound like principled liberal concerns. Probe a little and they dissolve into a curious double standard that leaves every minority except Jews entitled to define the hatred they face. Why the 'free speech' objection misfires is because the IHRA definition is diagnostic, not punitive. The document itself states it is 'non-legally binding.' No one is jailed for foot-faulting it. While the special envoy has called for punitive action if patterned institutional antisemitism is not dealt with, the IHRA definition itself does not demand sanction. It is a working guide to what anti-Jewish racism looks like.
Memri
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Memri
U.S. Activist Calla Walsh at a Martyr Memorial Ceremony in Tehran: Glory to All the Martyrs! Glory to the Axis of Resistance! Death to America! Death to Israel!"
U.S. activist Calla Walsh attended the 'International Memorial for the Media Martyrs of the Struggle against the Zionist Regime' in Tehran. In her remarks, she expressed gratitude for the hospitality and said: 'We all have a duty, when we go back to the countries we came from, to share the truth we saw here, and to struggle against Zionism and imperialism. Glory to all the martyrs! Glory to the Axis of Resistance!... Death to America! Death to Israel.' The ceremony was aired on IRINN TV (Iran) on July 20, 2025.
Los Angeles Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Anti-Zionism is antisemitism — university leaders settle the question
For too long, the debate over antisemitism on college campuses has bogged down over whether anti-Zionism is antisemitism. Endless ink has been spilled over the distinction (or not) between the two. Last week, in their testimony to the House Committee on Education & Workforce, UC Berkeley Chancellor Rich Lyons, City University of New York Chancellor Félix V. Matos Rodríguez and Georgetown interim President Robert M. Groves cut through all this academic hairsplitting. 'Is denying the Jewish people their rights to self-determination … antisemitism? Yes or no?' asked Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah). All three university leaders replied simply and unequivocally: 'Yes.' The right to Jewish self-determination is a textbook definition of Zionism. The clarity with which the university officials pegged anti-Zionism as antisemitic is much-needed and long overdue. For years, progressives have raised consciousness about the need to recognize and repudiate bigoted dog whistles, microaggressions and misgendering. Yet many of those same progressives have been shockingly silent when it comes to decrying the macroaggressions of antisemitism that have become increasingly commonplace at anti-Israel protests. They've insisted that the now-familiar chants — 'From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free!' 'We don't want no two states! We want all of '48!'— are not antisemitic, just anti-Zionist, with some who are Jewish concurring and providing cover. Yet just as there can be 'racism without racists' — that is, racist results without racist intents — so too can there be antisemitism without antisemites. Not all anti-Zionists are antisemites, but anti-Zionism, in its most basic form — denying to the Jewish people the right to self-determination, a right recognized as inherent to countless others, including Palestinians — is itself a form of antisemitism. Moreover, because anti-Zionism singles out the Jewish state alone for elimination — among the dozens of ethnonational or ethnoreligious states in the world, including myriad Islamic ones — that, too, makes it a form of antisemitism. Declaring anti-Zionism to be antisemitic, as the university leaders did, was an important development for the dignity of Jewish students, one that echoed and amplified a federal district court's preliminary injunction last year that said UCLA could not allow anti-Israel activists to exclude 'Jewish students … because they refused to denounce their faith,' of which Zionism was a central component, from parts of the campus, as happened during protests against the Israel-Hamas war. Zionism, at its core, is a belief in Israel's right to sovereignty as a Jewish state on part of the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. That's a millennia-old article of faith for Judaism, as reflected, for example, in daily Jewish prayers, the Passover Seder and the ritual of breaking a glass at weddings. Those claiming the mantle of Zionism for far more aggressive or exclusionary aims don't change that core fact, nor do those treating Zionism as a uniquely malevolent expression of national liberation or nation-building. Recognizing anti-Zionism as a manifestation of antisemitism is an important step forward for combating the discrimination and ostracism that many Jewish students have experienced for expressing their support for Israel's right to exist in the face of those who call for its elimination. Such recognition, in turn, can help concentrate campus conflicts about Israel and Palestinians on what matters most: fruitful debate over Israel's actions (including its prosecution of the war in Gaza) rather than fruitless shouting matches over Israel's existence and neo-McCarthyite litmus tests ('Are you now or have you ever been a Zionist?'). As this happens, we would be well-served to cease and desist using the terms 'Zionism' and 'anti-Zionism,' except as historical artifacts. After all, 'Zionism' refers to the aspiration to create a nation that is now nearly 80 years old. And anti-Zionism thus perpetuates a fantasy that Israel's long-settled place among the family of nations is still open for debate. It isn't, any more than, say, the existence of Russia under Putin or the United States under Trump, however much we might deplore their policies, is open for debate. We owe the Berkeley, CUNY and Georgetown leaders a great debt of gratitude for helping to elevate the intractable campus conflicts about Israel and the Palestinians to a higher plane. Mark Brilliant is an associate professor of history and American studies at UC Berkeley.
