Why is criticizm of Israel considered Anti-semitism?

[Big Guy]

Fair enough. As I've said many times on here, criticism of Israel is not anti semitism, any more than criticism of Islam is Islamophobia. Both can lead to some pretty unsavoury characters thinking about supporting your points.

I question the logic of your comparisons:

You stated that "criticism of Israel is not anti semitism". You are stating that the criticism of the policies of a country do not translate into criticism of a religion.

You stated that " any more than criticism of Islam is Islamophobia." You are stating that the criticism of a religion does not translate into the criticism of a religion.

How about, "Criticism of Judaism is not anti-semitism (Judeophobia) and criticism of Islam is not anti-Islam (Islamophobia).

But - "Criticism of Judaism is anti-semitism (Judeophobia) and criticism of Islam is anti-Islam (Islamophobia).

I suggest that this is a more logical comparison.

[Argus]

I question the logic of your comparisons:

Naturally. Logic has no place in your determinations or beliefs.

You stated that "criticism of Israel is not anti semitism". You are stating that the criticism of the policies of a country do not translate into criticism of a religion.

Unless, of course, the criticism of the country's policies is BECAUSE of the religion of the people who live there.

But - "Criticism of Judaism is anti-semitism (Judeophobia) and criticism of Islam is anti-Islam (Islamophobia).

This, of course, completely ignores that Islam is a political tool, weapon and ideology, and not merely a religion.

Islamic law rules a number of Muslim countries, and the advocates for it are waging war across the globe, slaughtering innocents from Africa to Asia to America.

[Guest]

I question the logic of your comparisons:

You stated that "criticism of Israel is not anti semitism". You are stating that the criticism of the policies of a country do not translate into criticism of a religion.

You stated that " any more than criticism of Islam is Islamophobia." You are stating that the criticism of a religion does not translate into the criticism of a religion.

How about, "Criticism of Judaism is not anti-semitism (Judeophobia) and criticism of Islam is not anti-Islam (Islamophobia).

But - "Criticism of Judaism is anti-semitism (Judeophobia) and criticism of Islam is anti-Islam (Islamophobia).

I suggest that this is a more logical comparison.

Forgetting the logic of the comparison for the moment, do you agree with the assertion? If you do, I'm fine with it being dodgy logically.

[Guest]

You stated that " any more than criticism of Islam is Islamophobia." You are stating that the criticism of a religion does not translate into the criticism of a religion.

But - "Criticism of Judaism is anti-semitism (Judeophobia) and criticism of Islam is anti-Islam (Islamophobia).

I just reread your post. Is it your view that criticism of Islam is Islamophobia, by definition?

Best answer quickly, before CA or MH deletes all this.

Edit> Although, I don't think this is thread drift. It's a natural progression, and interesting with it.

Edited March 18, 2016 by bcsapper

[Big Guy]

I just reread your post. Is it your view that criticism of Islam is Islamophobia, by definition?

Best answer quickly, before CA or MH deletes all this.

Edit> Although, I don't think this is thread drift. It's a natural progression, and interesting with it.

If criticism of Judaism is (Judeophobia) then that makes sense. Judeophobia is also called anti-semitism. -Is it not?

Hope I got this in before deletion.

[Guest]

If criticism of Judaism is (Judeophobia) then that makes sense. Judeophobia is also called anti-semitism. -Is it not?

Hope I got this in before deletion.

I'd never heard of Judeophobia before today, but I would say criticism of Judaism is just that. Criticism. Same with criticism of Islam. Or, for that matter, the Royal Family, Bradford City or the Didgeridoo. Good old, rational criticism.

A phobia tends to be irrational.

Edited March 18, 2016 by bcsapper

[Big Guy]

Here is an example of the issue as in the OP:

In Toronto, at York University, a painting entitled "Palestinian Roots" has been used as an example of anti-semitism:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/03/canada-palestinian-roots-stay-york-university-160314064746114.html

The issue came to a head in late January, when Canadian film producer Paul Bronfman gave the university an ultimatum: take the painting down, or he would pull thousands of dollars in yearly film production donations from the school.

Fortunately, the University did not succumb to blackmail and the painting stays up.

If it is to their advantage, Zionists will use the anti-semitic label where it will do them the most good.

[Guest]

Here is an example of the issue as in the OP:

In Toronto, at York University, a painting entitled "Palestinian Roots" has been used as an example of anti-semitism:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/03/canada-palestinian-roots-stay-york-university-160314064746114.html

The issue came to a head in late January, when Canadian film producer Paul Bronfman gave the university an ultimatum: take the painting down, or he would pull thousands of dollars in yearly film production donations from the school.

