Is anti-Zionism really anti-Semitism?

[Hudson Jones]

As the International Criminal Court opens an inquiry into Israeli war crimes (of which it has already been accused repeatedly by other authorities such as Amnesty International) Israel and its mouthpieces resort to their tired old cliche and knee jerk reaction of accusing anyone who raises the faintest voice against the relentless criminal behavior of Israel as "anti-Semite."

In his essay, Joseph Massad dismantles - with surgical precision - the Zionist circuits sophistry that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic:

". . . when most Palestinians condemn Israel and not Jews, they are judged as anti-Semitic, and when some of them buy into the Zionist line and condemn Israel as a true representative of Jewishness, they are also condemned as anti-Semites. There is clearly no way out of this Zionist logic; whatever reaction Palestinians and their supporters muster towards Zionism and its crimes - save endorsing them - they are condemned as anti-Semites."

"Arabs and Palestinians need not be convinced of this, as most of them understand Zionist logic perfectly well. It is Western public opinion that is subjected to these ideological acrobatics and often fails to see through them. It is the acceptance of these absurdities in Europe and its colonial-settler extensions that most Arabs and Palestinians find intolerable. That any serious Western intellectual, scholar or pundit would traffic in these Zionist claims - as many often do - stretches even the patience of Job."

[eyeball]

Zionists are amongst the biggest anti-Semites the universe has ever spawned.

[Guest]

I don't think anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism any more than criticism of Islam is Islamophobia, but in both cases, those making legitimate criticisms will attract bigots to their cause.

If the anti-Zionism results in indiscriminate harm to Jews, it's as difficult to separate it from anti-Semitism as the bombing of a Mosque in response the CH murders would be from Islamophobia.

Any criticism of Israel without concomitant criticism of Hamas for war crimes would be pretty suspect, too.

One would hope any inquiry would take all the facts into account and be completely unbiased.

[eyeball]

The fact is that Palestinians are Semites. The entire anti shtick is a tragicomic theme in the context of the Palestinian - Israeli debacle. It should never have gone any farther than the facepalm the first Jew/Israeli deserved for using it that way.

The real anti-Semites are those, on both sides, who continue to work against peaceful solutions.

[Remiel]

I am not sure I care anymore. Why bother being "anti-Zionist" anyway? What is the point? Do you have to be "anti-Zionist" to disapprove of some of the things done by the State of Israel? No. So why bother going there? Besides, who even calls themselves anti-Saudi, or anti-Russian, or anti-Myanmar-ian? No one that I have ever heard of, and I have seen plenty of people who oppose the actions of those states.

[Rue]

Lol what a funny thread.

I love the quote.

It starts with these words "when most Palestinians condemn Israel and not Jews they are judged as anti-Semitic.."

Lol now I would love to know how Joseph Massad (say now that is close to Mossad) was able to measure those "most Palestinians" to determine that;

1-they were in fact the "most" (this must have meant he spoke to millions of Palestinians to have ascertained he spoke to the majority of them);

2-they all condemned Israel in the same way as he seems to be suggesting although he did not provide any quotes from them.

Then of course its a mystery who is condemning them as anti semites. There is no specific reference although one might infer if they read on that it might be Zionists because he claims its Zionist logic that engages in this condemnation.

Now mind you there are no examples or references of quotes or evidence of any Zionist actually saying this just an allegation thrown out with no specific basis that its Zionist logic that is responsible for this condemnation.

Lol then to make it even more absurd, Arabs and Palestinians are then lectured en masse they need not be convinced of this alleged Zionist logic because who ever this Mr.Massad is he states;

"most of them understand Zionist logic perfectly well"

Well speaking of logic, if "most" Arabs and Palestinians know Zionist logic perfectly well, why does he even care?

As well, how did he determine "most" Arabs and Palestinians know Zionist logic. Did he give them all a test or quiz? That's a hell of a lot of Arabs let alone Palestinians to determine they were the "most" of their population.

Of course there is no evidence or basis as to how he came up with that "most" definition for Arabs or Palestinians just as there was no indication of how he was able to get communicate with "most" Palestinians to then determine they condemn Israel.

Then he went onto refer to Western public opinion being subjected to "ideological acrobatics" but of course offers no basis of methodology for how he came up with that conclusion either.

