Hey
frogwoman,
What about this section:
This seems problematic on two levels. First, it suggests that the state of Israel represents the collective will of some sort of homogenous 'Jewish people'-i.e. the very thing that you would rightly call out an anti-Semite for doing. Such a definition is, however, at least half accurate: it might be problematic in terms of the assumptions it makes about how representative the Israeli state is of Jewish people, but Israel is self-defined as a Jewish state. Here is where the second problem arises. Anyone who questions the existence of such an ethno-religious state is branded anti-Semitic. Now, I realise that I have glossed over the specific contexts from which both Zionism and then the State of Israel emerged. I'm not asking you to agree that 'the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour', or at least that this makes it somehow uniquely deserving of opprobrium among the community of nation states. But not only does this motion conflate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism in a manner that should be challenged as robustly as the views of anti-Semites who do the same, it also applies the same standards to any broader perspectives that generally deny ethno-religious nationalism as a legitimate basis for exercising political power.
BTW Palestine isn't something that I obsess about, although I can understand why my neighbour who comes from a family of refugees might hold Israel to account more vigorously than 'any other democratic nation'. To be honest this motion offends me as much because of how it misrepresents the histories and values of my Jewish friends and relatives. Plenty of them could fall foul of its definition of antiSemitism.