Fortunately, the University did not succumb to blackmail and the painting stays up.

If it is to their advantage, Zionists will use the anti-semitic label where it will do them the most good.

Good for the University.

Of course, Bronfman can do what he wants with his money.

Edited March 18, 2016 by bcsapper

[Rue]

The confusion occurs only when zealots will not accept anything that they interpret as criticism of their religion

- especially if that religion represents God's chosen people.

The first portion of words refers to "zealots" . Anyone who has had the enjoyment of reading Big Guy's posts will understand its a code word he uses to describe two categories of people on this forum; i-anyone who supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation; and ii-anyone who disagrees with Big Guy's stated opinions.

The words "will not accept anything that they interpret as criticism of their religion" is an allegation he has thrown out with no specifics, none.

The reference to "they" I would sugest has been left sufficiently ambiguous so it could means Jews, but it could also refer to "zealots" or anyone on this forum who has challenged Big Guy-but you will notice he will not provide a specific name of anyone.

Her also will not produce an example of what he has claimed. I would suggest he can not provide one post to back up his allegations the same reason he and others can not when they make the same blanket accusation that whenever they make a negative comment about Israel, its automatically referred to as an anti semitic comment.

No such posts exist.

It's what Big Guy does-throw out allegations with passive aggressive couched references, i.e.,"zealot", and "they" and not a shred of evidence to back up his allegation and of course posing himself as an unfair victim of criticism.

Its what I have come to expect of someone whose agenda is to come on this board, select out anyone he thinks supports Israel's right to exist and calls them zealots as he has state din past posts, while in the next breath cheer-leading Iran and advising people on the forum they should rely on Al Jazeera for their news.

For me having to read anything from Big Guy where he poses as an unfair victim of false anti semitic allegations is puke inducing. I would remind this forum he once posed on this board a shaving "Jewish" friends and that he showed his " Jewish friends" my remarks defending Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and these "Jews" were shocked at not just my support of Israel but questioning Big Guy.

It was in my opinion one of the most pathetic attempts I have seen on this forum trying to engage in the device of "good Jew-bad Jew". Big Guy did so deliberately to suggest I was a bad Jew and his opinions were one in the same with the "good" Jews.

Now let's exam his comment above, "especially if that religion represents God's chosen people."

Why was that comment thrown in as an aside? Am I allowed to question why it was or if I do, does it mean I criticize anything he says about Jews?

Isn't that the game? Throw out the comment as bait, and then if I respond to it, say "see I told you so he criticizes anything I say about Jews..."

So now what. Does he have blanket immunity where he can throw out insults about Jews and if I say anything to challenge that it makes him an unfair victim of my feeling "chosen"?

It is my contention he threw in the last comment as bait to be able to say to anyone who challenges that comment, that they are unfair for questioning it.

It is also my contention the comment was thrown in as an insult to suggest we Jews think we are "chosen", i.e., special, i.e., beyond criticism. That's the context I interpret it as being used for as it follows his complaint he is unfairly criticized when he makes comments about Judaism.

I repeat again, "chosen" never meant and it never defined Jews as being better than anyone, being beyond criticism, thinking we were and are better or any other false, hateful stereotype.

"Chosen" is a very rough translation because there is no direct one to define a covenant or two way promise entered into by Jews with God. In that covenant or two way promise, Jews agree to worship God through a collective nation, and in return God agrees to remember Jews through that collective nation. That nation, originally defined as "goy" was a borderless nation-it was a collective consciousness. The collective of Jews was a term created at a time when Jews as a people were not unified, and were fighting with one another and against hostile tribes of others outside the "goy" trying to wipe Jews out. This device was used to unify Jews through a collective identity. It is also the basis, the building black of any national identity. All ethnic and religious groups have used this device to unify themselves.

Interestingly its only when we Jews express ourselves as a nation through a promise we made to God, Big Guy has a problem throwing it out as a snide aside to suggest we are uppity, we don't know our place, we think we are too good for others, etc.

We Jews have the right to be a collective when we pray to God, or exist as a people as an equal nation among other nations.

We Jews have taken our place as a nation among nations because we have just as much right to as any other ethnic and religious group has;

2-the stereotype we think we are better than others, is a false myth/

Finish it Big Guy, provide:

1-one post where you were unfairly criticized about comments you made about Judaism;

2-documentation that we Jews think were are better than anyone else and therefore can not accept criticism.

