Latest news with #InternationalHolocaustRemembranceAlliance
Roya News
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Roya News
'Israel' furious after Brazil exits Holocaust remembrance alliance
Brazil has withdrawn from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), an intergovernmental body dedicated to Holocaust education and combating antisemitism. The decision is seen as a direct consequence of Brazil's increasingly critical stance on 'Israel's' aggression on the Gaza Strip. Brazilian officials cited "legal limitations" and a "recommendation from United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Francesca Albanese" as reasons for their inability to pay membership dues, implicitly linking Holocaust remembrance to the current conflict. Unofficial reports also mentioned financial resources. Under President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil has become a vocal critic of 'Israel's' campaign on Gaza. Lula previously compared 'Israel's' actions to the Holocaust , leading to a diplomatic rift. Brazil recalled its ambassador to 'Israel' and is formally intervening in South Africa's "genocide" case against 'Israel' at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The IHRA's non-legally binding Working Definition of Antisemitism, adopted by over 45 countries, has faced criticism from human rights groups who argue it can be "weaponized" to stifle legitimate criticism of 'Israel'. The 'Israeli' Foreign Ministry slammed the move, saying on X, 'Brazil's decision to join the legal offensive against Israel at the ICJ while withdrawing from the IHRA, is a demonstration of a profound moral failure.' Dani Dayan, chairman of Yad Vashem and current president of the IHRA, called it "unprecedented" and a "serious crossing of a red line," stating it's the first time a Western country has subordinated Holocaust remembrance to political considerations. Major Jewish organizations, including the World Jewish Congress, expressed deep concern, asserting that Brazil is "turning its back on the international community's efforts" and "abandons" its significant Jewish community. Conversely, pro-Palestinian groups like the Palestine Arab Federation of Brazil (FEPAL) celebrated the move, characterizing the IHRA as "an arm of Zionism" used to "shield Israel from criticism" and "aid the extermination of Palestinians".
New Indian Express
5 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Columbia's $200M deal with Trump administration sets a precedent for other universities to bend to the government's will
How does this deal address antisemitism? The Trump administration has cited antisemitism against students and faculty on campuses to justify its broad incursion into the business of universities around the country. Antisemitism is a real and legitimate concern in US society and higher education, including at Columbia. But the federal complaint the administration made against Columbia was not actually about antisemitism. The administration made a formal accusation of antisemitism at Columbia in May of this year but suspended grants to the university in March. The federal government had initially acknowledged that cutting federal research grants did nothing to address the climate for Jewish students on campus, for example. When the federal government investigates civil rights violations, it usually conducts site visits and does very thorough investigations. We never saw such a government report about antisemitism at Columbia or other universities. The settlement that Columbia has entered into with the administration also doesn't do much about antisemitism. The agreement includes Columbia redefining antisemitism with a broader definition that is also used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The definition now includes 'a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews' – a description that is also used by the US State Department and several European governments but some critics say conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism. Instead, the agreement primarily has to do with faculty hiring and admissions decisions. The federal government alleges that Columbia is discriminating against white and Asian applicants, and that this will allow the government to ensure that everybody who is admitted is considered only on the basis of merit. The administration could argue that changing hiring practices to get faculty who are less hostile to Jewish students could change the campus climate, but the agreement doesn't really identify ways in which the university contributed to or ignored antisemitic conduct. Is this a new issue? There has been a long-running issue that conservatives and members of the Trump administration – dating back to his first term – have with higher education. The Trump administration and other conservatives have said for years that higher education is too liberal. The protests were the flash point that put Columbia in the administration's crosshairs, as well as claims that Columbia was creating a hostile environment for Jewish students. The administration's complaints aren't limited to Columbia. Harvard is in a protracted conflict with the administration, and the administration has launched investigations into dozens of other schools around the country. These universities are butting heads with the administration over the same grievance that higher education is too liberal. There are also specific claims about antisemitism on university campuses and the privileges given to nonwhite students in admissions or campus life. While the administration has a common set of complaints about a range of universities, there is a mix of schools that the administration is taking issue with. Some of them, such as Harvard, are very high profile. The Department of Justice forced out the president at the University of Virginia in January 2025 on the grounds that he had not done enough to root out diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the public university. The University of Virginia may have been a target for the administration because a Republican governor appointed most members of its governance board and agreed with Trump's complaints.
