No, not in other words. In the words I used. Or Actually, if you wanted to use other words you could have used the other words I actually used to clarify it for you

I didn’t accuse you of being anti-semitic. At all. You are, quite literally, arguing that any criticism of your anti-israeli argument is only accusing you of being anti-semitic. You are using anti-semitism as a defense for your anti-israel sentiments, not by saying anti-semitic things but by arguing that disagreeing with your anti-israel stance (or even saying that your anti-israel arguments aren’t relevant here) is accusing you of being anti-semitic.

And I'm not pretending that a post that criticism of the [ustate of Israel[/u – not Israel per se or Israelis per se – is the same as criticism of/attacks on Israel or Israelis per se.

You, apparently, cannot – or will not – understand the difference and, on the basis not of what was posted but what you 'predict' and what you claim you know of the OP's 'form', you decided to attempt to cast aspersions on the OP without even bothering to deal with it.

The poster has previously posted in favour of terrorists and stated they are brave, that isn’t casting aspersions it is a fact.

By anti-israeli I assumed we would have all be talking about the state of Israel rather than an irrational hatred of Tal Ben Haim and Eyel Berkovic and other individual israeli’s

I struggle to understand how one would start a post without bias. Surely, the fact that a thread has been started on any subject would identify that the OP has an opinion on the matter and therefore a bias?

The debate was opened by opining that anti-semitism is being used as an excuse for poor political policies, you are the only contributor to the thread who hasn't continued with the debate theme by stating that the whole thread is anti-semitic and therefore should not be discussed.

One might well ask: terrorists according to whom? Did you accept that Nelson Mandela was a 'terrorist' because Margaret Thatcher said so?

And that does not change the fact that you decided that, rather than discuss the topic, as the discussion had begun – not how you predicted it would go – you would make a post that would, straight away, discredit the OP and the topic as being discussed at the time.



Good. At least we have that clear. But there are reasons for being exceptionally clear about the issue, which using the phrase 'the state of Israel' does – hopefully avoiding (at least to an extent) precisely the kind of response that the OP was about and, indeed, the reaction that you leapt in with.

Exactly. Which does exactly what the OP described.

In a way, there couldn't be a better illustration of what the OP was about.

I would add, incidentally, that I think that the approach of screaming 'anti-semitism' whenever criticism of the state of Israel occurs has been so successful that similar versions have been adopted by many other groups, from Muslims complaining about 'Islamophobia' in the face of any criticism of Islam or the behaviour of some Muslims, to Christians complaining about being persecuted for being Christian (and for the sake of clarity, on the latter, I mean in places such as the UK, not places where they are suffering persecution).

I don’t disagree, he is arguing from his bias, me from mine, you from yours.

I haven’t at any stage stated that the thread is anti-semitic, nor accused any individual as anti-semitic,

I simply stated that I believed this thread would go down the same route they normally do, where it moves to simply anti-israel mud-throwing, and people defending anti-semitic things would be defended from any accusations of anti-semitism by the ‘you cant say anything without being accused of being anti-semitic’ argument.

I also gave my opinion quite clearly on it. The times has a right to print it, people have a right to be offended, the times can either stand by it and defend it, or agree it either was offensive or could be construed in a manner which was offensive even if different from what they intended and apologise. That’s how free speech works. We can all say what we want, people will judge you on what you say.

i don’t think it is indicative of anything further, and certainly not a jewish conspiracy to shut down debate about the state of Israel by false accusations of anti-semitism.

As far as I'm aware, you are the first person on this forum to come up with such a phrase.

Feel free to link to or quote anyone who has made any such claim.

Terrorists according to me. People who plant bombs on buses and scuttle away. I don’t speak for anyone but myself.

If praising terrorists, and not just Palestinian terrorists, discredits said poster, why are we supposed to be hiding the fact they have praised terrorists?
You have focussed on a small part of a much larger post, to try and shut down criticism of a standpoint you agree with.