Right. Like that will happen.

Big Guy can't and because he can't that is why he's criticized.

End of story.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Rue

[Big Guy]

Methinks it is time again for a Big Guy update:

Big Guy is an anti-Semite, pro-terrorist, Putin sympathizer, Ukraine hating, pisser on Israel, Jew hater, Palestinian lover, Zionist hater, probably a Holocaust denier, liar, passive-aggressive poser, Netanyahu hater, Bibi buster, Hamas lover, Hebrew hater, pro-Palestine proponent, Liberal lover, Conservative hater, ignorant of history, ignorant of politics, not very smart, has bad breath and his mother dresses him funny.

Perhaps this will save some typing for a short while for those who are not fans of Big Guy.

Big Guy will continue to highlight facts and events and allow the readers to make up their own minds.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Big Guy

[Argus]

It's good to see Big Guy confessing to his many flaws. A refreshingly honest post for a change!

Edited March 21, 2016 by Argus

[Big Guy]

It's good to see Big Guy confessing to his many flaws. A refreshingly honest post for a change!

Methinks that I recollect that you vowed to never read or comment on any post beginning with Methinks?

"Sorry, but I don't respond to posts that start with 'methinks' as I know there'll be nothing of substance to them, and stop reading after the first sentence." - Argus

It appears your word is an valid as your "facts", honesty and opinion.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Big Guy

[Rue]

As usual Big Guy like Meyer once did, using the same syntax, words and narcissistic defect, attempts to focus the thread on himself.

This thread is not about him or Meyer or whatever name is to be used on this thread.

Let's deal with this thread. The feelings, ego, thoughts of Big Guy are irrelevant.

To understand how some of us use the word anti semitism it would be helpful to explain how we use it since clearly certain posters on this forum have no clue as to what it refers to:

The best and easiest way to explain it is to go here to the article, " The New Anti-Semitism: What it is and how to deal with it," by Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks at http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48930417.html, whereby he describes Anti-semitism as having mutated 4 times to what it now is today in relation to alleged criticism of Israel:

“Today's anti-Semitism is a new phenomenon, continuous with, yet significantly different from the past.

To fathom the transformation, we must first define what anti-Semitism is. In the past Jews were hated because they were rich and because they were poor; because they were capitalists (Marx) and because they were communists (Hitler); because they kept to themselves and because they infiltrated everywhere; because they held tenaciously to a superstitious faith (Voltaire) and because they were rootless cosmopolitans who believed nothing (Stalin).

Anti-Semitism is not an ideology, a coherent set of beliefs. It is, in fact, an endless stream of contradictions. The best way of understanding it is to see it as a virus.

How then do viruses survive and flourish? By mutating. Anti-Semitism mutates, and in so doing, defeats the immune systems set up by cultures to protect themselves against hatred. There have been three such mutations in the past two thousand years, and we are living through the fourth

…The first took place with the birth of Christianity…A strand of Judeophobia entered Christianity in some of its earliest texts, and became a fully-fledged genre, the 'Adversos Judaeos' literature, in the days of the Church Fathers. From here on, Jews – not non-Christians in general – became the target of what Jules Isaac called the 'teaching of contempt'…

…The second mutation began in 1096 when the Crusaders, on their way to conquer Jerusalem, stopped to massacre Jewish communities in Worms, Speyer and Mainz, the first major European pogrom. In 1144 in Norwich there was the first Blood Libel, a myth that still exists today in parts of the Middle East. Religious Judeophobia became demonic. Jews were no longer just the people who rejected Christianity. They began to be seen as a malevolent force, killing children, desecrating the host, poisoning wells and spreading the plague…

We can date the third mutation to 1879 when the German journalist Wilhelm Marr coined a new word: anti-Semitism. The fact that he needed to do so tells us that this was a new phenomenon. It emerged in an age of Enlightenment, the secular nation state, liberalism and emancipation. Religious prejudice was deemed to be a thing of the past. The new hatred had therefore to justify itself on quite different grounds, namely race.

This was a fateful development, because you can change your religion. You cannot change your race. Christians could work for the conversion of the Jews. Racists could only work for the extermination of the Jews. So the Holocaust was born. Sixty years after the word came the deed.
Today we are living through the fourth mutation. Unlike its predecessors, the new anti-Semitism focuses not on Judaism as a religion, nor on Jews as a race, but on Jews as a nation. It consists of three propositions. First, alone of the 192 nations making up the United Nations, Jews are not entitled to a state of their own. As Amos Oz noted: in the 1930s, anti-Semites declared, 'Jews to Palestine'. Today they shout, 'Jews out of Palestine'. He said: they don't want us to be there; they don't want us to be here; they don't want us to be.

