En lang og grundig artikkel i The Guardian 10. januar 2024 av Naomi Klein:

"We have a tool to stop Israel’s war crimes: BDS"

Hun analyserer boikott som aktivitet, og har med både historien om Sør-Afrika på 1980-tallet, og mot Israel, BDS med oppstart i 2005.

BDS mot Israel har hatt liten prktisk effekt.
Naomi Klein mener det nå, etter erfaringene fra Gaza, er viktig å ta opp og forsterke BDS-aktivitetene mot Israel.

Klein er en betydelig stemme som når ut i hele verden.
Hennes artikkel gjenspeiler grundigheten og seriøsiteten i de saker hun engasjerer seg i.
Hennes konklusjon er klare, i det hun peker på ALLE:

- "Enough. It’s time for a boycott."

Skudeneshavn 10. januar 2924

Jan Marton Jensen

På Twitter:
10. juni 2024
https://twitter.com/janmarton/status/1745197276048347422

10. juni 2024
https://twitter.com/janmarton/status/1745208654561743102

11. januar 2024
https://twitter.com/janmarton/status/1745401272809721936

Ny Info:
10. januar 2024
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/10/senior-tory-alicia-kearns-scathing-attack-bill-banning-public-bodies-boycotting-israel

Kilde:
https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein

10. januar 2023
Naomi Klein
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/10/only-outside-pressure-can-stop-israels-war-crimes

Da ICC besluttet at domstolen kunne vurdere om Israel og Palestina hadde begått krigsforbrytelser iht Romastatuttene ... da responderte Israels statsminister Netanyahu med at ICC utøvde ..."- Pure antisemitism".

Dermed har han åpent vist hvordan han som statsminister velger å bruke dette begrepet som har slik politisk kraft.

Lenge har Israel ført en kampanje mot kritikere av Israel, heunder BDS-bevegelsen.
Det toppet seg da USAs utenriksminister Pompeo i november 2020 kalte BDS både "antisemittisk" og en "kreftsvulst." - Amnesty angrep dette ... at kritikk av Israel måtte være lovlig og at Pompeo innskrenket ytruingsfriheten.

I kjernen av begrepet antisemittisme står den såkalte IHRA-definisjonen og med dens eksempler.

Denne kom til i 2016 og siden har mange land sluttet seg til definisjonen og dens eksempler ... herunder Norge.

Men etterhvert har diskusjonen tiltatt ... og i det siste har den økt.

Det pekes på at legitim kritikk av Israel i praksis blir stemplet som antisemittisme.

Og det er vel det Netanyahu nå har bekreftet med sin uttalelse om ICC.

I England har en rekke ledende jurister i et opprop 7. januar i The Guardian påpekt at IHRA-eksempler undergraver ytringsfriheten.

Og debatten går både i USA og Israel.

Den israelske journalisten Noa Landau har i en artikkel i Haaretz 18. januar 2021 konkludert at ....

- "Israel skader krigen mot antisemittisme mer enn å hjelpe den".

Nora Landaus avslutning av sin artikkel:
"The inauguration of a Democratic president provides an opportunity for Israel to reconsider, in light of the fact that its involvement is harming the war on antisemitism more than it is helping. The politicization of this issue is clearly an unwise, erroneous step that has also proven counterproductive; it is a battle that has actually served to strengthen the BDS movement."

Og israelske Nadar Tamir 6. februar i Jerusalem Post:
- "Codifying IHRA’s definition of antisemitism as law is harmful."

Det er dette oppropet i UK fokuserer på:

- At universiteter pålegges av regjeringen i England å ta i bruk hele IHRA-regelverket mht det studentene der kan ta opp.

Også Facebook påvirkes bl.a. av MIFF i Norge til å gjøre det samme.

Nå har Netanyahu bidratt til debatten med sitt utsagn om ICC: "- Pure antisemitism".

MIFF har ikke villet uttale seg om den konkrete uttalelsen fra Netanyahu.

Men det kan UD gjøre ... for å markere at Norge står opp for arbeidet ICC gjør.