He also didn't explain how he ascertained Zionism engages in acrobatics. iMost Zionists I know usually speak or write. Does he mean trapeze.trampoline,maybe high wire acts? Oh wait maybe he means we Zionists get our on airplane wings and perform stunts there.

Me I don't like heights.

Now he did go on to state that "Europeans and its settler-colonial extensions" "fail to see through them".

Now once again he offered no methodology how he was able to determine what o all Europeans believe to determine what he did about them,.

For that matter I am not sure what a settler-colonial extension is. Might it be Europen penises? No wait that can't be. He must mean some other extensions. Silly me.

Settler-colonial extensions. Say now, does he mean the British West Indies? Maybe Bermuda? Maybe Martinique? The last I looked there were very few colonies left.

Now of course there is one other problem, Does anyone know how one fails to see through an ideological acrobat and his acrobatics? I mean one would think a guy in leotards doing a summersault would be visible a he soared through the air yelling some Zionist logic.

Or does he mean Europeans don't have x-ray vision like Superman?

Oh but wait, since this is being offered as an example of debating and I am challenging it, I must be engaging in Zionist logic.

Can anyone see through me? Why of course the whole board can.

Now I am also happy Eye felt it necessary to add his comment that Jews who believe they have a right to live in a Jewish state, are anti Jewish. Now does that sound logical, anti Zionist or just plain out funny..

Its a good thing Eye was there to clear up the dangling uncertainties. Without his input, II had no idea up until now being a Zionist was anti semitic.

I didn't realize that believing my people have a right to be equal to Muslims and Christians and others who have states and express ourselves as a collective nationality was anti Jewish. Silly me I thought I was being pro Jewish.

Now of course I won't wait for Eye to explain his objective methodology for determining Zionists are anti-Semitic. LikeMr.Massad and his colleague eMr. Jones, providing the basis for their allegations or statements will remain a mystery,

Of course like Mr. Hudson Jones determining Zionists have cancerous thoughts and all the conclusions Mr.Ma\ssad did, not to mention Eye's latest supplement, we will just have to take their word for it.

Now of course on this forum all you have to do is come on, make an allegation, then move on. What, explain your allegation's basis. No no no. What you think this is a forum for debating and presenting the basis of one's opinions? No no. We are just hear to call out some allegations.

So there we have it. Some subjective name calling and allegations, zero basis for their basis, and presto, you are to agree otherwise you are blind and unable to see through leaping ZIonists with cancer.

Carry on boys.

That was funny.

Zionism is cancer.

Zionism is anti semitic.

Zionism is poo poo ka ka.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Rue

[Rue]

Exactly Remiel, exactly. Criticizing Israeli state policies is not neessarily anti Zionist or for that matter anti Israeli. Israelis do it daily. Its called free speech.

The content of criticism including its context, references, chose of analogies, type of reasoning or lack of reasoning, inferences, conclusions, assumptions, all factor in to determining whether that criticism is hateful, reasonable, discriminatory or what ever else we want to call it.

I believe this thread as started because Mr. Jones feels he should be able to say Zionism is cancer is a reasonable concept that does not engage in a negative stereotype of Jewish collective identity.

By the way Remiel Zionism has never given me cancer. I believe if and when I get it, it will be caused by bagels and lox.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Rue

[eyeball]

The trouble is that when certain non-Israelis criticize Israeli state policies is all to often called hate-speech.

[jacee]

Exactly Remiel, exactly. Criticizing Israeli state policies is not neessarily anti Zionist or for that matter anti Israeli. Israelis do it daily. Its called free speech.

The content of criticism including its context, references, chose of analogies, type of reasoning or lack of reasoning, inferences, conclusions, assumptions, all factor in to determining whether that criticism is hateful, reasonable, discriminatory or what ever else we want to call it.

Is this fair comment Rue?

http://www.rense.com/general48/zntiz.htm

Somebody who criticizes Israel for certain of our actions cannot be accused of anti-Semitism for that. But somebody who hates Israel because it is a Jewish state, like the Hungarian in the joke, is an anti-Semite. It is not always easy to distinguish between the two kinds, because shrewd anti-Semites pose as bona fide critics of Israel's actions. But presenting all critics of Israel as anti- Semites is wrong and counter productive, it damages the fight against anti-Semitism.

I've seen you make that mistake.

You've made it to me.

.