Sydney Morning Herald
5 days ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Segal's antisemitism plan takes us down a path we should fear to tread
This week, the federal government joined 27 other nations in condemning Israel's 'drip-feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic need of water and food'. That same government's own antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, also published a report which proposed that universities, arts organisations and perhaps even public broadcasters should have funding stripped if they 'engage in or facilitate antisemitism'. This raises a question: if the words of the Australian government came instead from an academic, or artist at a festival, would it risk their public funding? The government is making grave allegations against Israel – ones that enrage its Israeli and American counterparts. It's possible some people could misuse those allegations to bolster their hatred of Jews, especially in the cesspit of social media. Could the government's words be taken to 'facilitate antisemitism' under their own envoy's plan? Personally, I think not. Trump and Netanyahu might disagree. And that's a worry. The definition of antisemitism Segal wants used to determine when institutions fall foul of it – drafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance – states 'criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic'. Accordingly, those suggesting the envoy's report condemns all criticism of Israel as antisemitism overstate the position. But the trouble is it's very difficult to know by how far. By what criteria, exactly, is someone to determine when anti-Israeli commentary becomes antisemitic? It's a crucial question when you're specifically proposing to make research grants terminable if the academic receiving those funds 'engages in antisemitic … speech or actions'. Or when you propose to strip charities of their tax deductibility if they 'promote speakers' who 'promote antisemitism'. Define this too broadly and you silence perfectly legitimate debate. Define it too narrowly, and these proposals have no purpose at all. Either way, it would need to be defined extremely clearly. The IHRA definition doesn't quite match this brief in two ways. Firstly, it is deliberately drafted vaguely because it describes itself merely as a working definition: guiding, illustrative and non-binding. Its drafters intended it more for the purposes of data collection than meting out punishment: a filter, not a sword. Loading Secondly, the illustrative examples attached to the definition, which outline the kinds of criticisms of Israel that would amount to antisemitism, were not unanimously adopted by those drafting it. One drafter, Antony Lerman, recalls there was so much disagreement about them that they were severed from the part of the definition to be formally adopted, to obtain a consensus. That's significant because it is in the examples that most of the controversy resides. It leaves a breach, now flooded by the most febrile cacophony, largely because this has become a contest to draw sharp lines to define something that simply cannot be defined that way. Take one common example, most recently reiterated by the chair of one of Australia's most influential Jewish advocacy organisations: that it is antisemitic, amounting to a 'blood libel', to accuse Israel of genocide. Fine, if the allegation rests on some trope that Jews by their nature delight in slaughtering children and are merely searching for an excuse to do so. Or if the accusation is so wildly fanciful that only the most prejudiced, conspiratorial mind could entertain it.
The Age
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Age
Segal's antisemitism plan takes us down a path we should fear to tread
This week, the federal government joined 27 other nations in condemning Israel's 'drip-feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic need of water and food'. That same government's own antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, also published a report which proposed that universities, arts organisations and perhaps even public broadcasters should have funding stripped if they 'engage in or facilitate antisemitism'. This raises a question: if the words of the Australian government came instead from an academic, or artist at a festival, would it risk their public funding? The government is making grave allegations against Israel – ones that enrage its Israeli and American counterparts. It's possible some people could misuse those allegations to bolster their hatred of Jews, especially in the cesspit of social media. Could the government's words be taken to 'facilitate antisemitism' under their own envoy's plan? Personally, I think not. Trump and Netanyahu might disagree. And that's a worry. The definition of antisemitism Segal wants used to determine when institutions fall foul of it – drafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance – states 'criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic'. Accordingly, those suggesting the envoy's report condemns all criticism of Israel as antisemitism overstate the position. But the trouble is it's very difficult to know by how far. By what criteria, exactly, is someone to determine when anti-Israeli commentary becomes antisemitic? It's a crucial question when you're specifically proposing to make research grants terminable if the academic receiving those funds 'engages in antisemitic … speech or actions'. Or when you propose to strip charities of their tax deductibility if they 'promote speakers' who 'promote antisemitism'. Define this too broadly and you silence perfectly legitimate debate. Define it too narrowly, and these proposals have no purpose at all. Either way, it would need to be defined extremely clearly. The IHRA definition doesn't quite match this brief in two ways. Firstly, it is deliberately drafted vaguely because it describes itself merely as a working definition: guiding, illustrative and non-binding. Its drafters intended it more for the purposes of data collection than meting out punishment: a filter, not a sword. Loading Secondly, the illustrative examples attached to the definition, which outline the kinds of criticisms of Israel that would amount to antisemitism, were not unanimously adopted by those drafting it. One drafter, Antony Lerman, recalls there was so much disagreement about them that they were severed from the part of the definition to be formally adopted, to obtain a consensus. That's significant because it is in the examples that most of the controversy resides. It leaves a breach, now flooded by the most febrile cacophony, largely because this has become a contest to draw sharp lines to define something that simply cannot be defined that way. Take one common example, most recently reiterated by the chair of one of Australia's most influential Jewish advocacy organisations: that it is antisemitic, amounting to a 'blood libel', to accuse Israel of genocide. Fine, if the allegation rests on some trope that Jews by their nature delight in slaughtering children and are merely searching for an excuse to do so. Or if the accusation is so wildly fanciful that only the most prejudiced, conspiratorial mind could entertain it.
Sydney Morning Herald
22-07-2025
- 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.
