The Left, Anti-Zionism & Anti-Semitism

First topic message reminder :

For those of us who study Israel and Zionism from the vantage point of Britain, there are some things we are able to predict with unerring accuracy. One such is that whenever the latest depressing dispatch arrives from the bloody ground-hog day that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there will swiftly follow, from print journalists and keyboard warriors alike, a flurry of discourse on the question of the British left's position on Israel and on the correlation between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Support for the Palestinian cause, nigh universal on the British left, has become so myopic as to amount to a delegitimisation of Israel which is de facto anti-Semitic. So the argument goes. To which the left responds with enraged accusations of slander, moral obfuscation and misuse of the charge of racism.

These exchanges are invariably unedifying, steeped in ad hominem vitriol and contribute only to the ever-increasing divide between the two parties to the conflict. Even the most civil example of the debate, between Brian Klug and Robert Wistrich ended with very little common ground being reached. Doubtless, Bibi Netanyahu's victory will spark a new round of intellectual hostility. It will be seen by the left as an endorsement by the Israeli public of the rejectionist, expansionist view of the conflict, and will almost certainly exacerbate the keyboard-war between the left and the defenders of Israel. It will confirm the suspicions of many that Israel itself, and Zionism along with it, is inherently right-wing, bellicose and intransigent. The more hardline Israel gets, the more this argument is solidified, and Netanyahu left Israeli voters in no doubt what they would be getting when he announced before the election that his Israel would not countenance Palestinian statehood.

This article is an attempt to address the issue with reason but not with dispassion. It tries to highlight ways in which the left needs to alter its thinking with regard to Zionism and also seeks to defend the left from some unjustified criticism. It is written by one tired of the myopic character of the debate who believes that we owe the conflict better than to discuss it in a manner more befitting the message boards of an article on a football match, with advocates of each side trumpeting the deserving virtues of their own and failing to see any merit in the position of the other.

The history of the left's position on Zionism is long and complex, but there are a few points that can be made accurately and succinctly. In the immediate pre and post-1948 periods, the British left was broadly, and often enthusiastically, supportive of the Zionist movement and then the State of Israel. Weizmann and the other pre-State Zionists had few more vociferous gentile cheerleaders, for example, than the Guardian editor C.P. Scott. This was of course by no means a uniform support, and there were many outliers who denied Zionism's legitimacy, but this article is not a history of the left and it's relationship with Israel and so must paint in broad generalities.

The situation changed fundamentally following Israel's victory in the Six Day War of June 1967 and its acquisition of the Occupied Territories.

The left underwent a wholesale reconsideration of its view of Zionism based upon the fact that, following the war, Israel no longer looked to them like a persecuted underdog in need of solidarity, but rather appeared as a militaristic outpost of Western Imperialism (this despite the fact that many of its Western allies, including Britain, were not at all supportive of Israel's occupation of the territories). That this occurred at the time that the popular left was undergoing a general move towards an anti-colonial emphasis, inspired by the Vietnam War and the Algerian uprising against the French, ensured that Israel quickly and dramatically lost most of a leftist support it had once been able to rely on.

Not all on the far left moved to an anti-Zionist position. Ironically, that doyen of the 60s/70s revolutionary left, Fidel Castro, saw no contradiction between supporting the Palestinian national struggle and defending Israel's right to exist. 'Revolutionaries', he said, 'never threaten a whole people with destruction.' Ralph Milliband, Holocaust Survivor, ardent Socialist and the Daily Mail's favourite Briton reacted with alarm at the anti-Israeli currents he saw developing in the Socialist movement in the late 1960s. 'The elimination of the State [of Israel]', he wrote, 'does not seem to me a policy that Socialists worthy of the name could support.' Instead, Milliband advocated 'condemning the Israelis for their foreign policy' and to do so 'in the name of Socialist principles, but without putting the existence of the State in question.' (Of course, to the worst kind of leftist anti-Zionist, Milliband was a Jew and so would say that. A particularly hypocritical leftist position is to champion the Jewishness of Jewish critics of Israel-Chomsky, Finkelstein et al.- but hold that the very same Jewishness of Israeli defenders makes them part of the 'lobby' and thus unworthy of consideration.) Jean Paul Sartre, meanwhile, wrestled with how the anti-colonialist should properly view Israel and Zionism but still advocated solidarity with the Jewish State.

