GracesGranMk3 Thank you for your posts about the IHRA definition of anti-semitism and its lack of legal standing. I tried sometime ago to get a proper debate about this. About why it was accepted as it stands by the UK Parliament in spite of a recommendation by a sub-committee that it had problems and that additional information should be added-namely
We broadly accept the IHRA definition, but propose two additional clarifications to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse about Israel and Palestine, without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate. The definition should include the following statements:
It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.
It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent
We recommend that the IHRA definition, with our additional caveats, should be formally adopted by the UK Government, law enforcement agencies and all political parties, to assist them in determining whether or not an incident or discourse can be regarded as antisemitic.
Why this was never widely reported or why the additional caveats were never introduced remains a mystery.
Thans for the posts about alternative Jewish voices.