So we're agreed that the actions of Israel as a nation and the actions of millions of Jews all over the world are not related, that's good.
On that basis, how is it even relevant, let alone acceptable to insert a clause into a charter on anti-Semitism to specify that adherents should be allowed to criticise the actions of Israel?
Because the ORIGIANL CHARTER which the labour one IS RESPONDING TO says that it IS NOT ACCEPTABLE to criticse Israel. Therefore, it is a defintion proposed by the Lbaour party fully aware that it is a response to the original one.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-anti-semitism-row-definition-ihra-jeremy-corbyn/
"The party decided to accept all 11 examples of Antisemitism and adopt the IHRA definition in full at its second meeting on the issue, in September.
But Jewish groups attacked an accompanying statement agreed by the NEC aimed at protecting free speech about Israel and the rights of Palestinians."
---- Just pause for a second and think about the situation. Here we have a group saying that by reaffirming the rights of the Palestinian people, and stating the Judaism and Israel are not one and the same, probably one of the most anti-anti-Semitic statements you could make, we are persecuting Jews. It is ridiculous.
The way I see it, and here i deviate from anything to just my own views, is that half a century ago abhorrent acts (to say the least) happened against the Jewish community in Germany. Therefore it was considered essential to define what Antisemitism is and what acts constitute it. At the time Israel was an incredibly, incredibly young country and no one could not have foresaw that it would later oppress Palestinians, especially considering everything that you would hope would be in the historical memroies of the people who evacuated to Israel.
It is akin to asserting a clause that says you cannot call the United States of America imperialist because they were under subjugation from the British empire a few hundred years ago, therefore no matter if America bombs Iraqi citizens or has oppressed the Natives within its own borders for for 400 years, it is offensive to suggest that America is anything but pure and free.
I'm sorry, but as a left-winger who is concerned for all people regardless of national residency or background, I don't agree with this (ironically traditionally left-wing) approach that considers it inappropriate for comments to be made about any state regarding the actions it takes with regards to ethnic minorities because of persecution that has since lonst past and has no relevance in the contemporary period off today.
Perhaps you live on a different planet where it is not OK to criticise a state that is slowly murdering minorities and pillaging land - because something happened 70 years ago that isn't even related to the nation being criticised - but that is your crazy prerogative and if you wish to stick by it without any evidence whatsoever to back up your claims be my guest.