Nonetheless, the late 60s leftist re-evaluation of Zionism led many to an embrace of Nasserism and to subsequently back any Levantine movement, no matter how reactionary, as long as it was anti-Israeli. Lest we dismiss this as a product purely of the heady days of the late 60s-early 70s rebellion, fast forward to 2006 and witness prominent American leftist intellectual Judith Butler's notorious belief that 'understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important.' It is important and fair to note Butler's caveat that 'that does not stop us from being critical of certain dimensions of both movements. It doesn’t stop those of us who are interested in non-violent politics from raising the question of whether there are other options besides violence.' Butler's equivocation notwithstanding, Hamas and Hezbollah are part of no left that I know or understand, but this attitude is consistent with much left-wing rhetoric since its post-67 re-appraisal of Zionism.

This is a perennial left-wing problem, and one that I wrestle with a great deal. The left is not always good at differentiating among revolutionary movements the genuinely progressive and pluralist from those whose espousal of national liberation is really a mask for chauvinism and hatred. It is wont too often to blindly subscribe to the dictum “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, and therefore whomever opposes the forces of the Imperialist West must, by necessity, be virtuous. This was somewhat more forgivable amongst anti-American post-WW2 Stalinists when the horrors of Stalin's regime were not fully known. It was less excusable when some on the anti-Iraq War left downplayed the barbarity of Saddam Hussein (“Yes he tortures and murders but so do the Israelis”). Saddam's sadistic track record, it is fair to say, was a matter of public record and the left needn't and shouldn't have used mealy-mouthed obfuscation to condemn the invasion. Lord knows there were enough deserving criticisms to be made. One of the undying lessons taught us by George Orwell is that it is imperative not to idealise those who oppose who you oppose; to see clearly their true nature and champion those who represent humanist ideals and decry those who are undeserving.

To return to the question of Zionism and the left, post-67, support for the Palestinian right to self-determination has become a hallmark of the popular left, and anti-Zionism has generally moved from the right to the left. This brief summation is the context in which we must view the contemporary debate.

Let us now look at the various expressions of left-wing anti-Zionism. If we take the totality of self-identifying British leftists who further self-define as anti-Zionist I think we can perhaps divide them into certain schools of thought and motivation, and from there begin to judge their attitudes in terms of appropriateness to a left-wing agenda.

If you are an anti-Zionist in that you inherently reject the right to sovereignty of the Jewish people; in other words, if -after millennia of pogrom after ghetto after massacre, culminating in the worst of all anti-Jewish orgies of violence, the Holocaust- you still refuse to grant the Jews the right to self-determination, self-governance and self-protection, then I feel that there is more than the whiff of the anti-Semite about you. For what you are essentially saying is one of two things: a) You care not at all for the survival of the Jewish people; b) You care for the survival of the Jewish people but believe this must be achieved as a stateless people in the diaspora. Belief in the continuation of the Jewish diaspora is not anti-Semitic.

Indeed, the majority of the world's Jews believe sufficiently in the viability of diaspora Jewish life that they continue to reside outside of the Jewish State. But if one argues that not only can Jewish continuity be achieved in the diaspora but that it must do so only there (this follows inarguably from the anti-Zionist position since it denies the desirability of the existence of the Jewish State) then one is either ignorant of, or (worse) aware of but unmoved by, the psychological strain gentile anti-Semitism and its frequent bloodthirsty manifestations have wrought on the Jewish mind. This position seems to me to be sufficiently anti-Jewish as to constitute anti-Semitism. It is also logically and philosophical inconsistent and hypocritical.

As leftists, we either agree with the rights of collective peoples to self-determination and sovereignty or we don't. It is maddening and cringe-worthy to hear leftists vigorously defend the national rights of the Kurds or the Chechens or other persecuted people (as indeed they should) and deny the same rights to the Jews. If Jews wish to wander that is their right, but Gentiles demanding the Wandering Jew is not the same.

If you consider yourself an anti-Zionist in that you accept the Jewish right to self-determination but reject the right to do so in an exclusivist manner- in other words in a particularist State which grants certain rights to Jews and not to non-Jews- then not only does this not make you an anti-Semite, but also allies you with a great many Jews and Israelis, including the so-called Israeli post-Zionists, who are not in the least self-hating. Criticism of this kind seems to me consistent with a left I am proud to be a part of; a left which rejects exclusivist and chauvinist societies.

With this in mind, and leaving aside for a moment the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories, Israel's Arab population (some 20% of the whole country) is technically equal and enfranchised. But this should not blind us to the realities of their status in the Jewish State where they are regarded by many as a fifth-column. When Netanyahu needed a late Hail-Mary electoral pass what weapon did he employ? “The rule of the right wing is in danger. Arab voters are going to the polls in droves! Go to the polling stations! Vote Likud!” Although Israeli President Reuven Rivlin has shown that the Likudnik spectrum also includes those who see Israel's Arabs in far more equal and positive terms, it seems to me that Israel's exclusivist character is a proper bone of contention for a left which is internationalist and multi-cultural. But this need not lead a leftist to an anti-Zionist position, anymore, for example, than his opposition to chauvinistic attitudes and policies towards minorities in India need lead him to oppose the sovereignty of India. In all other cases, repulsive state practice leads leftists to condemn the state and seek its improvement, not to deny or abjure its right to exist.

Now we come to the more complex and morally ambiguous issues. If, as a leftist, you understand the Jewish impulse for nationhood but cannot accept the decision to choose a land which, although replete with spiritual and cultural significance for the Jews, already contained a native population whose own national rights were ignored then, again, not only are you not an anti-Semite, but you are in the company of a great many early “Zionists” who believed deeply in Jewish self-determination but believed it should be pursued in a land, or portion of land, more genuinely terra nulius.

The Anglo-Jewish author Israel Zangwill was one who, having seen the error of his earlier estimation that first Ottoman and then Mandate Palestine was essentially uninhabited, broke with Herzlian Zionism and pursued his own version of non-Palestinian Jewish Nationhood with his Territorialist movement. Herzl himself was for a long time open to alternative sites, and was particularly keen on Patagonia.

This is, I think, the most justifiable and the most genuinely leftist anti-Zionist position to take. The early Zionist argument that the Palestinian population would welcome Jewish statehood because it would bring economic advancement was at best naïve and at worst reminiscent of the most odious justifications for colonial subjugation. The International Community recognised the legitimacy of the national rights of both Jews and Arabs in greater Palestine and proposed partition of the land in 1947. This plan was accepted by the Zionist authorities (though many argue that they saw it only as a jumping off point for further expansion) and rejected by the relevant Arab authorities. Shortly after the Israeli declaration of independence the new state was attacked by the surrounding Arab states in its War of Independence. Victory resulted not only in expanded Israeli territory from that envisaged by the UN Partition Plan, but also in the displacement of 700,000 odd Palestinian citizens and the birth of the Palestinian Refugee problem, what the Palestinians refer to as the Nakba (catastrophe). Debate continues to rage in Israel over two points: 1) Whether or not the Palestinian refugees fled their homes under inducement by Arab authorities or where forced to by the victorious Israelis and 2) Whether the expansion and displacement of the Arabs was an unplanned product of war or of orchestrated Israeli expansionism. This is not the place for a detailed discussion of these points, suffice it to say that the events briefly described have been the cause of untold Palestinian suffering and of much of the violent enmity between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Of those on the left who take a position that Zionism is justified as a movement for the national self-determination of the Jewish people but became unjustified a) when it settled on an already inhabited land or b) when its success resulted in 700,000 Palestinians losing their homes and being plunged into abject misery, we may debate and argue but I think it is logically and morally impossible to charge this position with anti-Semitism or with anything other than an appropriately leftist concern for an injured people. But it should be remembered that the contemporaneous left of the time almost entirely supported Israeli statehood and backed its cause in the 1948 War. The view at the time was that to take the established leftist tradition of supporting the persecuted underdog was to take the side of an Israel encircled my enemies on all sides, while, in Britain, the establishment position was to press the case of Britain's Arab allies. How times have changed!

It is imperative also to consider the post-1967 era, the era of occupation. For in the general leftist discourse on Israel, it is really the occupation that is paramount. I think a great many confuse the issue and say they are “against Zionism” when what they really mean is that they do not accept the borders of Israeli jurisdiction as they developed after the acquisition of the Occupied Territories in 1967. (Notice I don't follow the Israeli position and say “Disputed Territories”. If such radical bodies as the International Court of Justice and the US Government are comfortable defining the territories as Occupied then surely the matter is firmly put to bed.) Again this is perfectly justifiable but needn't automatically mean that one should have, ex necessitate rei, to oppose a Jewish State in some part of Palestine, as the international community in the guise of the UN felt was just and reasonable. Again we may argue long into the night as to whether the Occupation was a product of the exigencies of war or part of a calculated design inspired by the expansionist school of Zionist thought. But, again, opposition to the occupation, essential and noble as it is, does not require us to repudiate or de-legitimize the fundamental Zionist philosophy.

Let us turn briefly from the charges made by the left to those made against it. It Is argued that those who single out Israel while ignoring or downplaying the worse or similar behaviour of other states are de facto anti-Semitic. The problem with this proposition is that it damns the innocent along with the guilty. Someone generally concerned with the sufferings of mankind focussing their efforts upon the particular case of injustice done to the Palestinians is not by definition anti-Semitic. Who knows why particular issues seem to demand our attention while others, equally worthy of it, must be left to others. The chargers of anti-Semitism are, it seems to me, wrong when it comes to people of this sort. But singling out Israel from the long list of international transgressors does share, inadvertently or not, the same habit of highlighting the sins of Jews over those of others of the traditional anti-Semite.

Only the conscience of the individual knows from whence his motivation comes.

This point applies to the various attempts made in recent years at an academic boycott of Israeli Universities. While economic boycotts are often morally sound and useful, prohibiting intellectual cooperation and silencing the exchange of ideas are tactics unworthy of the left, particularly if boycotts are proposed only of Israeli institutions and not of those in other states to which the left should also object. Those in favour of the boycott of Israeli Universities should also ask themselves whether cutting off ties with the more reactionary elements in Israeli academia is worth the loss of collaboration with courageous academics like Baruch Kimmerling, Menachem Klein, Ariella Azoulay, or the late Israel Shahak.

Another weapon in the arsenal of Israel's defenders who charge the left with anti-Semitism is that the latter often compares Israeli actions with those of the Nazis. To equate Zionism with Nazism is illogical, irrational and monumentally disrespectful to the continued legacy of the Shoah. Zionism is not inherently a racist ideology but rather one itself forged from the fires of racial hatred. The UN was wrong in 1975 to equate Zionism with racism but would have been justified in charging the Israeli state with racism towards both its Arab citizens and those in the Occupied Territories. When leftists react to an Israeli atrocity with the Nazi equation they do so for shock value and because they know the charge will wound, not from any thought-out comparison of the two situations.

Nonetheless, sober and mainstream international bodies have affirmed that Israel has on occasion been guilty of crimes of which the Nazis were also guilty, particularly in terms of forced population transfer. Recognising this does not make Zionism equivalent to Nazism.

It means simply that Israeli governments have been guilty of egregious breaches of international law and fundamental human decency, in a way occasionally analogous to Nazi practice . I will repeat for absolute clarity, this does not make put Israel on a par with the Nazis. It means that of the countless crimes perpetuated by the Nazis, a small percentage are shared with Israel, as they are with countless other states, including Britain, whose guilt does not lead us to suggest that they should cease to exist. I will not apologise to Israel's critics who say that this statement does not go far enough in equating Zionism with Nazism, nor to Israeli defenders who say that to mention Israeli and Nazi practices in the same breath is either evil, anti-Semitic or both. Frankly, if the evidence fits a statement then the statement must be a fair one, a fact realised by the International Court of Justice who, in 2004, affirmed that Israel's settlement practices in Occupied Palestinian Territory amounted to a breach of the international prohibition on the forced transfer of populations, a prohibition enacted originally to prevent in future what was witnessed in Czechoslovakia under the Nazi occupation. I also make no apology for saying that the Israelis who conducted or defended such policies should, as members of the most persecuted group perhaps in human history, know better. But the anti-Zionists should also recognise that, if they advocate the destruction of the Israeli state because of the offences it commits, it is making a demand it does not make in the case of any other international malfeasant, including those with a far worse human rights record than Israel. Which leftists reacted to the Nazi or Soviet atrocities not just with a demand for punishment and justice but with a rejection of the fundamental German or Russian rights to self-determination?

To turn this latter question around, it is often said by leftist critics of Israel- Jewish and non-Jewish- that Israel invokes the Holocaust to excuse, or provide a smokescreen for, its behaviour. As a non-Jew, the Holocaust certainly does not justify Israel's policy towards the Palestinians, but I do believe it justifies Zionism itself, and we can and should decry the former without, by logical necessity, having to repudiate the latter. If we fail to appreciate the depth of the scars of the Holocaust; if we fail to understand the enormity of this collective experience and its impact on the Jewish mind and heart then, not only are we both impractical and unhelpful observers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we are inhuman as well. We condemn with the luxury and complacency of those who have never had to face the possible extinction of our tribe. What we cannot empathise with, but should never stop trying to sympathise with, is the psychological effect of knowing that there were, and are still, those who would see our race eradicated. Live with that for a while and see if you think you need a national home. Similarly (notice I don't say equally), when those on the Israeli side refuse to acknowledge the size of the injustice visited upon the Palestinians following Israeli statehood, and the profundity of their suffering, then not only are you both impractical and unhelpful observers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you are inhuman as well. We should also recall that the Holocaust was a uniquely European disgrace, borne out of centuries of European anti-semitism by no means confined to Germany, and one in which the Palestinians had no part.

I have no doubt that there exist a certain section on the left who are simply classic anti-Semites; those who talk of 'The Jews' and their fondness for money and power. Anti-Zionism has certainly become a convenient cloak for those whose position on the Jews is most properly analagous to the most reactionary right-wing. Stated clearly, they belong on no left that I believe in. My definition of left has as its first, and perhaps defining principle, an insistence upon judging a person by their actions and the content of their character and not by their ethnic origin. Because, let us make no mistake here, when anti-Semites hate, they are doing so racially and not theologically. Jews themselves may see Jewishness as religion only but anti-Semites think in racialist terms.

Some invoke caveats for this which do them no credit. “Ah, but it's Israeli action which causes anti-Semitism. It's the Occupation.” Is the left really prepared to justify this? What Israeli behaviour can justifiably cause is anti-Israelism- a negative view, even hatred, of Israel's actions as a state. Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews, pure and simple and it is un-leftist to excuse this because some Jews behave appallingly. I am aware that this is complicated somewhat by the claims of Israel to represent World Jewry, a proposition which if taken on face value implicates diaspora Jews in Israeli action. But we should, as most Jews do, refuse to accept the claim that the diaspora is responsible for the actions of the Jewish State. We should certainly expect diaspora Jews of conscience to criticise Israel when it behaves badly, and the “Israel, right or wrong, my Israel” defence is hollow and unworthy of moral people. But excusing hatred of Jews en masse because Israel behaves abominably is unworthy of the leftist tradition in which I was proud to be raised, one in which people are never condemned or persecuted because of their race or ethnicity. Could we justify hatred of Serbs as an ethnic group because of the genocidal murderousness of Milosevician Serb nationalism? For that matter, if we met a Serb who tried to justify the Milosevic years, would we hate and condemn him as a Serb rather than purely as a human being?

I think much anti-Zionism is reflexive and complacent. “Chomsky condemns Israel and opposes Zionism so it must be the leftist course” goes the rationale. I bow to few in my admiration for the Professor, and his views on Zionism itself are actually far more nuanced and complex than many realise, but if his unknowing tutelage has taught me one thing it is to question orthodoxy. This should be one of the first principles of 'being left' and when anti-Zionism has become a leftist orthodoxy we should question it. It is time for all leftists to be capable of holding two thoughts in their heads which seem contradictory but are not mutually incompatible. Namely, to wholeheartedly support Palestinian revanchism, restitution and justice on the one hand and also to recognise the legitimacy of the Jewish national movement. It is essential for the preservation of the left's moral integrity and intellectual rigour that it approaches Zionism from a consistent position. If we are in favour of the right to self-determination of a stateless people identifying and accepted as a national collective-today the Palestinians- then I fail to see how we can retrospectively deny the same moral rights to those Jews who in the first half of the 20 th century pursued their own national unity and sovereign movement.

It is not our peace to negotiate. We can only ever be interested and passionate observes. What we can do is aid the chances of peace, and we do this by contributing to a culture of reconciliation and compromise. This is a duty of all, but particularly those of us on the left who champion peace and decry war, I am pleased to say, with greater fervour and consistency than our adversaries on the right.

And in this duty we are nowhere. Actually we are worse than nowhere.

In our journalistic sniping, our keyboard warring and our stubborn refusal to see our opponents' humanity we are actively and wilfully sending the peace train in the wrong direction. For, whether we know it or not, the debate in the outside world has a very real effect on the conflict itself. Only when both sides view their enemy as a human being with rational and justifiable claims and desires can we hope for peace. But seldom do we in Britain contribute anything of substance to this process, and so exponential increase of hatred and violence- that moral tit-for-tat that we scold and attempt to correct in our children- remains the despairing lingua franca of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

http://londonprogressivejournal.com/article/view/2147/the-left-antizionism-antisemitism


Interesting article from the lefts perspective, one at least is far more honest and genuine than I can say than many of the left wing posters on this forum are and if anyone really needs to read this, it is Cass to see why some posters on here are clearly antisemtic in their Rhetoric they use. They may not think they are and you are excusing their hate they promote epsecially in regards to sassy. Who certainly does not believe israel has the right to a nation and the land to her belongs only to the Palestinian people, well that is antisemtic denying Jewish people a right to self determination and you are excusing her hate due to friendship, which I find the worst kind of dishonesty and a true friend would not be afraid to tell her that her discourse is very much discrminating. You may not like these facts cass, but it is even worse not to say something when it is a fact. I have spent years fighting against racism and discrimination, having researched far more than others, so I think I have a better understanding than most on what is and is not antisemitism. I do not agree with every point he makes, but it is an honest look at what crosses over as antisemitism

veya_victaous wrote:

Brasidas wrote:For Veya:


anti-Semitism, hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group. The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns under way in central Europe at that time. Although the term now has wide currency, it is a misnomer, since it implies a discrimination against all Semites. Arabs and other peoples are also Semites, and yet they are not the targets of anti-Semitism as it is usually understood. The term is especially inappropriate as a label for the anti-Jewish prejudices, statements, or actions of Arabs or other Semites. Nazi anti-Semitism, which culminated in the Holocaust, had a racist dimension in that it targeted Jews because of their supposed biological characteristics—even those who had themselves converted to other religions or whose parents were converts. This variety of anti-Jewish racism dates only to the emergence of so-called “scientific racism” in the 19th century and is different in nature from earlier anti-Jewish prejudices.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/27646/anti-Semitism

READ YOUR OWN DEFINITION

Clearly Says German Anti Semitism refers to Jews (because they are the Semitics that were living in Germany), but Anti Semitism Means Anti Larger group of people called Semitics and using it as a label for the anti-Jewish prejudices is inappropriate

I did read it thanks, but you need to read it all again ha ha ha

Such a silly boy you are as no good just highlighting some of it.

PMSL

You are Racist as
more RW support of Rich and powerful while denying and persecuting poor Semitic minorities which happen to have dark skin
Is that why you keep denying other Semitics? is it the skin colour? why do you keep denying the clear reality that Hebrews Are NOT the only Semitics and a lot of Semitics are not Jewish? trying to figure out you motivation for denying and persecuting African Semitics?

veya_victaous wrote:You are Racist as
more RW support of Rich and powerful while denying and persecuting poor Semitic minorities which happen to have dark skin
Is that why you keep denying other Semitics? is it the skin colour? why do you keep denying the clear reality that Hebrews Are NOT the only Semitics and a lot of Semitics are not Jewish? trying to figure out you motivation for denying and persecuting African Semitics?
 

Again I have asked you to show me anywhere I deny persecution to Semitic people
You failed and are lying out of your arse you left wing extremist nutball
Not once have I denied there is other Semitic people, which shows your desperation
I am saying rightly how crimes are measure and who is defined in law with antisemitic attacks, if you wish that to be change, I approve also, but to make idiotic claims as you are doing shows why not only are you desperate and continue to lie and make false accusations you cannot back up but most of all it proves you are a complete idiot

umm that definition is only in Israel the UK and USA
it is not internationally recognised Despite the best efforts of the JSA to deny the Semitic Africans their heritage..
Even Most of Europe Recognises that and is being pressured by the JSA and Hillel to adopt the racist discriminating laws of the UK.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/25/jewish-leaders-europe-legislation-outlawing-antisemitism

Are you really SO Eurocentric you didn't know this it a hotly disputed? Most of the world recognises that Jews are just a religion it is only the US and UK that legally have given Jews 'special race' treatment and let them essentially deny the existence of non-white Semitics.

veya_victaous wrote:umm that definition is only in Israel the UK and USA
it is not internationally recognised Despite the best efforts of the JSA to deny the Semitic Africans their heritage..
Even Most of Europe Recognises that and is being pressured by the JSA and Hillel to adopt the racist discriminating laws of the UK.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/25/jewish-leaders-europe-legislation-outlawing-antisemitism

Are you really SO Eurocentric you didn't know this it a hotly disputed? Most of the world recognises that Jews are just a religion it is only the US and UK that legally have given Jews 'special race' treatment and let them essentially deny the existence of non-white Semitics.

It is far more than just those countries so again you made a massive error Veya as per usual and I know why it is not internationally recognised because many Muslim nations being antisemitic of the Jews themselves deny this, which may have escaped your attention. Nothing is being pressure and the Guardian is nothing but an appeaser to antisemitism itself, but then you wish to deny these problems.
You see thank you for proving yet again your Jewish hatred, because you are denying self determination to Jews as an identity of an ethnicity and race in classification. You are basically denying every atheist Jews that lives in the entire world and the very fact all can seen you have just done so.
This is not about special treatment but you deny a Semitic group their self determination, that is antisemitism, which is just as bad as a white supremacist denying a Black person can be English
You just proved you are racist to yet again deny them their identity

For fuck sake, from your on link:


European Jewish leaders, backed by a host of former EU heads of state and government, are to call for pan-European legislation outlawing antisemitism amid a sense of siege and emergency feeding talk of a mass exodus of Europe’s oldest ethnic minority.

I do not think holocaust denial should be a crime, but are you claiming antisemitism should not be in the form of hatred towards Jews?
Veya, if you deny Jewish ethnic identity, you deny any group of people their ethnic identity and self determination, which would be racist. Its time you understood that fundamental fact.

Goodnight and learn where you cross the boundaries of racism itself, when you deny people their self determination and identity.
I hope Cass is bloody reading this and then maybe will admit how wrong she was.