Besides, I didn’t say that anything in the OP was even discredited by them praising terrorist. I simply said that if this became the usual excuse for him to praise terorrists, others to sling mud at Israel and others to say anti-semitic things then defend themselves from being called anti-semitic with the ‘you cant say anything these days’ argument it would be boring.
I didnt jump in with any response which conflated individual israeli's with the state of israel. Up until now I'd assumed we were all using anti-israel as anti-state of israel and we all were. I have no idea why you are hiding behind a possible confusion that didnt actually occur.

I didn’t say anyone did.

:navsnjuq

Any attempt to answer the second part of the question?



:navsnjuq

Now you're conflating your personal opinion ("according to me"icon_wink.gif with "we". Is that the royal 'we', perchance?

We can take a post on the basis of what is written – and not on the basis of what we believe may be written at some point in the future. You chose the latter.

:navsnjuq

No. I am attempting to show you that that you decided that you could 'predict' how the thread would go – not [i:navsnjuqhad[/i:navsnjuq gone at that stage, but [i:navsnjuqwould[/i:navsnjuq go – and therefore could step in to deflect the thread from the OP and, in effect, rubbish it from that point.

It was you who decided, based on telepathy, presumably, that you could simply trash the subject of the thread without actually dealing with said subject of the thread.

:navsnjuq

No. You didn't. You didn't say "if" at all.

You said to prattle on in support of terrorists and how brave they are.

And another chance for people to say anti-semitic things and then complain that you ‘cant say anything these days without being accused of being anti-semitic’".

No 'ifs' there at all..

Remarkably, you've illustrated precisely what the OP raised.

For which, congratulations and thank you.

Not in all cases, no. And probably clumsy phraseology on my part. But you get the drift. The point made on the program was that genuine criticism of Israel is often misrepresented as anti-Semitism, but there are also occasions when genuine anti-Semitism is disguised as criticism of Israel.

Oh indeed.

Netanyahu is a lying, murdering 2@ who is deliberately encouraging deeper and deeper encroachment by Israeli settlements across the West Bank, outside the internationally recognised borders of the state of Israel, and protecting them with Israeli troops.
The two state solution is a dead duck and Israel will continue to occupy more and more and eventually annexe the West Bank into the state of Israel, all the way to the Jordan.
Palestinians will then have the choice of emigration to Egypt or Jordan or remain in an apartheid state where, for example, Israelis have freedom of movement but Palestinians do not (as in the occupied West Bank right now).

That is a statement critical of the Zionist state, it is not a criticism of Jews per se.

Nonetheless, I have heard many Israeli voices on R4 stating that, as Zionism is a fundamental of their Judaism, therefore criticism of Zionism is anti-semitic.

With my pedant/semanticist head on I have to point out that the use of the word 'chance' in the context of the sentences above implies uncertainty.

Now I'm outta here.

I agree with that statement. I hope no-one thinks I'm anti-semitic because of that because I'm not.

Really? I listen to a fair amount of R4 and haven't heard that at all. And the guests on last night's Beyond Belief were at some pains to separate Jewishness in general from Israel and/or Zionism.

In any case it would be somewhat ironic for Jews living outside Israel to claim that Zionism is fundamental to their faith. If it were that fundamental they'd have returned to Israel as requested.

I have Jewish friends in the process of trying, and it seems to be far from easy.

On the topic, wether the cartoon was anti-semetic or anti-zionist I don't really care, it was in very poor taste.

The question of taste – particularly in terms of a political cartoon – is an interesting one.

But what do you think was factually inaccurate about the cartoon – anything?

I don't know, because like you I am not actually in posession of the facts of the situation in Israel/Palestine, I just get jaundiced opinion pieces from all sides.

Netanyahu has never laid a brick in his life?

Okay, accepting that (for the sake of the discussion) what do you find distasteful about it?

It's unnecessary to show the bodies of people being used to build walls, no matter what metaphor the "artist" was trying to convey.

So you are unable to say whether or not the piece is accurate, but you still find it to be 'in bad taste'? That's a little odd.

He's trying to show that Netanyahu is a murderer, making reference to the illegal building projects in the West Bank and the phrase 'cementing peace'. Can you think of a better way of conveying this in a cartoon, because I'm struggling a bit.