The second is that Jews or the State of Israel (the terms are often used interchangeably) are responsible for the evils of the world, from AIDS to global warming. All the old anti-Semitic myths have been recycled, from the Blood Libel to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, still a best-seller in many parts of the world. The third is that all Jews are Zionists and therefore legitimate objects of attack.”

cont. next post

[Rue]

Using anti semitism from the context I explained in post 38, I now refer to EYLON ASLAN-LEVY in his article, “ Why Zionism is Inherently anti semitic “

at http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-trouble-with-anti-zionism/, who argues that there are three principal reasons why anti-Zionism is inherently anti-Semitic- principles I have repeatedly stated when I criticized the comments of Meyer or Biug Guy for being anti semitic:

"Firstly, anti-Zionism is the position that the Jewish people should be dispossessed, against their will, of a fundamental right that they currently enjoy: namely, the right of self-determination. Whatever one believes about whether the Jewish people had a moral right to self-determine in 1948, this right is now a fact of international law, which states that “all peoples have the right freely to [self-]determine”, recognises that the Jewish people constitute a people and, although the law does not require self-determination to be manifested through political independence (of which more anon), accepts that the creation of the State of Israel was the valid manifestation of this right....

…The selective deprival of fundamental rights is the essence of discrimination. There is simply no conceivable sense in which attempts to retroactively strip Jews, and only Jews, of fundamental rights can be anything other than anti-Semitic….

…Secondly, anti-Zionism is a stance that necessarily fails to treat Jews as political equals. It is the insistence that Jews should return to being permanent minorities, restored to an irreversibly weaker and more vulnerable position vis-à-vis other groups. It is the demand that Jews, and only Jews, should be forcibly subordinated against their will to other majorities, having already been given their freedom…

….Thirdly, and most gravely, anti-Zionism is complacent with exposing Jews to dangers for which the anti-Zionists have no answer. Zionism was first conceived as an answer to the Jewish Question: the controversy around the political status of Jews as an anomalous, transnational, religious-cum-national minority. Zionism is, at its core, the belief that self-determination in Israel is the answer to this Jewish Question and to millennia of persecution. Anti-Zionism not only rejects as irrelevant Jews’ desires for the determination of their own fate, but crucially fails to articulate a better alternative.

Anti-Zionists are simply not bothered with formulating an answer to the Jewish Question that takes into account the agency, aspirations or basic security of Jews who either live in Israel or depend on it as a safe haven. They implicitly recognise that if Israel were to disappear, Jews would face a problem as Jews, but this is none of their concern. Anti-Zionists may promise that Jews will be safe as minorities in other countries, but Israel exists precisely because Jews learnt that they could never trust these promises. The anti-Zionists’ insensitivity to Jewish existential fears is, ironically, part of the problem that Zionism is meant to address!

Anti-Zionism logically requires that anti-Semitism – an acute problem for vulnerable Jewish minorities – will have to be solved in a context in which Jews are once more vulnerable minorities. If Israel were forced to swallow a one-state solution, it would have an Arab majority either immediately or very shortly after. Those who chant, with venom in their eyes, that from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free, either simply presume that Jews would be safe as Jews in such a state, or they just do not care.

The proposition that anti-Zionism is inherently anti-Semitic does not mean that anti-Zionists necessarily hold classically anti-Semitic beliefs: anti-Zionism is a variant of anti-Semitism, even if it sometimes also manifests itself as a cover for a more traditional variety of anti-Semitism. Many anti-Zionists are probably sincere, therefore, when they deny accusations of anti-Semitism. That is irrelevant, however, because their agenda can be anti-Semitic in deed if not in intent. The bearer of prejudiced views may still be prejudiced even while ignorant of the nature of his offence: one need not be a wife-beater to be a misogynist, if one also believes that a woman’s place is in the home.

Once one accepts that anti-Zionism is inherently anti-Semitic, the world presents itself as a much darker and more sinister place. It means that people to whom we were previously willing to give the benefit of the doubt should now be taken to task. It requires the sober realisation that colleagues whose anti-Israel prejudice we could previously isolate as a merely political difference, are part of a malicious historical trend of treating Jews as politically inferior, whether they know it or not.

There is no reason to tolerate the illusion that challenges to Israel’s existence are only anti-Israel rather than clearly anti-Semitic. It’s time to call a racist spade a racist spade, and to refuse to be beaten with it."

That said, I also state to engage in holocaust inversion and equate Jews as Nazis for being Israeli is in itself an anti-semitic insult and I have explained that in past posts as well. Holocaust inversion seeks to equate the liberation of Jews from Nazism through the creation of a refuge Jewish state from anti semitism as an act of Nazism. It deliberately equates liberation from anti semitism as being discriminatory.

Its intent I would argue is to try pit non Zionist Jews against Zionist Jews by demonizing Zionist Jews as Nazis.

A Zionist is not and has never been a Nazi. We do not preach racial superiority or define Jews as a race let alone a superior one -and so this attempt to suggest we do is a bold faced lie and a hateful one knowing it insults the memory of Jews massacered in the holocaust or who escaped to Israel..

[Hudson Jones]

I now refer to EYLON ASLAN-LEVY in his article, “ Why Zionism is Inherently anti semitic “

Thanks for sharing that. Lots of Jews feel the same way.

Here is some dialogue with the perspective that Zionism goes against Judaism from True Torah Jews:

What is the solution to the problem of Zionism?

We see the solution as being one democratic state with a non-Jewish majority. The Torah forbids a Jewish state, but a state with a non-Jewish majority would not be considered Jewish. Given the current numbers of Jews and Palestinian Arabs, the solution is already within reach.

[Argus]

I read this the other day, a perspective on Zionism and what it means, and thus why being anti-Zionism generally does mean you are an anti-Semite.

Zionism reversed Jewish historical passivity to persecution and asserted the Jewish right to self-determination and independent survival. This is why anti-Zionists see it as a perversion of Jewish humanism. Zionism entails the difficulty of dealing with sometimes impossible moral dilemmas, which traditional Jewish passivity in the wake of historical persecution had never faced.

By negating Zionism, the anti-semite is arguing that the Jew must always be the victim, for victims do no wrong and deserve our sympathy and support.

Israel errs like all other nations: it is normal. What anti-Zionists find so obscene is that Israel is neither martyr nor saint. Their outrage refuses legitimacy to a people's national liberation movement. Israel's stubborn refusal to comply with the invitation to commit national suicide and thereby regain a supposedly lost moral ground draws condemnation. Jews now have the right to self-determination, and that is what the anti-semite dislikes so much.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/29/comment

[Argus]

Very pertinent thoughts on where the term 'anti-zionist' started and how it came to be popularized among certain people.

Arab college professors, not only the ones in Arab universities who teach that Jews never lived in the Holy Land, nor the agents provacateurs sent to US universities by the Saudis and the PLO, began the intellectualization of anti-Semitism as a “politically correct” propaganda tool by denying their hatred of Jews simply by saying they only hate "Zionists." Martin Luther King understood the game plan when he told a student at one college lecture that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism pure and simple.

Anti-Zionists who would claim they are not anti-Semitic simply because they do not advocate the murder, or dispossession of Jews in the Diaspora, but who support an Arab fascist movement that says the Jews now living in Israel must either flee their homes, be murdered, or submit to Arab Muslim domination and eventually live under Sharia Law, or at minimum strict Arab majority rule, mask their intentions from a world that remembers what the Germans actually did. This is done by using the euphemism "Zionists" instead of Jews.

http://www.stoptheism.com/content/index.php?pid=85&cid=91

[dre]

The crux of this thread is to determine why criticism of Israel is viewed as anti-semetic.

It works, and its not just used on critics of Israel. If you can successfully attack the character of the other side in an argument then you needn't bother as much with addressing the argument itself.

Its a pretty common strategy and it can be effective. THAT is why it happens. The same thing even happens to Jews who are openly critical of Israeli policy... They're "self loathing" jews! Also anti-semites.

The other problem is that CONFLICT: DIRT-FARM HOLYLAND has gone on for so long that both sides have had plenty of time to annoy each other. They just plain don't like each other, so things degenerate into those kind of insults pretty fast. Both sides do it as well.. I see "Israel Apologists" used in the pejorative a lot as well, which is a similar attempt to attack character outside of the actual argument.

[eyeball]

It works, and its not just used on critics of Israel. If you can successfully attack the character of the other side in an argument then you needn't bother as much with addressing the argument itself.

