Provide me the distinction in law where accusing one is not anti-Semitic but the group is. The distinction must be in law and not up to personal opinion. This law is way too broad and being vague just allows all the distinctions to not be defined by Congress but instead interpreted by judges of multiple motivations following the guidance of a non-government, non-American organization.
Also, the equivalence of Israel to Jews is false in international law. One, not all Jews are Israelis (the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism itself states this, but ignores it when making certain bullets). Two, not all Israelis are Jews. You can see this false equivalence with the IHRA working definition as they flip back and forth between Jews as an ethnicity and the state of Israel instead of treating them as two groups with shared membership but not in entirety. If I, an American of Scottish, Irish, German, and Cherokee extraction have sex with an Israeli woman and produce a child, the kid is not full ethnic Jew but is still Israeli. I'm pretty confident that's happened before of Arabs and Jews both native to Israel having sex and producing offspring. That's one reason why explicitly ethnic-based states all across the world I consider this horrid European monstrosity belonging to the pre-World War II era that does not work in the modern world with freedom of movement for people.
If I accuse Iran of being a threat to world peace that does not make me Islamophobic, even if Iran is an Islamic theocracy. But we are choosing to define in federal law these conditions that apply to only one country and one ethnicity.
Point D though is just taking the piss, that is not a credible opinion in the 21st century because all nations pick and choose quite often where to be hypocrites, and we're making this federal law based off a vote held in Romania 8 years ago.
[/quote]
It does need to be defined
in law because it is quite obvious from reading the text, it says "of jews controlling the media, economy, etc..." , if you say "this jew has control over bank XYZ(which he legally owns)" that is different from saying "George Soros is secretly running all the banks", the second is obviously
!!!in law!!! antisemitic, while the other is obviously not
!!!in law!!! antisemitic.
As for Jews and Israel, that is true, but that's not what I said, I stated that jews, jewish-run institutions and yes, Israel, a majority jewish state, are all often held to higher standards than others, that's also true.
And also, THE IHRA DEFINITION DOESN'T BAN CRITICISM OF ISRAEL, if you are saying that Iran is a threat to world peace, that's not inherently islamophobic, nor is saying the same thing about Israel inherently antisemitic, as long as you are doing it for a valid reason (ex: Iran or Israel are genuinely being bellicose).
This definition, which is being written into law, does not ban criticism for one ethnicity for one state, it merely defines what antisemitism is.