1/ This is well worth a read.
I agree completely that the "trope-ification" of the antisemitism discussion ad absurdum is unhelpful and even harmful. Antisemitism is about threatening or denying rights from Jews, and this should be the focus.
2/ This appears to me unrelated to the question of how serious the threat of antisemitism is in the US. As an observer from afar, the normalisation of antisemitism in sections of the GOP appears to me a very serious development.
3/ The reference to an (unlikely) "American Auschwitz" is unhelpful. Auschwitz is an anomaly in the history of antisemitism; not the norm. A more likely risk is, say, Argentina: the rise of authoritarian right wing, full of hatred to the "wrong Jews".
4/ Antisemitism is key for white nationalism, and white nationalism is on the rise. I see nothing wrong in being motivated by this danger.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/ I am deeply saddened by these news. @PearsFoundation funded my own position at SOAS between 2011 and 2014, and supported several other Israel Studies projects I was involved with. I found them supportive and professional, and had excellent and warm relations with them.
3/ The Foundation’s ethos at the time was to support academic research and teaching on difficult and challenging issues, to contribute to an informed and well-reasoned public debate. They repeatedly stressed their commitment to academic independence.
1/ Do you know who’s afraid of the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA)? Professor David Miller from Bristol. He knew it was coming, from rumours; and he railed against it in his infamous 15 FEB talk. In fact, this was his main point (5:30)
2/ “… the Zionists are already planning their alternative to the IHRA. It’s called the Jerusalem Declaration, and it will be announced shortly, at a time of their choosing, when the think it’s going to make the most impact and have the most effect.”
3/ “What we’ll be faced here [is] a Liberal Zionist case for suggesting that there is a serious case of antisemitism or Judeophobia in this country when there isn’t. There isn’t a serious problem. They will to get it back on the agenda. So we face a massive battle over that.”
Generous of @Jackiew80333500 to call the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) “workable and acceptable”. As a signatory, I totally agree; and I want to demonstrate how we can work with the JDA to highlight the antisemitic references in the record of ... Jackie Walker.
2/ Clearly, the only reason Walker likes the JDA is because it's not the IHRA. But this football match attitude to life can only take you so far. Because when we examine Walker's record against the JDA, the picture couldn't be clearer.
Source for examples
1/ The JDA is a response to the IHRA working definition, and seeks to address the IHRA's shortcomings, and clarify the areas in which the IHRA is too ambiguous and open to wildly different interpretations.
2/ The main focus here is on the entanglement between antisemitism and Israel/Palestine. The concern is global, as reflected in the international group of signatories. However, each context deserves its own attention. I will focus on the UK.
So a few thoughts on the results, based on current polls:
Netanyahu can form a hard right government, with bare majority of 61 out 120, with the Kahanist Ben Gvir in crucial position. Netanyahu wants to halt or cancel his trial, and will be willing to promise everything
2/ However, it's not clear everyone will be happy to hand Netanyahu what he wants (immunity or halting the trial); and I expect a Kahanist government will face enormous international pressures. In normal times, Netanyahu would never agree to such government.
3/ So yes, such a government, that liquidates Israel's judiciary on one hand, and pushes aggressively for annexation, is possible, and would be a departure and a serious escalation. And at the moment it seems to be leading that way...
Raef Zreik: "To be anti-Zionist means mainly an ideological stand on the narrative on how we got here. But what hinders any solution is not ideological, but rather political. And here, I'm a 100% political person ...
"I'm interested in the manifestations, practices, materialities of how people live. If someone like [Meiron] Benvenisti thinks the essence of Zionism is a binational state, I'm not going to argue with him saying, no you have to stop being Zionist."
"I agree with him, and he can continue to call himself a Zionist. I'm fine with that. I'm for the political, not the ideological."
From his remarkable talk in Van Leer in the panel on Julia Neuberger’s book on Antisemitism: