I must say, your defence of the state of Israel in this case could be perceived as quite racist.



At this rate, you'll be in Oz for the start of the NRL season.

I havent made any comment on it at all.

There was an interesting edition of Beyond Belief on R4 yesterday that discussed the rise in attacks on Jews in Europe. Along the way it was pointed out that the anti-Israel/anti-Jew/anti-Semite conflation is used by people and organisations on [iboth[/i sides of the argument. The pro-Israeli side uses it to attack any criticism of the state as being anti-Semitic, while the ant-Jewish side tends to use it to excuse anti-Semitic remarks as being criticism of Israel and it's policies.

I didn't.



You, however, launched yourself on here as, in effect, supporting a classic way of stifling debate about the behaviour of the state of Israel.



You could have posted something about the opening post. You didn't. You posted your 'prediction' of how the thread would turn into something that, at that point anyway, it had not become. In so doing, you – and you alone – changed the nature of the thread.



Well done.

Quote Durham Giant="Durham Giant"Seems any criticism of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and you are now accused of being anti semitic. What is really sad is that those who are accused then seem to be forced to publicly apologise for daring to criticise Israeli policy in the middle east. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21239917 People really need to stand up to this bullying which prevents fair political comment and debate. Here is a link the Gerald Scarfe cartoon which was slammed www.jpost.com/HttpHandlers/ShowI ... ?ID=212363 Here is the link where a Liberal MP was criticised ( what he said was probably the first decent thing i have heard a lib dem say for two years). www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-21240036'" Back on thread.... I think it was the timing of the cartoon that caused most offence, although I would imagine the anti-Semite card would have been played, albeit on a slightly less public scale. The way in which Israeli people treat Palestinians is atrocious, I understand that besides building on land that doesn't belong to them, there are many racially aggravated assaults without any motive or provocation. the US might hear us!

Quote Durham Giant="Durham Giant"Seems any criticism of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and you are now accused of being anti semitic. What is really sad is that those who are accused then seem to be forced to publicly apologise for daring to criticise Israeli policy in the middle east. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21239917 People really need to stand up to this bullying which prevents fair political comment and debate. Here is a link the Gerald Scarfe cartoon which was slammed www.jpost.com/HttpHandlers/ShowI ... ?ID=212363 Here is the link where a Liberal MP was criticised ( what he said was probably the first decent thing i have heard a lib dem say for two years). www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-21240036'" Back on thread.... I think it was the timing of the cartoon that caused most offence, although I would imagine the anti-Semite card would have been played, albeit on a slightly less public scale. The way in which Israeli people treat Palestinians is atrocious, I understand that besides building on land that doesn't belong to them, there are many racially aggravated assaults without any motive or provocation. the US might hear us!

No. Of course not.







In other words, this thread has become what I said – anti-semitic etc. Thus, criticising the racist actions of the state of Israel against a group of Jewish people is 'anti-semitic'.

These are not opposites.

I didnt start posting irrelevant anti-israeli posts, you did. The OP hasnt openly and neutrally opened a debate on the nature of anti-semitism, there is a clear and obvious bias in his post and standpoint and previous posts. It was addressed as it should have been. The fact my prediction came through within in a page of it being posted pretty much means my decision to make that prediction defends itself.

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.