Germany Is Using AI to Erase Pro-Palestinian Speech

Sure, this is a good example of the bad mixing, because it makes the second part of the clause an example of the first part.

It's like including smiling at children in the definition of pedophilia. Sure pedophiles will do that, but smiling at kids should not be in itself criminalized.

One can at the same time assert the right of the Jewish people to self determination and at the same time recognize the historical racism that brought it into existence:

Many of the fathers of Zionism themselves described it as colonialism, such as Vladimir Jabotinsky who said "Zionism is a colonization adventure".[12][13][14] Theodore Herzl, in a 1902 letter to Cecil Rhodes, described the Zionist project as "something colonial". Previously in 1896 he had spoken of "important experiments in colonization" happening in Palestine.[15][16][17] Max Nordau[18] in 1905 said, "Zionism rejects on principle all colonization on a small scale, and the idea of 'sneaking' into Palestine".[19] Major Zionist organizations central to Israel's foundation held colonial identity in their names or departments, such as Jewish Colonisation Association, the Jewish Colonial Trust, and The Jewish Agency's colonization department.[20][21]

I mean, the Canadian people have a right to self determination and at the same time Canada is a racist settler colonial project at its inception. Why is Israel uniquely shielded from this kind of criticism? Recognizing the latter is in no way negating the former.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

You mean this section?

Some of the stuff in that piece of text is reasonable, other stuff is not. Somehow Israel being uniquely excluded from accusations of racism for example. Or precluding a priori any comparison with past atrocities regardless of what Israeli policy is actually doing.

That's the whole fucking problem though with IHRA using Israel the state as a unit of analysis. It's taking good points and mixing them up with incredibly fucked up ones, and is therefore very easy to be instrumentalised by Israeli nationalists to use the former to shield the latter.

The Jerusalem definition on the other hand addresses the problem explicitly.

I think the issue here is that it really is easy to say something pro-palestinian without even touching the IHRA. I've read it and it's totally sensible:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

There is no quiet part. Germany has legislated the IHRA working definition of antisemitism which includes things, like some kinds of pro-palestinian speech, that are not antisemitic according to other definitions of antisemitism such as the one in the Jerusalem Declaration.

I agree that the title is too stretched out and I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your comment.

I think the title itself is mostly rage-bait, though. The article seems to say nobody "is using" it, it is some sort of research project. That claim is just in the title. And they say the future of it is unclear, certainly no hint that some entity representing Germany is planning on using it... I think it's a valid concern, though. Shaping public discourse with algorithms, shadowbanning opinions etc is quite manipulative and overreach. It's not a new concept though. I think private companies are already doing related things on their platforms for quite some time already.

What a stupid title: "Germany" is doing nothing. There was one researcher who was training an AI to detect antisemitic web comments. This system hasn't been rolled out anywhere. Not sure how Jacobin mag went from "detecting antisemitic comments" to "erase pro-palestinian speech". Or maybe they are saying the quiet part out loud.

Proof that any penance was purely performative.