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 state of Israel – 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.

[My emphasis]

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.