Edited January 19, 2015 by jacee

[Argus]

The trouble is that when certain non-Israelis criticize Israeli state policies is all to often called hate-speech.

The trouble is such criticism is often unfair and singles out the only Jewish state for no particular reason anyone can identify - other than it's the Jewish state.

And yes, some of it most definitely is based on hating Jews.

[Rue]

Jacee please provide me the words I stated to you that you believe accused you of being an anti semite simply because you criticized Israeli state policies. I I will be pleased to respond and even apologize if I in fact did that.

My problem Jacee is that in the past I have challenged people for making slurs,negative stereotypes and assumptions about Jews claiming it was about criticizing Israeli state policy and those people then turned around and said hey wait a second its o.k. to make slurs about all Jews, all Zionists,its o.k. to compare Jewish holocaust survivors or any holocaust survivors to Nazis when discussing Israel-that is not anti semitic as long as you can say it is used to criticize Israel.

What I have said to you Jacee is that using criticism of Israel as the pretense or pretext or excuse or rationalization to then make comments negative about all Jews, or all Jews who believe they have a right to a state or calling them Nazis, is anti semitic and claiming its part of a discourse on Israel doesn't magically make it immune from anti Semitism.

How the criticism is termed is the key to determining whether its hateful to all Jews or not.

Think about it Jacee. How many times in discussions on this board when someone wants to criticize an Israeli state policy, they don't state that policy, they use the word "Jew" or "Israel" instead suggesting all Jews or Israelis automatically are the same as that Israeli state policy.

Its the same thing you would criticize me for if I did not distinguish when we debate that we are criticizing HAMAS or the PA not Palestinians as people but the policies or actions of Hamas or the PA.

You want to show words from me where I slurred all Palestinians with one negative characteristic or belief-be my guest it should be challenged and if you can show I actually said those words, I will be pleased to acknowledge they went too far.

Likewise if you can actually find a statement I made criticizing someone's comments as anti-Semitic without explaining why and/or if you can show I made that allegation simply because they were criticizing an Israeli state policy, I will be glad to acknowledge I went too far.

When I have asked for such words I stated in the past, I never received any.

Now go back and read Eye's comments on this thread. He keeps repeating an allegation with no examples? Why?

How is it reasonable to throw out an allegation with no reference or example?

Is that debating?

That is no different than me coming on this board and saying all anti Israelis when criticizing Israel engage in anti-Semitic comments.

If I simply threw that allegation out, you would demand I provide an example.

So with due respect, provide me my own words.

Understand this, I do not doubt for a second you are anti Israeli. I see it in virtually every response from you. I do not know you personally.

I do not know if you hate all Jews, some Jews, just Israeli Jews, etc. It really does not matter.

I simply try respond to your words, not you. I am trying my best to respond to your words.

If you think I misunderstood your words, then challenge me.

That is what a debate forum is for.

So produce the words where I allegedly unfairly called you an anti-semite and I will be pleased to respond to them.

Otherwise I can only go back and repeat, that what Eye and HJ have done is start a thread where they have made allegations but provided no examples, and simply expect people to accept their allegations with zero proof.

[Rue]

Until people start giving specific examples of the words or phrases they feel unfairly called someone an anti semite, this thread is pointless and does not establish the thesis it presents if I can be so polite as to even call it a thesis being postulated.

Making an allegation with no specification as to the allegation is necessarily meaningless. The lack of specification makes it impossible to know what to respond let alone what was said, let alone how the person making the allegation then rendered their conclusion from those words that it was anti semitic.

[GostHacked]

Exactly Remiel, exactly. Criticizing Israeli state policies is not neessarily anti Zionist or for that matter anti Israeli. Israelis do it daily. Its called free speech.

Good point, I wish someone had mentioned this fact in other threads.

[eyeball]

Until people start giving specific examples of the words or phrases they feel unfairly called someone an anti semite, this thread is pointless and does not establish the thesis it presents if I can be so polite as to even call it a thesis being postulated.

Making an allegation with no specification as to the allegation is necessarily meaningless. The lack of specification makes it impossible to know what to respond let alone what was said, let alone how the person making the allegation then rendered their conclusion from those words that it was anti semitic.

And Immigration Minister Jason Kenney told another UN gathering that Israel is being targeted by a “new anti-Semitism” that is “now disguised as anti-American, anti-Western and anti-Israel, but it ultimately espouses the same old hatred and intent.”

Source

See, if you're not with Kenny, Baird, the west, the US and Israel, then you're a racist. Full stop. According to these guys I'm comparable to the monsters who threw live babies into ovens. Is it any wonder so many supporters of these sort of politicians like many of the posters around here, resort to lying about people when their own betters are doing so?

Of course the reason I'm like that is because I'm probably a leftist, never mind the fact the real baby roasters were a bunch of god-damn right-wingers.

Edited January 19, 2015 by eyeball

[Big Guy]

Looks like the relationship between the right wing Netanyahu and the French government is not exactly perfect. It is reported that he was asked to NOT attend the march in Paris but ignored them and marched anyway. France was not pleased.

http://news.yahoo.com/isreal-pm-defied-france-join-paris-march-reports-114807244.html

Later at a speech in a synagogue, Bibi invited all French Jews to emigrate to Israel. The speech ended with Netanyahu leading a singing of the Israeli national anthem. After that, spontaneously, the crowd began and sang the national anthem of France. Netanyahu did not join in.

Maybe he does not know the words.

[Rue]

Eye you keep trying to make this about you its not.

Back to Ghost. Ghost I can only speak for myself on this forum. I give you the same offer I gave Jacee.Provide me a post to you from me where I called you an anti semite simply because your criticized Israeli state policy and I will be pleased to address it.

I can only speak for myself and the position I have argued and that is dialogue that claims to be anti Israeli but in fact criticizes Jews for being Jews or attributes to Jews subjective stereotypes that are negative, can turn into anti semiic expressions.

Depends on the words, the context the words are used, the references.

The fact someone wants to criticize Israeli policies or for that matter Jewish religious principles is not by itself anti semitic.

If you though they say for example, Zionists believe they are superior to Arabs and Palestinians because of their religion, well that crosses the line and I challenge it as a false statement about both Zionism and Judaism.

Judaism does not state Jews or Israelis or Zionists are superior to Arabs or Palestinians, neither does Islam.

So that could be simply ignorance or it may be deliberate if the person who states it goes on to add references such as Jews think they are better then others....etc.

Here is the point. If you say you do not agree with Zionism because you do not believe any religion should be connected to a state, that I get. Fair criticism.

If you say, Zionism is wrong because Jews should not have a state, but Sharia law states are fine, then I would challenge that as lacking in credibility and consistency and discriminatory against Jews, but no the words have not become hateful yet.

Go the next step and say Zionism is cancerous it should be wiped out then I start questioning he reference to cancer and being wiped out if the person calling for the wiping out has never called out Islam for believing there is no separation between state and Muslim religion and that does not make Islamic beliefs cancerous.

That is hateful, its a double standard but its not necessarily anti semitic.

It might then go on to become anti-Semitic depending on why Zionism is referred to as cancer. If the reasoning behind that is because Jews should not think they are allowed to live in their own state, I have to ask why? Why is that cancerous but the existence of Muslim states not called cancerous by the cancer accuser?

Is that not fair to say, why do you think Jews can not have a state but stay silent on Muslim states. Why the double standard with Jews?

Then when you go on to add in references to Zionists being Nazis, or engaging in genocide of Palestinians and other negative generalizations that assume all Zionists think the same way and have the same motive but you start using references that cross over into describing not just Zionists but Jews in general, then what do I perceive it as?

Am I over reacting if someone calls Zionists Nazis? Does that not insult all holocaust survivors and particularly Jewish holocaust survivors who fled to Israel from the holocaust?

Look I get it. Simply criticizing Israeli state policy by itself, its political debate.

Going the next step and saying Jews can't have a state of their own but everyone else can, is anti Zionist and to me a double standard of discrimination against those Jews who believe they should have a state.

It then may cross over into anti-Semitism when the references then assign beliefs or characteristics that incite hatred towards the Jewish religion or Jews because they are Jews.

Arguing, well I can make negative comments about Jews as people and about their religion that are hateful because its linked to comments about Israel does not immunize it from anti Semitism.

This is why when I call someone out I take the words they have stated and explain how they do not differentiate between Jews and Israeli state policy.

What has happened is that very old anti-semitic accusations are being restated but now the word Jew is removed and the word Israeli or Zionist used

That connection is not accidental What some are arguing is anti Semitism has been recycled and now by using the word Zionist it is argued as acceptable reasoning. Well whether its directed at Zionists, Jews, ANYONE its still defective because it engages in false assumptions and generalizations designed to incite hatred and resentment.

