Okay so I really don't understand why IHRA is considered to have a good definition of antisemitism specifically because of the phrasing of "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews" a phrase which is as such followed by examples but does not include any actual outlines for what the term would be covering. A "certain perception" could mean quite literally anything and the fact that the "certain perception" is not defined within the initial definition is a glaring issue that people who wish Jews harm may use to do the "you're the real antisemite" bullshit that they have always done.
On the contrary the IHRA does infact have one of the best definitions for antisemitic discrimination being "Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries."
I'm just confused by what the given definition is supposed to even convey due to it being so vague and universal to literally all instances ever.
a phrase which is as such followed by examples but does not include any actual outlines for what the term would be covering
You're holding those two sentences to the standard of a closed legal definition, but that's not what they are.
The IHRA text is an explicitly non-binding working definition, and the real content was always meant to live in the eleven examples attached to it.
The header is broad on purpose, so faulting it for not standing on its own is sort of silly. It was never meant to stand on its own. It was meant to lead to the eleven examples.
A "certain perception" could mean quite literally anything
You also quoted it incompletely. The full first sentence of the definition is:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.
"A certain perception" on its own could be any perception, so the second half of the sentence narrows it.
"...which may be expressed as hatred" tells you which kind.I don't think that's vacuous.
the IHRA does infact have one of the best definitions for antisemitic discrimination being "Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others"
You're comparing a behavior to a state of mind. The discrimination line reads cleaner because denying someone opportunities or services is a behavior, and behaviors can be seen and checked.
A perception can't, so it's never going to be as clear.
The two define different things for different reasons.
The discrimination line is precise because it only covers one thing - discrimination.
The broader definition of antisemitism could be that precise too, but only by picking a single form and ignoring all the others (the speech, the vandalism, the violence). That wouldn't work here, because antisemitism isn't one behavior, it's a whole bunch of them, and the definition is trying to name what they all have in common.
The only thing they share is the attitude behind them, which is why it reaches for "perception" instead of naming an act. The vagueness you're objecting to is the cost of covering the whole array rather than just one example of it.
a glaring issue that people who wish Jews harm may use to do the "you're the real antisemite" bullshit
You believe that the "vagueness" in the first half of the first sentence is something antisemites can use to deflect, the "yOu'Re ThE rEaL aNtIsEmItE" move - but that half-sentence doesn't give that move any traction.
The first sentence names a perception, and your objection is that "a certain perception" is too vague to mean anything, right?
Again, the real content is in the examples, and that's what anyone making an accusation under IHRA actually points to.
So even if you want to insist that half-sentence is vague, it gives a bad actor nothing to use, because it does not, by itself, identify any antisemitism at all.
Your problem, Anon, is that you took half of the first sentence out of its context...and judged it alone, completely divorced from everything that followed.
Go read the whole thing.
