@dowie OK hopefully this is close enough to what you usually beat it to, it's been a while for me this is the best I got.
My original issue stemmed from what I was lead to believe an Israeli Governement "mission" to globally define a new definition (the IHRA definition) of antisemitism (nothing to do with Israel!) in their favour
Israel have been pushing their anti-isreal=anti-semitism angle quite hardcore the past couple of years.
They have publicised a new definition of antisemitism and have managed to get governments to listen.
You correctly informed me this was a group based outside of Israel consisting of members from multiple countries - I since found potentially biased articles linking the Israeli government to lobbies across the globe apparently working to get the IHRA definition adopted by their respective country. I did not site these but have given enough info for you to do the Google if you wanted your brain corrupted.
The article I should have quoted in my OP is the one I've quoted just below and would have given the following reference but I don't see how its such a necessity.
Now they promote the fact Jews in other countries get attacked and use it as a way of influencing that foreign country to retrain its police/teachers etc in the new definition, to push their agenda through right from the top.
Based off of this I wondered the reason this would be pushed and how it would benefit those pushing it who I have assumed to be the Israeli gvt. (And this is the issue you have with my post, see later..)
But... What is this agenda? Is it to concrete Israel as its own permanent country? I thought that was already the case. Is it to make us feel less bad about Palestine? Doesn't matter how bad we feel no one with power cares enough to stop it.
So... Why? What am I missing? Or do I just need sleep?
Which
@Jokester replied straight away and killed and could have just /thread right there.
By blurring the lines between anti-semitism and legitimate criticism of the Israeli state's behaviour they can silence their critics, especially if it's also backed by the law in the respective countries. Even without the law backing it, just the social stigma can be enough for people to self censor criticism of Israel if they think enough people buy into it as anti-semitism.
Article:
No it was this one that prompted the thread:
clicky
Now I completely get your stance of me spouting inaccurate theories based on assumptions as potentially conforming to some template of antisemitic criticism, however none of what I posted was malicious or insulting or deliberately offensive to anyone and the only one who related it that way was yourself and then later on Dolph Harris. So, just perhaps, it's your constant highlighting of potential related offence and that is actually giving the stereotype more weight. I did say perhaps, but if so then boom that's gone full circle!
