{Originally posted to the author’s website}
…critics have complained that such a policy could be used to stifle free speech and legitimate opposition to Israel’s policies toward Palestinians in the name of fighting anti-Semitism++. The definition of anti-Semitism to be used in the order, which matches the one used by the State Department, has been criticized as too open-ended and sweeping. For instance, it describes as anti-Semitic “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination,” and offers as an example of such behavior “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
If that isn’t wacky enough, this follows:
opponents of the definition fear that it could be used to declare any defense of Palestinian autonomy to be anti-Semitic, with federal education funding as a cudgel.
Autonomy is granted by the sovereign power within its own territory. By agreement. So campaigning for autonomy cannot be anti-Semitic as all it is is a political arrangement that does not deny Jewish nationality.
I am presuming that radical Jewish anti-Zionists are at work here, supplying the NYT with nonsensical reasoning. I need be careful here as anti-Semitism is actually non-sensical itself which could lead to all sorts of misinterpretations and misrepresentations.
The order, once signed, is to protect Jews and also non-Jews who seek to defend Israel on campuses without being threatened with actual violence, their events shut down, their dorm rooms targeted by fellow students, off-campus activists as well as by their own lecturers and administration officials.
UPDATE
Read Joel Pollock on another NYT cockup in reporting on Donald Trump’s Executive Order.
++ What is happening is that free speech and legitimate opposition to Arab terror, incitement, defense of Zionism & Israel, etc. is being stifled by Arabs and their fellow-travelers. That is the horrific situation on campuses and what the EO will combat.
The order, I understand, prohibits discrimination based on “perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics”.
In other words, the crime is what the anti-Semite presumes, not necessarily what Jews think of themselves.
Initial reporting indicated that the order would include language defining Judaism as a “national origin,” setting off a frenzy among major Jewish organizations, activists and lawmakers. The draft text of the order obtained by JI makes no such reference.
Of note: There is no mention of Israel in the text of the executive order draft shared with JI. However, IHRA includes as contemporary examples of antisemitism the accusation of dual loyalty, using symbols associated with antisemitism to characterize Israel or Israelis and “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” IHRA also notes in its working definition that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”