The IHRA definition of antisemitism is designed to muzzle criticism of Israel. It should be rejected in favor of a more historically informed discussion on Zionism's origins in European antisemitism.
Zionism is one of those political terms that is assumed to have a universal definition agreed upon by all when in reality people are using the same word to argue completely different concepts in many cases. It’s a sensitive and inflammatory topic because of ongoing prejudice and atrocities committed in living memory so there are obstacles to overcome to have a good faith discussion.
Israel’s constituition establishes a secular state which does not privelege one ethnitcity or religion over another. Benjamin Netenyahu represents a far-right contingent of Israeli politics and has enacted policy which does real world harm to Palestinian people. Criticism of his administration can be motivated by anti-semitism, but if we’re seriously talking about geopolitics and apartheid on the left I think we’re more focused on making sure the human rights of Palestinians are respected. Netanyahu’s political opponents in Israel who do not wish to continue expanding settlements into demarked Palestinian territories are most likely not motivated by anti-semitism. Critics abroad making the same arguments against the actions of Israel’s secular government similarly are probably less motivated by anti-semitism and more motivated by some sense of universal human rights. Although there are some imperial-minded people that oppose Israel’s actions because they have some sense of not wanting their most hated group of people to grow more powerful, I honestly don’t think anyone in this comment section or from the linked article has that motivation. Anti-semitism is a very real problem which needs to be taken very seriously, but framing a left-wing political argument in favor of human rights as only possibly motivated by anti-semitism is completely bad faith which does no favors to anyone except the far-right.
Zionism is one of those political terms that is assumed to have a universal definition agreed upon by all when in reality people are using the same word to argue completely different concepts in many cases. It’s a sensitive and inflammatory topic because of ongoing prejudice and atrocities committed in living memory so there are obstacles to overcome to have a good faith discussion.
Israel’s constituition establishes a secular state which does not privelege one ethnitcity or religion over another. Benjamin Netenyahu represents a far-right contingent of Israeli politics and has enacted policy which does real world harm to Palestinian people. Criticism of his administration can be motivated by anti-semitism, but if we’re seriously talking about geopolitics and apartheid on the left I think we’re more focused on making sure the human rights of Palestinians are respected. Netanyahu’s political opponents in Israel who do not wish to continue expanding settlements into demarked Palestinian territories are most likely not motivated by anti-semitism. Critics abroad making the same arguments against the actions of Israel’s secular government similarly are probably less motivated by anti-semitism and more motivated by some sense of universal human rights. Although there are some imperial-minded people that oppose Israel’s actions because they have some sense of not wanting their most hated group of people to grow more powerful, I honestly don’t think anyone in this comment section or from the linked article has that motivation. Anti-semitism is a very real problem which needs to be taken very seriously, but framing a left-wing political argument in favor of human rights as only possibly motivated by anti-semitism is completely bad faith which does no favors to anyone except the far-right.