ALLEGATIONS of anti-Semitism have been prominent in international news lately, with Jeremy Corbyn’s British Labour Party in crisis, accused even by some of his own MPs of tolerating or even practising anti-Semitism.
Further controversy arose over Corbyn’s reluctance for the party to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Anti-Semitism.
The IHRA consists of 31 member countries, 24 of which are European. Australia, while not a full member, is one of two liaison countries.
The working definition doesn’t just define anti-Semitism, it gives examples, including when criticism of Israel is considered anti-Semitic.
These include: denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, for example, by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour; applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation; using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterise Israel or Israelis; and drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
This raises the question of when criticism of Israel does cross into anti-Semitism.
Of course, like any other country, it is completely legitimate to criticise the conduct or policies of Israel. On the other hand, there are clear examples where the line is crossed.
In Greg Barns’s latest anti-Israel diatribe, “Relationships transcend the divide of life in Jerusalem” (Talking Point, Mercury, September 24), Barns refers to “the events of 1948 that saw Palestinians ripped from their land and houses to make way for the Jewish state”.
He arguably seems to be suggesting Israel shouldn’t exist.
At the very least, he is blatantly rewriting history.
Read the article by Jamie Hyams in The Mercury.