Its a pretty common strategy and it can be effective. THAT is why it happens. The same thing even happens to Jews who are openly critical of Israeli policy... They're "self loathing" jews! Also anti-semites.

It's a dangerously flawed strategy that probably loses as many or more minds and hearts as it wins. Antisemitism also encompasses anyone who isn't with them - being neutral makes you even worse I think. Anyone who firmly believes that Israel is well-served by the manner in which it's cause is often advanced, like around here for example, should probably reconsider the strategy they're subscribing to.

[Rue]

in post 44 you stated;

"It's a dangerously flawed strategy that probably loses as many or more minds and hearts as it wins."

In the above comment you refer to an allegation advanced on this board and yet proven, that someone or someones (I have no idea who because we've been given no names, no posts, no examples) makes allegations without basis that people who are anti Israel are anti semites, simply to shut them up.

You state this allegation as if it exists, i.e., is given, i.e., is "common" because you go on to state:

"Its a pretty common strategy and it can be effective. that IS WHY IT HAPPENS."

If it's so pretty common why don't you provide examples? How is it you can't provide one example, one set of words that illustrates this tactic? Why can't you or Big Guy or the person who started this thread capable of providing an example of this tactic? How hard is that given you said and I quite, "its pretty common".

You even went so far as to say that this tactic is not just "pretty common" but and I quote, "THAT is why it happens." Really. How did you determine across the world let alone on the internet or on this forum, those who want to criticize Israeli policies are being unfairly shut down with unfair accusations of anti semitism. Where is your proof?

How is it, if its such an effective tactic, you can't even prove it exists and why are you now stating what you do and how is it Big Guy continues to prove that he's quite able to continue coming on the forum and say whatever his heart desires about Israelis, Zionists, etc. How do you explain if its so effective why you, Big Guy, Hudson Jones, whoever, continue to come on this forum repeating the same general slurs about all Jews, Zionists, and Israelis and show you will continue to do so and claim this is simply criticism of Israeli policies?

How is it if the strategy is so effective the internet is flooded with anti semitic web sites? Hmmm?

Do you deny that false negative generalizations about all Jews, all Zionists, all Israelis, holocaust survivors who fled to Israel have been made on this forum or flourish on the internet?

Are you a victim of a false anti semitic attack-please provide it.

You did state:

"Anyone who firmly believes that Israel is well-served by the manner in which it's cause is often advanced, like around here for example, should probably reconsider the strategy they're subscribing to."

Who is anyone? Provide a post from "anyone: where they unfairly called someone an anti semite. Can you?

You stated:

"Anyone who firmly believes that Israel is well-served by the manner in which it's cause is often advanced, like around here for example, should probably reconsider the strategy they're subscribing to."

I read them back in association with your earlier statement:

"It's a dangerously flawed strategy that probably loses as many or more minds and hearts as it wins."

Given these statements by you I now ask you-

1-What do you suggest. Are you suggesting if you, Hudson Jones, Big Giy, anyone else should come on this forum, make negative generalizations about ALL Israelis, Jews, holocaust survivors or Zionists or make false statements about Judaism or Zionism or call Israelis Nazis, you should have carte blanche to do so?

2-Do you argue that as long as someone inserts the word Israel, Israeli, Zionist, Zionism in their response, someone can't challenge those words as being hateful, etc.?

3-Are you suggesting people are not capable of understanding when comments cross over the line and smeer an entire people with hateful stereotypes?

4-Are you saying its not possible ever, that when people criticize Israel, some of them use Israel as their pretext, their platform, their excuse to say things hateful about all Israelis, Zionists, Jews?

5-Are you suggesting that when a thread is started to criticize an Israeli state policy on this forum and it never once mentions that policy that this should not be criticized?

6-Are you suggesting that questioning the right of Jews to be Zionists, or questioning the right of Israel to be a Jewish state, is questioning a specific Israeli government policy?

7-Are you suggesting calling Jews who fled to Israel, Nazis, or all Israelis as Nazis, criminals is criticism of an Isradel government policy?

8-Are you the same person who claims we should not blame all Muslims for the action of Muslim terrorists but who remains silent when all Israelis, Zionists, holocaust survivors are smeered as criminals, evil people, simply because they choose to create and live in their own state?

Provide a post where you or anyone was unfairly accused of anti-semitism...can you do that?

Now what's this crap about and I quote.."dangerously flawed strategy that probably loses as many or more minds and hearts as it wins."