Resentment, you know what that is. That's generated when one takes an issue, say the attack on Jews in France and the attack on Charlie Hebdo on France, and advances an argument that Jews are treated better than Muslims in France, i.e., if you criticize a Jew in a cartoon its stopped,but its not with Muslims. That is designed to incite resentment towards Jews.

It doesn't justify terrorism or violence. At best its a pretty clumsy attempt to dettract from unacceptable anti social behaviour and to try refocus attention on Jews and to think something negative of Jews.

When it was done on this forum it was absurd, because most people are wellaware Charlie Hebdo issues numerous anti Zionist,anti-Israeli cartoons using classic anti semitic characters complete with the Fagan face and hook nose. No Jew went ballistic over that.

Is such criticism by Charlie Hebdo about Israel anti semitic if they use crude charactitures of Jews to symbolize Israelis-well yes and no. On one level the characters depicted insult all Jews, on another with cartoonists they often must use readily identifiable stereotypes in their characters to get their message across since they don't use words or if they do few words.

So I think sometimes its intentional and sometimes its not and in fact Charlie Hebdo cartoons on Israel show how there is a blurring between the concept of Israel and an Israeli with a concept of the universal Jew with no clear distinction and I would argue that is so because Israel is a collective expression of the Jewish identity and so in one sense if you criticize Israel's identity as being Jewish you quickly can get into attacking the Jewish identity, not the concept of Jewish identity expressed through the state, but the Jewish identity itself.

I personally think some people who criticize Zionism do not have a clue about Judaism, the Jewish identity, Zionism and blur them all. Whether its intentional hatred or ignorance I do not know.

I do though find people who slur all Zionists or the Jewish collective identity as negative hypocritical when they also in the next breath say don't criticize the Muslim religion because it slurs all Muslims.

I have tried my best to respond to you at a non personal level and to try keep it academic.

This issue is not about you or me per se but the choice of words and contexts used when discussing certain issues.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Rue

[jacee]

Rue, you have repeatedly accused me of saying or believing that Jews don't have a right to a Jewish state when I have never said and do not believe any such thing.

I have only said that other states are obligated to recognize Israel as a state, but no one else is obligated to recognize it as a Jewish state. Designating Israel as a Jewish state is for the people of Israel alone to determine: self-determination.

..

[GostHacked]

Eye you keep trying to make this about you its not.

Back to Ghost. Ghost I can only speak for myself on this forum. I give you the same offer I gave Jacee.Provide me a post to you from me where I called you an anti semite simply because your criticized Israeli state policy and I will be pleased to address it.

I don't need to point out all the references, this one will work just fine.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24169-zionism-is-cancer/page-5

The times I accused you of being an anti-semite were in specific reference to words you used that did not distinguish between Jews and Israelis.

So, which statement is true Rue? You did call me an anti-semite, or you did not call me an anti-semite? Don't forget your words are also here for everyone to see. The public record you talk about when pushing back on others.

[eyeball]

Eye you keep trying to make this about you its not.

Actually it's about you.

[marcus]

Not only does Rue engage in the misrepresentation of others, but he also does it for himself.

---

All ideas or ideals should be discussed. This goes for Wahabism and Zionism who are both bad ideas for the reason that they advocate the violation of other people's rights in order to further their agenda.

Zionism (today) for example, advocates the annexation of Palestinian land (see East Jerusalem and the settlements of West Bank), the stalling and sabotaging the formation of a real and just Palestinian State and a number of other violations of international/human rights in order to achieve its own selfish agenda. This makes Zionism a bad idea.

Same goes with Wahabism which enforces its own fundamentalist ideas and ideals onto others, which is also a violation of international/human rights.

It's a tough pill to swallow, when a Zionist sees they are being compared to Wahabists, but in many cases, extremist ideas, even when they are enemies, share similar characteristics.

[Rue]

Actually it's about you.

No you want to make it personal and I will ignore you when you do. If you have specific words of mine you disagree with, quote them and say why you disagree with them, otherwise move on Eye. I don't care whether its you, HJ, Ghost, if you can't back up your allegation with words then move on. No Eye this is not about me, its about alleged words or thoughts I expressed. If you disagree with them say why.