Skudeneshavn 12. februar 2021

Jan Marton Jensen

På Twitter:

13. februar 2021

https://twitter.com/janmarton/status/1360525713099665410

Ny info:

1. april 2020 Blogginnlegg: "Jerusalem Declaration" - Ny veibok for hva som er antisemittisme

https://innkast.blogspot.com/2021/04/jerusalem-declaration-ny-veibok-for-hva.html

Kilde:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Holocaust_Remembrance_Alliance

6. februar 2021 Nadar Tamir
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/codifying-ihras-definition-of-antisemitism-as-law-is-harmful-opinion-658042

18. januar 2021 Noa Landau (Hele artikkelen nederst)
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-how-israel-is-harming-the-war-on-antisemitism-1.9459655

7. januar 2021

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/jan/07/antisemitism-definition-is-undermining-free-speech

19. november 2020

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/11/state-departments-attack-on-the-bds-movement-violates-freedom-of-expression-and-endangers-human-rights-protection/

19. november 2020

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20201119-pompeo-bds-movement-to-be-branded-anti-semitic/

12. august 2020

https://www.miff.no/antisemittisme/2020/08/12les-hele-facebooks-svar-til-miff.htm

13. december 2019 Kenneth Stern: "I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/13/antisemitism-executive-order-trump-chilling-effect

...................................................

Hele artikkelen til Nora Landau 18. januar 2021:
"How Israel Is Harming the War on Antisemitism"

Noa Landau January 18, 2021

Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Gilad Erdan and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at the prime minister's official residence in Jerusalem, December 24, 2020. Haim Zach / GPO

Behind the scenes, a stormy argument is taking place in the Jewish world between two camps that were aptly defined by the late Prof. Yehuda Elkana – the one that, ever since the Holocaust, has been saying “never again,” and the one that has been saying “never again to us.” Recently, this issue has been the focus of the first public battle within the American Jewish community in the run-up to Joe Biden’s inauguration as president.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance is an international project that seeks to define what antisemitism is for countries and organizations worldwide in order to help them fight it, legally and educationally. On the face of it, this is a worthy goal. But the definition IHRA adopted in 2016 has become the subject of a fierce political controversy, with the Israeli government orchestrating and intensifying the drama.

Fundamentalist Israel is no longer Jewish, says Avrum Burg on Haaretz Weekly podcast. LISTEN

The reason is the definition’s focus on examples of the “new antisemitism” against Israel as a Jewish collective. Or in other words, on whether criticism of Israel that reaches the point of anti-Zionism is necessarily antisemitic.

Thus, for instance, its examples of antisemitism include “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” An especially deceptive example, however, is “applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” After all, the Israeli-Palestinian situation is a very specific one, and so, presumably, is the criticism aimed at it.

These examples have sparked concern among many individuals and groups, including liberal Jewish organizations, that IHRA’s definition infringes on freedom of expression in a way that allows criticism of Israel to be branded antisemitic. And Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has proven in recent years that this concern is justified.

Netanyahu, the Strategic Affairs Ministry under its previous minister, Gilad Erdan, the Foreign Ministry (which has made promoting the IHRA definition a supreme diplomatic goal), and Jewish organizations funded by Israel have all argued repeatedly, citing IHRA, that the BDS movement, for example, is antisemitic. Israel has thereby proven that IHRA’s definition of antisemitism indeed has a political aspect.

In addition, the Netanyahu government has deliberately blurred the Green Line between criticism of Israel and criticism of the settlements, thereby further fanning the controversy. U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration then added fuel to the fire when it announced that it planned to label important human rights organizations like Amnesty International “antisemitic.”

Since the IHRA definition was drafted, 28 countries and numerous organizations, including universities and sports associations, have adopted it, with encouragement from the Israel lobby. Last week, the European Commission even issued a nonbinding recommendation on the matter. Israel would dearly love for Facebook and Twitter to adopt it as well.

Last week, in a step that flew under the radar of the Israeli discourse, 10 liberal Jewish organizations, including J Street and the New Israel Fund, issued an unusual joint call for the Biden administration not to implement its predecessor’s pledge to enshrine the IHRA definition in law. This was in contrast to establishment Jewish organizations, which have been urging the Biden administration to adopt it.

The inauguration of a Democratic president provides an opportunity for Israel to reconsider, in light of the fact that its involvement is harming the war on antisemitism more than it is helping. The politicization of this issue is clearly an unwise, erroneous step that has also proven counterproductive; it is a battle that has actually served to strengthen the BDS movement.

Frispark

fredag 31. januar 2025

Professor Daniel Blatman om IHRA-definisjonene og BDS

onsdag 13. november 2024

Nye bestemmelser i Tyskland mot Antisemittisme

"'Absurdist': Jewish Artists Warn Against Germany's New Antisemitism Resolution"

onsdag 10. januar 2024

Naomi Klein: "We have a tool to stop Israel’s war crimes: BDS"

"We have a tool to stop Israel’s war crimes: BDS"

fredag 18. mars 2022

Boikott og sanksjoner innført mot Russland - Hva med BDS som Emneknagg?

fredag 12. februar 2021

Hva er antisemittisme? - Har Netanyahu rett mht til ICC?