What are you suggesting, that if someone says something that is hateful and negatively smeers an entire people because they choose to be Israeli, that the target of hatred should kiss the person spewing venom at them?

Lol right.

What would you like me to send out the same sarcastic, fake, polite responses Big Guy used to feigning he cared about the opinions of others? Is that what you want?

Now you pose as someone who lectures Jews to be more loving when they are spit on?

Would you give it a rest. This is a political forum not some group therapy session. Now you want to lecture on how to win over the hearts and minds of anti Israelis? Really? Lol, really? What next do you present a seminar on this? Do we go on Dr. Phil?

Piss on their right to exist, don't expect Israelis to pull out a tit and breast feed you,

Edited March 23, 2016 by Rue

[GostHacked]

1-What do you suggest. Are you suggesting if you, Hudson Jones, Big Giy, anyone else should come on this forum, make negative generalizations about ALL Israelis, Jews, holocaust survivors or Zionists or make false statements about Judaism or Zionism or call Israelis Nazis, you should have carte blanche to do so?

I think you are making a generalization here that does not apply to all posters and even all posts by a certain poster. You seem to just see anti-semitism in all of it. Even the points that you and I can agree on. Like the expansion of the settlements.

2-Do you argue that as long as someone inserts the word Israel, Israeli, Zionist, Zionism in their response, someone can't challenge those words as being hateful, etc.?

You can challenge them ,but not not everyone is spewing anti-semitism.

3-Are you suggesting people are not capable of understanding when comments cross over the line and smeer an entire people with hateful stereotypes?

I'll say yes. Sometimes it is simply how you interpret the statement at times.

4-Are you saying its not possible ever, that when people criticize Israel, some of them use Israel as their pretext, their platform, their excuse to say things hateful about all Israelis, Zionists, Jews?

Some do, some don't. Are you able to tell the difference though?

5-Are you suggesting that when a thread is started to criticize an Israeli state policy on this forum and it never once mentions that policy that this should not be criticized?

The policy of the settlements is a hot topic. Again I must point out that you agree that the settlements are not a good idea. IF that is the case, your stance can be considered anti-semetic simply using your own logic.

6-Are you suggesting that questioning the right of Jews to be Zionists, or questioning the right of Israel to be a Jewish state, is questioning a specific Israeli government policy?

They are specific policies that the nation was founded on.

7-Are you suggesting calling Jews who fled to Israel, Nazis, or all Israelis as Nazis, criminals is criticism of an Isradel government policy?

Now this is simply trolling garbage I did not want here. Thanks anyways.

8-Are you the same person who claims we should not blame all Muslims for the action of Muslim terrorists but who remains silent when all Israelis, Zionists, holocaust survivors are smeered as criminals, evil people, simply because they choose to create and live in their own state?

Do we blame all Jews for the settlements issue or are we going after a terrible policy that puts Jews directly in a conflict zone where attacks on Jews WILL take place. And when I question the logic of the policy of the settlements, does that make my position anti-semetic even when you agree that the policy of the settlements is a bad idea?

I would also ask that you start posting like an adult and leave the childish comments out of your posts.

[Rue]

Ghost hack in post 46 you stated:

"I think you are making a generalization here that does not apply to all posters and even all posts by a certain poster. You seem to just see anti-semitism in all of it. Even the points that you and I can agree on. Like the expansion of the settlements."

I do not make generalizations. I make specific references to specific words and then criticize those words. Provide the words from me where I engaged in the generalizations you claim. You do not. Can you? If these words exist provide them because ironically I contend your comment is in fact a generalization of all my comments and that is why you can't reference them. You in fact criticize me for the very thing you do to me.

I specifically quote each and every word I challenge unlike you or those who have made accusations against me. I have yet to be provided one word from me that backs up the allegations I have called someone an anti semite simply because they said something anti Israel. Not one word.

You stated:

"You can challenge them ,but not not everyone is spewing anti-semitism.'

Thanks but I don't need you to tell me what I can challenge. Knock off the patronizing comments. Further I have not said or accsed everyone of spewing anti Semitism. That again is your unsubstantiated, subjective generalization of my past responses,. Your comment is false because I specifically produce the words of the person I challenge and explain why which necessarily makes it specific not general.

Provide the words by me where I accused everyone of being an anti semite without giving specific context to why I used that word.

Show me one sentence of mine where I accused someone of being an anti semite simply because they were anti Israeli You keep saying I did so show me.

You stated:

"Some do, some don't. Are you able to tell the difference though?"

Are you? Provide the words from the posters I have challenged where I did not make it clear why I called them anti semitic. Show me one response from me where I accused someone of being anti semitic simply because hey criticize Israeli state policies.

How long do you continue making these allegations with zero examples?

You stated:

"The policy of the settlements is a hot topic. Again I must point out that you agree that the settlements are not a good idea. IF that is the case, your stance can be considered anti-semetic simply using your own logic."

No of course it can't. No where in what I have argued have I defined anti Semitism as simply being critical of Israeli government policies let alone on their settlement policy. Provide one word from me, one sentence, where I stated criticism of Israeli settlement policy or criticism of Israei government policies makes it anti semitic. You can't. You keep repeating a false allegation. Provide the words. I have made it crystal clear in everyone of my responses where the criticism went over the line and began questioning all Jews, all Israelis, all Zionists, and assigning any or all of them unfair negative stereotypes and motives.

You stated:

"They are specific policies that the nation was founded on."

What is they? Tell me why is it you and all the others claiming you are unfairly called anti semites can't even once provide a specific policy and explain why you think its unfair? What is "they"? You even know?

Then you stated:

"Now this is simply trolling garbage I did not want here. Thanks anyways. "

This is exactly how I feel about your thread starter and this latest response from you and many of the responses on this thread.

.

Not one of you provides an example of a policy let alone criticize it. What you and others have done is throw out subjective generalized opinions with no basis of conclusion for them and that I criticize.

In your case you do not make anti semitic comments, you keep a clear line so I do not call your comments that,

Criticizing Israeli state policies is not the issue. Questioning the right of Jews to be Israeli, questioning Israel's right to exist, referring to Zionism as a cancerous ideology, posting false statements about Judaism and Zionism, projecting negative stereoretypes, beliefs, motives and characteristics on Jews, Zionists, Israelis, that I challenge in the statement of others that you now choose to defend.

Unlike you I provide a basis for my positions. Can you? That is what I ask. I only ask what I provide. Show me the words of others I misunderstood and explain why? Can you do that? You now want to defend them, so finish what you started? Stop making accusations about what I have said with no specific examples-either make an effort to debate and explain your position or ignore me, but simply calling me names posed as subjective generalizations is not debate its just posed name calling.

You asked:

"Do we blame all Jews for the settlements issue or are we going after a terrible policy that puts Jews directly in a conflict zone where attacks on Jews WILL take place."

Who is we? Do you mean yo? If you mean you from what I have read from you i have zero issue with anything you have said. Do you mean Hudson Jones, Big Guy, Eye, Meyer, others? yes. when I do I explain specifically why, quoting the words I find offensive and taking the time to explain the basis for my conclusions.

You asked:

"And when I question the logic of the policy of the settlements, does that make my position anti-semetic even when you agree that the policy of the settlements is a bad idea?"

No. However if you were to add other comments other than the above that question the right of Jews to be Israeli, call all Israelis criminals, question the right of Jews to have escaped the holocaust and leave Europe, then I would certainly challenge such words.

I will certainly question people like Meyer who use classic anti semitic baiting lines denying the extent and nature of the holocaust and equating any Jew as a Nazi . I certainly will challenge Big Guy's agenda on this board and others who presume to know what Jews, Zionists, Israelis think, or trivialize or deny the holocaust and use the words "Israel" or "Zionism" to justify such words.

You stated:

"I would also ask that you start posting like an adult and leave the childish comments out of your posts."

I would ask that you stop trying to patronize me and understand the above comment was childish.

You have a problem with what I say, reproduce it and explain why.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Rue

[eyeball]

You have a problem with what I say, reproduce it and explain why.

The problem is there's not enough bandwidth in the world for that, especially reproducing what you say. The moderators heads would explode.

[GostHacked]

Rue

'Who is we' .... in that context , I meant, you and me. You and me (we) both agree the settlements are not productive. If you believe otherwise, I'lI ask you to clarify.

And yes you make generalizations as much as anyone else around here.

[GostHacked]

Would you give it a rest. This is a political forum not some group therapy session. Now you want to lecture on how to win over the hearts and minds of anti Israelis? Really? Lol, really? What next do you present a seminar on this? Do we go on Dr. Phil?

Piss on their right to exist, don't expect Israelis to pull out a tit and breast feed you,

See this is the kind of thing that is not very helpful for this discussion.

I would ask that you stop trying to patronize me and understand the above comment was childish.

You have a problem with what I say, reproduce it and explain why.

Again, can we deal with the topic like adults?