Trying to bait me and not deal with the words I said and just refer to me isn't working Eye. All it shows is you can't differentiate my opinions from me and you reveal my point with you all along, that you do not come on this board to debate, but do come on the board to try bait.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Rue

[Rue]

I don't need to point out all the references, this one will work just fine.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24169-zionism-is-cancer/page-5

So, which statement is true Rue? You did call me an anti-semite, or you did not call me an anti-semite? Don't forget your words are also here for everyone to see. The public record you talk about when pushing back on others.

Don't play Ghost. Stop trying to change what I said.

I never disputed whether = I called you an anti semite. I disptued your allegation that I called you an anti-semite simply because you criticized Israeli state policies.

Don't play with me Ghost.

I stated:

"Provide me a post to you from me where I called you an anti semite simply because your criticized Israeli state policy and I will be pleased to address it."

Don't play Ghost. Don't mistate what I said.

Now again, show me the specific words, where I called you an anti semite simply ebcause you criticized Israeli state policy.

Provide the words.

The reference you provided does not show any words where I accused you of being an anti semite simply because you criticized Israel.

Either produce the words you claim or move on.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Rue

[Rue]

Not only does Rue engage in the misrepresentation of others, but he also does it for himself.

---

The above makes no sense. Its incoherent. How do I misrepresent for myself. What does that mean.

Marcus when you make an allegation back it up. You claim I misrepresented someone, provide the misrepresentation.

The tactic of throwing out an allegation with zero basis for it is not working whether you do it, Eye does it, Ghost does it, Jacee does it, Hudson Jones does it.

Its quite simple. Provide the words I misrepresented and show how I misrepresented them.

Also explain the difference between me disagreeing with what you say and challenging it with misrepresenting it.

What is the difference between misrepresenting what you said and disagreeing with it.

Marcus its easy to come on this board and make allegations.Now back up your allegation or move on.

[Rue]

I don't need to point out all the references, this one will work just fine.

Yes you do. Until you do you lack any credibility. Anyone can make an allegation without a basis.

Also can you at least try provide a quote of mine that backs up your allegation and does not contradict it. That might help as well.

[Rue]

Rue, you have repeatedly accused me of saying or believing that Jews don't have a right to a Jewish state when I have never said and do not believe any such thing.

I have only said that other states are obligated to recognize Israel as a state, but no one else is obligated to recognize it as a Jewish state. Designating Israel as a Jewish state is for the people of Israel alone to determine: self-determination.

..

Jacee I asked you directly, do you believe Jews have a right to a Jewish state of Israel.

You refused to answer.

In fact I asked you more than once and you have refused to answer and give the answer above, namely; " other states are obligated to recognize Israel as a state, but no one else is obligated to recognize it as a Jewish state."

You have established two things;

1-you believe no one else has a right to recognize Israel as a Jewish state;

2-you will not come out and state you believe Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.

So given your refusal in to answer me but continually state "others" don't have to recognize a Jewish state, I can only iner "others" includes you unless you tell me otherwise.

Come on Jacee no game playing. If you keep refusing to state Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state and will only answer me by saying "others" don't have to recognize a Jewish state, what does that mean?

Be straight with me Jacee and I will be straight with me. Talk around the question, it doesn't fool me or you.

By the way, when you answered me its interesting because I asked you to provide me a post where I called you an anti semite simply for criticizing Israel.

You have not. Instead you answered with the above which has nothing to do with calling you an anti semite.

So not only have you illustrated you won't state Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state, but you haven't provided a post where I called you an anti-semite let alone an anti-semite simply for criticizing Israel.

Take a look Jacee. Eye, you, Ghost, HJ, Marcus, you've been making a lot of allegations, but when I ask for evidence of those allegations,

not a thing.

Lol we can go on and on trying to make this about me its not. I challenge words. I challenge what is said in writing.

I back up what I say by repeating the words from those I challenge.

You don't.

You tell me that you believe Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state, I will come on this board and acknowledge that, as I stated before.

You have demonstrated you won't, so don't expect me to say you support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, particularly when in other posts you have said Hamas are freedom fighters. Their constitution calls for the destruction of the JEWISH state with violence, and to attack JEWS worldwide.

If you think that achieves freedom I disagree. I think that supports terrorists who want to destroy Israel because its Jewish.