State Dept on what is considered Antisemitism: https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/
These definitions are intentionally broad and designed to censor criticism of Israel. You have more freedom to criticize the US Government than to criticize a foreign country.
> 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.
There are plenty of dual citizens that would proudly admit that their first loyalty is to Israel.
Other examples from the document use the term "Jews as a people", whereas this example seems to apply to accusing any individual.
Although perhaps a generous interpretation of the example, is that it excludes Israeli dual citizens, because Israel would be one of "their own nations"
Plenty of dual citizens that are not Israeli citizens and would admit the same thing, but we don't go around throwing such accusations at them.
> this example seems to apply to accusing any individual.
Does it? It would be accusing the individual just because they are part of a certain group.
Simply not true. There is plenty of rhetoric about immigrants (even 2nd gen+) in Western countries being accused of being disloyal to their Western citizenship in favor of their ethnic origin countries. Chinese, Indians, Middle Easterners, Latin Americans etc are all accused of this; see the recent riots in LA for a very recent example. Yet this insinuation is made illegal only with respect to one country only for whatever reason.
This is untrue. It's untrue to such an extraordinary degree that it's hard to believe you're arguing in good faith.
Accusing people of being loyal to some other nation or cause is levied regularly against almost all peoples to some degree or other, particularly if the person holds any ancestral pride or accoutrements. Even just refusing to adapt to food customs is enough to arouse suspicions.
Look at the outrage about the "invasion" because some protestors hoisted Mexican flags. Various members of Trump's administration declared this a demonstration of "occupied" territories.
If you're Chinese in America you must never, ever, show an iota of association with your homeland -- or even just your grandparents home if you're 3rd generation -- or you will be ostracized and considered a deep agent. An Indian that has an Indian flag in their bio or the like is going to be frequently asked why they don't move back if they "love it so much".
Similarly, a frequent criticism of some Muslims is din wa dawla, which is a belief that religion and politics/the state are one. Indeed, if someone has religious beliefs that can go in conflict with the needs/goals of the state, there is a discord there that needs to be considered.
There are Americans who are more loyal to Israel than the US. Like, they will literally tell you this without an ounce of compunction or question (which is utterly verboten among virtually any other group. Similarly a US congressman wore his IDF uniform into congress, which is simply insane). On the flip side, there are many Jewish Americans who are deeply critical of Israel. Like does anyone think Bernie is a deep agent of Israel? Bernie, like much of Jewish America, is deeply critical of Israel.
> Look at the outrage about the "invasion" because some protestors hoisted Mexican flags
Because LA Chicanos did not realize how inflammatory using the Mexican flag is in anti-government protests outside the California.
In CA, it's well understood it's used as an identity marker (though still exclusionary, as a growing portion of the Hispanic community in CA isn't Mexican anymore), but outside CA using another country's flag at the expense of the US absolutely is viewed as a severe faux pas.
True! But kids under 18 aren't voters not supposed to be a part of the political process, so any opinions they may have is moot.
> Also, attractive female snow boarders are also allowed dual citizenship but those are exceptions.
Yep! Plenty of exceptions all around if you are important enough or related to someone important enough.