over The last couple of years have seen a steep rise in the number of hate crimes with anti-semitic overtones, both in Europe and in the united states. In the wake of a förråat used as well as the emergence of an increasingly radical nationalism has been hateful attitudes toward jews turned on and increased in intensity.
It is in this context that the prime minister, mr Stefan Löfven supports the IHRA’s definition of “ anti-semitism, with the following example. It is a solemn time for jews in the world, but they will never know that they are in the world, but friends and allies.
and , yes, we agree with the criticism. IHRA’s definition appears to be even now like the outdated, given the rapid developments taking place in the present day. Our suggestions for additional definitions, we do not want merely to contribute to the further strengthening of the document, but also to remind you that the IHRA is describing this as a working definition, and therefore not a static matter. We are, of course, welcome that, in addition, He expressed appreciation for our proposals.
This is a very serious time for the jews in the world, but they will never know that they are in the world, but friends and allies.
on the other hand, we have to defend the political relevance of a document has started to be recognised by an increasing number of countries, even though there may be gaps in the academic’s perspective. It should also be seen as a pro-active letter of intent to play a more active policy to combat anti-semitism. It has a great symbolic significance.
It is patently absurd to call any criticism of Israel to anti-semitism, and, at the same time, it is important to note that somlig criticism against the state of Israel may indeed be anti-semitic. It is this latter fact that the IHRA is taking a view by its definition.
Both She and Goldberg in his article is the mention of the author of the IHRA definition, the Kenneth Stern warning that a different interpretation of the examples could be used to support the illegal ockupations and bosättarpolitiken. This is a fair warning. The definition needs to be protected from political abuse. There can be no contradiction between standing up against anti-semitism, and to defend the principles of international law. In a departure from this position would lead the fight against anti-semitism, and its moral authority in wide circles.
It is important to understand that the IHRA definition is not a legally binding document, the international personality of the character. In the end, its significance will be determined by how it is actually cultivated as a policy. There has been in Sweden, as the co-founder of the IHRA, an especially symbolic to show that it is possible to fully stand behind the IHRA’s definition and, even, to stand up for the law and against the israeli government’s illegal ockupations and bosättarpolitik.
<
