Study: (IHRA) “Working Definition of Antisemitism”: Not a definition, Nothing to do w/ Antisemitism, Not written nor endorsed by IHRA

We are in the midst of the struggle to defend the free speech rights for the entire state of NJ from Genocrat attempt to mandate support for Israel – which is a political position that suggests arming Israel, going to war in defense of Israel interests and support for genocide. If the Genocrats believe these things need to be mandated by law to get the people to follow they are proffering a dictatorship equal to any danger by the Trump administration. A press release provided by Jewish and Muslim organizations opposed to this attempt to destroy free speech protections in NJ linked to a written study about the dangers of the IHRA – pro-Israel – doctrine that the Democrats are trying to force the citizens and residents to abide to. I am providing a few paragraphs from the Foreword and a link to the entire document so that NJ can have a better understanding as to what a horror show the Democrats are trying to enforce. Hats off to ALL of the forces that came together to SHUT DOWN THE VOTE for this horrendous piece of repressive legislation on Monday, March 18! ed.

What is touted as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism is not a definition, has little to do with
antisemitism, and was neither written nor endorsed by IHRA. Such are the findings of this meticulously researched and politically explosive report. Scholars and legal experts have convincingly argued that IHRA’s definition is incoherent, vague, vulnerable to political abuse, and not fit for purpose. It fails even to meet the most elementary requirement of a definition, which is to define. The decisive role of pro-Israel advocacy groups in drafting and promoting the definition has also been established.

This remarkable report reinforces these conclusions. But it also breaks important new ground. Expert criticism and political controversy have focused on a list of 11 highly problematic examples of purportedly antisemitic statements and behaviours. Seven of these 11 examples relate to Israel. All of these examples, according to Israel’s supporters, formed an integral part of the IHRA definition.

The report shows that IHRA’s decision-making body, the Plenary, in fact decided to exclude all of these examples from its definition. The IHRA definition includes no
examples. If there is widespread confusion about this, it is because champions of the examples within and outside IHRA have systematically and methodically
misrepresented the Plenary’s decision.

To read report:

Retweet this press release here: