University's 'anti-Semitic' Israel conference condemned

Southampton University's decision to organise a conference questioning Israel's right to exist has been condemned as 'legitimising anti-Semitism'

A leading British university has been condemned for hosting a conference questioning Israel’s right to exist which critics say will legitimise anti-Semitism.
Pressure is growing on Southampton University to cancel the three day event, planned for next month, or face growing anger from academics, politicians and its own fund-raisers.
One prominent lawyer has already said he would think twice before hiring someone from the south coast university.
Mark Lewis, who has represented a string of celebrity clients, said he would look “unfavourably” at CVs sent by graduates of Southampton.
And one of its most respected former alumni has returned his degree in protest and at least one major patron of the university is said to be considering withdrawing funding.
Critics have said the conference – International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism – would be a ‘one-sided’ exercise in Israel-bashing and provide a platform for anti-Semitic views.
Nearly 4,500 people have signed a petition calling on the university to cancel the conference.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/11487555/Universitys-anti-Semitic-Israel-conference-condemned.html


You cannot make it up how some of the left are trying to legitimise antisemitism.
Daily this campaign of hate grows by the left and they have no care of how by deligitimising Israel, you deligitimise the status of its people.
We have not seen this kind of hatred directed at the Jews since the 1930's as that is what Nazi Germany did in deligitimizing the status of Jews.

Argument forms abound, but I must say that the Israelis use one to excess: the one-dimensional argument.  By that I mean the reduction of all things to only one cause or meaning…one argument.

Anything perceived as remotely or tangentially adverse to the interests of Judaism or Israel has been termed anti-Semitic.  A lot of things are, don’t get me wrong.  And when it happens it is as detestable as any form of bigotry.

The horrors of the holocaust left a lasting impression on the western world, one that will never leave.  It has also helped establish the State of Israel…it’s call of never again, and the implication that it will meet force with force in the future, has made it one of the great nations on earth.  Unfortunately, great and imposing nations have a lot of issues, not all of them anti-Semitic.

Without going into all of those issues, let us at least recognize that Israel and Judaism have a plurality of allegiances and concerns, which in turn have at least as many legitimate adversaries and advocates of opposing viewpoints.   Pluralism is defined as: “a situation in which people of different social classes, religions, races, etc., are together in a society but continue to have their different traditions and interests.”  Those “social classes, religions, races, etc.", each have interests that may conflict with one another, as well as, occasionally, with Judaism.  The point is, Judaism is not the only issue, nor in many instances, is it even central.

Israel is a pluralistic society, and cannot be described as being only one-dimensional.  Therefore, it is sleight-of-hand to try to pass off any and all issues as anti-Semitic.  The characterization of everything as anti-Semitic is an attempt to borrow from the horrors of the holocaust in and effort gain sympathy for some cause or other, having nothing to do with the holocaust itself.  

That argument form needs to be put to rest. To be sure, there is still a lot of anti-Semitism out there, and the Palestinian tensions raise much of it. But not every problem Israel has is anti-Semitic. Nor is it an honest way to avoid those problems.

Sorry Quill that proves again you and others on the left just do not understand discrmination and racism. If the move here is to argue over Israel not existing is deligitimizing its right to a nation. They have the law on their side being they bought up plenty of land when nobody else wanted it in the 19th century and as they rpospered the land Arabs flocked to the are.
Now if you base that a people has no right to a nation you are also deligitimising its people both Arab and Isreali that lives there which is the very aspect of what Hitler did to the Jews and others in Nazi Germany, he deligitimised their rights to be German citizens.
So on every apspect no matter the nation whether it be Northern Ireland to Bosnia, arguing against the legitimate rights of people to a State is nothing short of discrmination and I will back this up with evidence as was posted on the other thread:
By claiming a people have no rights to the country of Israel is racism, just as it would be to deny the Palestinians. Thus there is nothing wrong with genuine and honest criticism of Israel, nothing wrong with protesting against them, seeking justice for wrongs done. What iis not acceptable is making outlandish lies claiming comparrisons to ISIS, the Nazi's, claims of aparthied, where this democratic nation is judged more than any other. By doing this route which has no validity to any such claim, this is complete antisemitism because you are dehumanizing the people of Israel and that is how they are see to some of the left, extremist Muslims and the far right



Is antisemitism towards Jews in the Australian diaspora ‘understandable’ because of our link to Israel? As long as those on the left entertain this notion, they dishonour their values.
There is a famous saying in Jewish culture that neatly summarises the history of the Jewish people and the rituals associated with our tradition: “They tried to kill us, we survived, now let’s eat.”

Easily misunderstood and misinterpreted, one of the defining characteristics of Jewish culture and identity is the awareness of historical (and modern) antisemitism. The festival of Purim, held a fortnight ago, tells the story of Haman’s attempted genocide of the Persian Jewish community. Somewhat more well-known in popular culture are the festivals of Passover and Hanukkah, which celebrate the liberation of Jews from the Egyptian and Greek empires.
Since the 1950s, we have commemorated Yom Hashoa, the Jewish day of remembrance for the Holocaust. Unlike the more historical festivals of liberation and survival, there is no great overriding sense of joy; nor is there a celebratory meal attached to it.

In light of this history, it is little surprise that many Jews had a significant relationship with the left for many years. An oppressed and marginalised people for so long, Jews have a natural political affinity with values like freedom of expression, equality, multiculturalism and, certainly, anti-racism. The concept of Jewish self-determination, Zionism, saw itself as a fundamentally left-wing movement in its inception.

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, antisemitism was impossible to ignore and became a central concern of the global left, but Julian Burnside encapsulated the contemporary shift in thinking when he wrote in the Guardian that “Islamophobia is the new antisemitism”, implying, as many often do, that the old antisemitism has been superseded.

It hasn’t. Last Wednesday, a lecture at the University of Sydney by retired British Colonel Richard Kemp became the scene of a heated protest. Kemp was accused of supporting genocide, and, during the fracas, noted Australian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions advocate Professor Jake Lynch was filmed waving money in the faces of an elderly Jewish women and the Jewish student trying to prevent the two from coming to blows.

Lynch explained his actions as a response to having been kicked, saying it was a warning that he would sue, and described his restraint as “almost heroic”, though his account has been disputed by witnesses, with Kemp claiming that the woman was attempting to push Lynch away, who initiated the contact.

Irrespective of who struck first, the image of a leftwing academic brandishing money in the faces of Jewish people clearly evokes the crude antisemitic falsehood that Jews are obsessed with money and perhaps neatly encapsulates the shift of the left away from Jews.

Whatever Lynch’s excuses or reasoning, and the elderly woman’s behaviour, it was clearly an offensive and provocative gesture, reasonably likely to offend the Jewish community. In the past, a leftwing professor would surely have anticipated this, but the reality is that antisemitism today is not as pressing an issue to progressives as it once was.

Instead we have a new set of attitudes towards antisemitism: that it is of lesser importance in the west than other forms of racism, like Islamophobia; that it is no longer a serious threat to diaspora Jews; and that the gravity of its existence is diminished because of the existence and behaviour of Israel.

The attacks in Paris and Copenhagen are ample proof that antisemitism still poses a threat to Jews in the west, especially in light of new recordings from Paris confirming definitively that the gunman targeted Jews. In France, Jews make up 1% of the population yet suffer half of all racist attacks. In Australia, 2014 saw a massive increase in reported antisemitism, including physical attacks in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth.

But Jews should not be required to parade our suffering, historical or contemporary, in a competition for attention with other forms of racism. Nor should we be expected to tolerate the constant appearance of antisemitic language and imagery at prominent anti-Israel rallies, which does seem to show that the use of antisemitic symbols and language in the west is seen as less threatening, or perhaps “understandable”, when connected with Israel.

That attitude was shown by leftwing Jewish actress Miriam Margolyes’ astonishing performance on a recent episode of the ABC’s Q&A programme. Answering a straightforward question on whether antisemitism garners as much sympathy as Islamophobia, Margolyes’ response was to bring up Israel’s “evil” actions in Gaza as a likely cause of antisemitism. Her solution was for Australians to see that “not all Jews behave in the way Israelis are doing” – suggesting all the Jew has to do is denounce Israel loudly enough, or perhaps wear a sign, that indicates that we aren’t all “evil” like Israelis are, to avoid being victimised.

Ironically, it sounds remarkably like a demand so often made of Muslims. As Australian prime minister Tony Abbott said a week earlier, “I wish more Muslim leaders would say [they are a religion of peace] more often and mean it.” Abbott’s comments were widely denounced by the left and rightfully so, but Margolyes’ comments were not objected to, they were applauded by many in the audience and online.

It is surely obvious that mitigating bigotry or racism with victim-blaming is wrong regardless of the victim’s ethnic or religious background. Yet it persists in some left-wing circles that Jews are the exception to this rule – our communal connection to Israel makes us somehow more legitimate targets, unless we denounce the Jewish state.
The problem with this notion is twofold – firstly, because Jews do not wear signs declaring our position on Israel. A proud Zionist Jew can just as easily be targeted at a kosher supermarket as an anti-Zionist one. More than that though, why should we have a duty to detach ourselves from a vital aspect of our cultural identity to avoid victimisation?
The reality is that we are human beings with complex identities, defined by a wide range of societal, communal and ethnic influences. Must we carry the burden of answering for all of Israel’s actions because we were born Jewish? And are we so unlike other ethnic cultures that care for the safety and security of our relatives abroad, that we can be painted as immoral for not abstracting ourselves from their threatened existence?
In a political climate where fear is a weapon as much as a state of mind, where innocence isn’t automatically assumed, and where wars and foreign affairs can fuel prejudice at home, it is natural that many take great steps to defend embattled Muslim communities from the risk of dangerous incitement. In doing so, they recognise that Muslims deserve to have their rights – freedom of association, of safety, of speech – protected, if necessary by the state.
They also recognise that self-determination of cultural and national identity is not something we can impose on other people. Those rights and understandings must be equally extended to Jews without the expectation that we must first denounce Israel, fight it, answer for it, or be ashamed by it.

Even before the Kemp lecture, the student protesters Lynch became involved with declared that they were there to defend Hizb-ut-Tahrir, the extremist group which has been exposed as having spread antisemitic propaganda and incitement against Jews on the streets of Sydney. Hizb-ut-Tahrir, whatever their legal status, cannot be defended by any genuine anti-racist. If the radical left with which Lynch and his fellow protesters are affiliated are prepared to defend their civil rights, they must not excuse their anti-Jewish racism – a duty of which they have thus far failed.

When progressives downplay or diminish the threat of antisemitism in the diaspora because of Israel – or, worse, fuel it – they do not extend to us those equal rights they purport to stand for. Progressives do more than dishonouring their values in this case, they diminish the unique history of Jews in Australian (and western) society, failing to acknowledge and defend us as equal, regardless of our relationship with or opinions about Israel.

The left must act to repair its straining relationship with Jews and once again take up opposition to antisemitism as its cause. Antisemitism is, like all forms of racism, to be abhorred and condemned unequivocally, not reduced and marginalised by games of comparison and mitigation. It is not a partisan issue and it cannot be up to the right to own the unqualified outrage it deservedly generates. The left, and the values it holds, are far too proud and dear to our hearts for that.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/why-does-the-left-ignore-antisemitism-all-forms-of-racism-should-be-abhorred


Brilliant article backing up exactly what I have been saying in regards to the hate directed at Israel. Again much of the rhetoric now is beyond criticism and is now just pure hate. People need to reaslise what they are doing when not only do some peddle countless lies againstg Israel, thus furthering antisemitism towards Jews. The anger and criticism is directed at Israel and not its head officials. Britain was not at fault for Iraq, the then Labour Government was, because no member of the public got to vote on this. Yet the view has been made by Islamic extremists that it is the British people and the view is it is the British people that invaded Iraq. Some of these far left extremists though throw up some of the worst racism I have seen in a long time. I do not make all Muslims culpable for the extremists, I sperate them on their ideologies and political beliefs, I wil be critical of bad ideas in their religion, but have defended many innocent Muslims and still do from against thuse who attempt to make them culpable. The far right use this tactic and yet how odd is it that that the far left do the same absurd reasoning on to Jews. The far left do not even recognise or wish to recognise Israel as a state, they want to see it also cease to exist, because they buy into poor lies formulated on history. Genuine criticism is fine, or showing your disfavour, anger etc with the Israeli Governemnt and its policies, direct that venom against them, not the people of Israel. The way forward is a two way state solution and why we need to be more vocal against these far left who are anti-semitic.



New antisemitism

A new phenomenon

Irwin Cotler, Professor of Law at McGill University and a leading scholar of human rights, has identified nine aspects of what he considers to constitute the "new anti-Semitism":^[13]

• Genocidal antisemitism: Calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.
  
  
• Political antisemitism: Denial of the Jewish people's right to self-determination, de-legitimization of Israel as a state, attributions to Israel of all the world's evils.
  
  
• Ideological antisemitism: "Nazifying" Israel by comparing Zionism and racism.
  
  
• Theological antisemitism: Convergence of Islamic antisemitism and Christian "replacement" theology, drawing on the classical hatred of Jews.
  
  
• Cultural antisemitism: The emergence of anti-Israel attitudes, sentiments, and discourse in "fashionable" salon intellectuals.^[vague]
  
  
• Economic antisemitism: BDS movements and the extraterritorial application of restrictive covenants against countries trading with Israel.
  
  
• Holocaust denial
  
  
• Anti-Jewish racist terrorism
  
  
• International legal discrimination ("Denial to Israel of equality before the law in the international arena"): Differential and discriminatory treatment towards Israel in the international arena.
  
  

Cotler argues that classical antisemitism is discrimination against Jews as individuals whereas the new antisemitism, in contrast, "is anchored in discrimination against the Jews as a people – and the embodiment of that expression in Israel. In each instance, the essence of anti-Semitism is the same – an assault upon whatever is the core of Jewish self-definition at any moment in time." This discrimination is hard to measure, because the indices governments tend to use to detect discrimination – such as standard of living, housing, health and employment – are useful only in measuring discrimination against individuals. Hence, Cotler writes, it is difficult to show that the concept is a valid one. Cotler defines "classical or traditional anti-Semitism" as "the discrimination against, denial of or assault upon the rights of Jews to live as equal members of whatever host society they inhabit" and "new anti-Semitism" as "discrimination against the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations – the denial of and assault upon the Jewish people's right even to live – with Israel as the "collective Jew among the nations"."
Cotler elaborated on this position in a June 2011 interview for Israeli television. He re-iterated his view that the world is "witnessing a new and escalating [...] and even lethal anti-Semitism" focused on hatred of Israel, but cautioned that this type of antisemitism should not be defined in a way that precludes "free speech" and "rigorous debate" about Israel's activities. Cotler said that it is "too simplistic to say that anti-Zionism, per se, is anti-Semitic" and argued that labelling Israel as an apartheid state, while in his view "distasteful", is "still within the boundaries of argument" and not inherently antisemitic. He continued: "It's [when] you say, because it's an apartheid state, [that] it has to be dismantled – then [you've] crossed the line into a racist argument, or an anti-Jewish argument."
Jack Fischel, former chair of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania, writes that new antisemitism is a new phenomenon stemming from a coalition of "leftists, vociferously opposed to the policies of Israel, and right-wing antisemites, committed to the destruction of Israel, [who] were joined by millions of Muslims, including Arabs, who immigrated to Europe... and who brought with them their hatred of Israel in particular and of Jews in general." It is this new political alignment, he argues, that makes new antisemitism unique.^[17] Mark Strauss of Foreign Policy links new antisemitism to anti-globalism, describing it as "the medieval image of the "Christ-killing" Jew resurrected on the editorial pages of cosmopolitan European newspapers."^[18]
The French philosopher Pierre-André Taguieff argues that antisemitism based on racism and nationalism has been replaced by a new form based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism. He identifies some of its main features as the identification of Zionism with racism; the use of material related to Holocaust denial (such as doubts about the number of victims and allegations that there is a "Holocaust industry"); a discourse borrowed from third worldism, anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, anti-Americanism and anti-globalization; and the dissemination of what he calls the "myth" of the "intrinsically good Palestinian – the innocent victim par excellence."^[19]
In early 2009, 125 parliamentarians from various countries gathered in London for the founding conference of a group called the "Interparliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism" (ICCA). They suggest that while classical antisemitism "overlaps" modern antisemitism, it is a different phenomenon and a more dangerous one for Jews


In June 2011, Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Lord Jonathan Sacks, said that basis for the new Antisemitism was the 2001 Durban Conference. Rabbi Sacks also said that the new Antisemitism "unites radical Islamists with human-rights NGOs—the right wing and the left wing—against a common enemy, the State of Israel."
In September 2006, the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism of the British Parliament published the Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, the result of an investigation into whether the belief that the "prevailing opinion both within the Jewish community and beyond" that antisemitism had "receded to the point that it existed only on the margins of society." was correct. It concluded that "the evidence we received indicates that there has been a reversal of this progress since the year 2000". In defining antisemitism, the Group wrote that it took into account the view of racism expressed by the MacPherson report, which was published after the murder of Stephen Lawrence, that, for the purpose of classifying crime by the police, an act is racist if it is defined as such by its victim. It formed the view that, broadly, "any remark, insult or act the purpose or effect of which is to violate a Jewish person’s dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him is antisemitic" and concluded that, given that, "it is the Jewish community itself that is best qualified to determine what does and does not constitute antisemitism."
The report stated that while some witnesses pointed out that the level of antisemitism experienced by Jews in Britain is lower than that faced by Jewish communities in some other parts of Europe and that the Jewish community is not the only minority community in Britain to experience prejudice and discrimination, that these arguments, provided no comfort to victims of hate and violence, nor should they be used as an excuse to ignore the problem.
The report states that some left-wing activists and Muslim extremists are using criticism of Israel as a "pretext" for antisemitism, and that the "most worrying discovery" is that antisemitism appears to be entering the mainstream. It argues that anti-Zionism may become antisemitic when it adopts a view of Zionism as a "global force of unlimited power and malevolence throughout history," a definition that "bears no relation to the understanding that most Jews have of the concept: that is, a movement of Jewish national liberation ..." Having re-defined Zionism, the report states, traditional antisemitic motifs of Jewish "conspiratorial power, manipulation and subversion" are often transferred from Jews onto Zionism. The report notes that this is "at the core of the 'New Antisemitism', on which so much has been written," adding that many of those who gave evidence called anti-Zionism "the lingua franca of antisemitic movements

A number of commentators argue that the United Nations has condoned antisemitism. Lawrence Summers, then-president of Harvard University, wrote that the UN's World Conference on Racism failed to condemn human rights abuses in China, Rwanda, or anywhere in the Arab world, while raising Israel's alleged ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. David Matas, senior counsel to B'nai B'rith Canada, has written that the UN is a forum for antisemitism, citing the example of the Palestinian representative to the UN Human Rights Commission who claimed in 1997 that Israeli doctors had injected Palestinian children with the AIDS virus. Congressman Steve Chabot told the U.S. House of Representatives in 2005 that the commission took "several months to correct in its record a statement by the Syrian ambassador that Jews allegedly had killed non-Jewish children to make unleavened bread for Passover.
Anne Bayefsky, a Canadian legal scholar who addressed the UN about its treatment of Israel, argues that the UN hijacks the language of human rights to discriminate and demonize Jews. She writes that over one quarter of the resolutions condemning a state's human rights violations have been directed at Israel. "But there has never been a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China, or the million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia kept as virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought 600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe." a 2008 report on antisemitism from the United States Department of State to the US Congress,


The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) (superseded in 2007 by the Fundamental Rights Agency) noted an upswing in antisemitic incidents in France, Germany, Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and The Netherlands between July 2003 and December 2004. In September 2004, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, a part of the Council of Europe, called on its member nations to ensure that anti-racist criminal law covers antisemitism, and in 2005, the EUMC offered a working definition of antisemitism in an attempt to enable a standard definition to be used for data collection: It defined antisemitism as "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed towards Jews and non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." The paper included “Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include"

• Denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor;
  
  
• Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;
  
  
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis;
  
  
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  
  
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.
  
  

The EUMC added that criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as antisemitism so long as it is "similar to that leveled against any other country."





The U.S. State Department's 2004 Report on Global Anti-Semitism identified four sources of rising antisemitism, particularly in Europe:

• "Traditional anti-Jewish prejudice... This includes ultra-nationalists and others who assert that the Jewish community controls governments, the media, international business, and the financial world."
  
  
• "Strong anti-Israel sentiment that crosses the line between objective criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism."
  
  
• "Anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by some in Europe's growing Muslim population, based on longstanding antipathy toward both Israel and Jews, as well as Muslim opposition to developments in Israel and the occupied territories, and more recently in Iraq."
  
  
• "Criticism of both the United States and globalization that spills over to Israel, and to Jews in general who are identified with both."
  
  

In July 2006, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a Campus Antisemitism report that declared that "Anti-Semitic bigotry is no less morally deplorable when camouflaged as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism." At the time, the Commission also announced that antisemitism is a "serious problem" on many campuses throughout the United States.
In September 2006, Yale University announced that it had established the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism, the first university-based institute in North America dedicated to the study of antisemitism. Charles Small, head of the institute, said in a press release that antisemitism has "reemerged internationally in a manner that many leading scholars and policy makers take seriously ... Increasingly, Jewish communities around the world feel under threat. It's almost like going back into the lab. I think we need to understand the current manifestation of this disease."^[ YIISA has presented several seminars and working papers on the topic, for instance "The Academic and Public Debate Over the Meaning of the 'New Antisemitism'

Motives for criticizing Israel in the UN may stem from legitimate concerns over policy or from illegitimate prejudices. (...) However, regardless of the intent, disproportionate criticism of Israel as barbaric and unprincipled, and corresponding discriminatory measures adopted in the UN against Israel, have the effect of causing audiences to associate negative attributes with Jews in general, thus fueling anti-Semitism.

I know I read it. There are some good points, too.

But my point goes to the absolutism of the anti-Semitic outcry, not that anti-Semitism doesn't still exist. It is the argument that Israel is immune from all criticism because the world owes them (due to the holocaust) that I disagree with...playing the Jewish card, if you will. Each case should be judged on it's individual basis.

For example--and I think you agree--I'm not going to give Netanyahu a free pass just because he is Jewish.

Original Quill wrote:I know I read it.  There are some good points, too.

But my point goes to the absolutism of the anti-Semitic outcry, not that anti-Semitism doesn't still exist.  It is the argument that Israel is immune from all criticism because the world owes them (due to the holocaust) that I disagree with...playing the Jewish card, if you will.  Each case should be judged on it's individual basis.

For example--and I think you agree--I'm not going to give Netanyahu a free pass just because he is Jewish.

Nobody is claiming Israel should be immune from criticism, that is not the issue, what is the issue is when people attempt to deligitimize Israel as a nation and people, that is discrmination and racism, there is no two ways about that. So you are wrong to claim I think Israel is immune from criticism, and you prove again how the left lie. Where above did I say they are immune? I back honest and genuine criticism, not views that seek to dehumanize the Jewish peoplle based on poor unsubstanciated comparrisons to Apartheid, the Nazi's, ISIS etc. They are formed with one purpose to dehumanise Jews making hate against them acceptable. That is the clear difference and where it turns into antisemitism. Israel should rightly be condemned when they do wrongs, I have never denied that.
Netanyahu rightly should be condemned and criticised, that is fine as you are being critical of an individual.
However if you started to make an agurmnt on him around him being Jewish, then your argument has become antiseltic.

Brasidas wrote:Nobody is claiming Israel should be immune from criticism, that is not the issue

Well good...that is all I speak up about.

As you know, I am as often outspoken in behalf of Israel...but on an individual issue basis.

Both sides are playing a huge PR game here, and I speak up to point out where it happens, when it happens.