Ulf Bjereld, and Thomas Hammarberg will give in to the DN Debate, the support for Sweden’s decision to adopt the IHRA developed the definition of anti-semitism, with it’s eleven way of example, and that, in its text, and five of the new systems.
the Intervention is to be welcomed, then, the IHRA’s definition, and, in particular, by its example, has a far-reaching impact on both the discourse on anti-semitism and the Israel-Palestinian conflict. This is also the reason why I want to debate their actions.
the HRA’s definition is, in itself, is vague, and the authors suggest that the addition, it indicates that, I believe, is the fundamental error. is a veritable swiss cheese with countless holes, which is not going to be filling out. There is an enormous amount of academic literature, which over the years has been written with the hope that understanding anti-semitism, nature, and the funktionsskiftningar, depending on the temporal and political context.
David Engel, one of the most prominent historians of modern jewish history, and suggested that it should be put an end to an analytical use of the term, as it tends to confuse rather than clarify. There is no all-encompassing definition that fits every situation. Therefore, it is likely that a universal definition may be doing more harm than good.
This fact is best illustrated by one of the existing examples, to which, Bjereld and Hammarberg lend their support. Therein is treated as ”denying the jewish people’s right to self-determination,” anti-semitism. While it may be true In some cases, but more often than not. It is possible to affirm that the jewish people’s right to self-determination, but at the same time, to draw the conclusion that the denial of the same form of anti-semitism. Zeev Jabotinsky himself, is one of the great jewish ledargestalterna, and the ruling Likudpartiets ancestor, recognizing no beating around the bush with this fact in his article, published in 1923, titled ”The Iron Wall”. Jabotinsky stressed that, like all colonized people, the will of the palestinians, and from their point of view and quite rightly so – that to reject zionism as an alien invason.
is To insist at the same time is indicative of a serious eurocentriskt approach, which does not in any way in the middle of the term, however. Instead, the delegitimerar and criminalizing all palestinians, including a large number of antisionistiska of the jews), which Jabotinsky argued, on the understandable grounds, rejects zionism.
a Palestinian, professor of the philosophy of law (and israeli citizen), Dr. Raef Zreik, describes this dual perspective on zionism: ”the Europeans will see the backs of the refugees who are fleeing for their lives, but we, the palestinians, see the bosättarens, and the soldiers ‚ faces as they try to take our place on the earth, and turn us into a stateless people.”
of All the attempts at intervention in the israeli-palestinian discourse should be taken in both perspectives. It is a pity that the IHRA’s definition (as well as Bjereld, and Hammarberg), so as to completely fail, possibly unintentionally, with this one.
To combat anti-semitism and to protect a vulnerable minority from a violent homogeniserande tendency on the part of the majority society, as well as from the nation’s grasp.
The IHRA adopted to the definition, is doing just the opposite. The defence of a powerful, state – of-Israel – in the well-documented massive abuses in the occupied territories and the minority and human rights.
I would venture to say that there is a fundamental issue that the IHRA’s definition, and, in particular, some of the examples behäftas is very similar to Donald Trump’s recently uncovered so-called ”Century of Settlement,” which has been imposing on the palestinians are the unreasonable terms and conditions, denies, and ignores their needs and aspirations, while at the same time supporting the Israeli occupation and the annekteringsplan. The bypassing of the palestinian discourse on the conflict, without ever consulting them. Thus, it is a powerful silencing mechanism in which, in practice, the screw it is a disproportionate imbalance of power between the israelis and the palestinians.
(for the academic rather than legislative purposes), but later became one of the most pungent criticism. As he writes in the Guardian: ”I am a zionist, but antisionister have the freedom of speech”. Is now being used, according to Stern, IHRA’s definition, in order to undermine it. .
I think we’re doing very, very well to protect his word.
<