Night all

Brasidas wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:umm that definition is only in Israel the UK and USA
it is not internationally recognised Despite the best efforts of the JSA to deny the Semitic Africans their heritage..
Even Most of Europe Recognises that and is being pressured by the JSA and Hillel to adopt the racist discriminating laws of the UK.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/25/jewish-leaders-europe-legislation-outlawing-antisemitism

Are you really SO Eurocentric you didn't know this it a hotly disputed? Most of the world recognises that Jews are just a religion it is only the US and UK that legally have given Jews 'special race' treatment and let them essentially deny the existence of non-white Semitics.

It is far more than just those countries so again you made a massive error Veya as per usual and I know why it is not internationally recognised because many Muslim nations being antisemitic of the Jews themselves deny this, which may have escaped your attention. Nothing is being pressure and the Guardian is nothing but an appeaser to antisemitism itself, but then you wish to deny these problems.
You see thank you for proving yet again your Jewish hatred, because you are denying self determination to Jews as an identity of an ethnicity and race in classification. You are basically denying every atheist Jews that lives in the entire world and the very fact all can seen you have just done so.
This is not about special treatment but you deny a Semitic group their self determination, that is antisemitism, which is just as bad as a white supremacist denying a Black person can be English
You just proved you are racist to yet again deny them their identity

atheist Jew???? that makes no sense
they can be atheist Semitic or an atheist Israeli.
But Atheist means believes "No God(s) exist " Jews are followers of Judaism how have this whole Abrahamic one god thing you may have heard of.

So are you atheist religious your general attitude makes a lot more sense in that context

veya_victaous wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


It is far more than just those countries so again you made a massive error Veya as per usual and I know why it is not internationally recognised because many Muslim nations being antisemitic of the Jews themselves deny this, which may have escaped your attention. Nothing is being pressure and the Guardian is nothing but an appeaser to antisemitism itself, but then you wish to deny these problems.
You see thank you for proving yet again your Jewish hatred, because you are denying self determination to Jews as an identity of an ethnicity and race in classification. You are basically denying every atheist Jews that lives in the entire world and the very fact all can seen you have just done so.
This is not about special treatment but you deny a Semitic group their self determination, that is antisemitism, which is just as bad as a white supremacist denying a Black person can be English
You just proved you are racist to yet again deny them their identity

atheist Jew???? that makes no sense
they can be atheist Semitic or an atheist Israeli.
But Atheist means believes "No God(s) exist " Jews are followers of Judaism how have this whole Abrahamic one god thing you may have heard of.

So are you atheist religious          your general attitude makes a lot more sense in that context      

Jewish atheism refers to atheism as practiced by people who are ethnically and (at least to some extent) culturally Jewish. Because Jewishness encompasses ethnic as well as religious components, the term "Jewish atheism" does not necessarily imply a contradiction. Based on Jewish law's emphasis on matrilineal descent, even religiously conservative Orthodox Jewish authorities would accept an atheist born to a Jewish mother as fully Jewish.[1] One recent study found that half of all American Jews have doubts about the existence of God, compared to 10–15% of other American religious groups


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism

you cannot allow Jews (followers of Judaism) to deny the ethnic identity of all the other Semitic groups because they follow their own religions, to do so makes you Racist and supporter of discrimination.

Semitic is NOT freely swappable with Jewish or Israeli . Only RACIST think it is ok to say Semitics are Jewish, Most Jews are Semitic but Semitics do not have to be Jewish.

which is why Israel is VERY WRONG to call other Semitics Anti-Semitics because they don't agree with the Secular nations policies or Judaism.

As can be shown Israel (a nation) has been Sterilising Ethiopian Semitics (that do happen to be Jewish too) Against their will

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gave-birth-control-to-ethiopian-jews-without-their-consent-8468800.html

Israel has admitted for the first time that it has been giving Ethiopian Jewish immigrants birth-control injections, often without their knowledge or consent.

The government had previously denied the practice but the Israeli Health Ministry’s director-general has now ordered gynaecologists to stop administering the drugs. According a report in Haaretz, suspicions were first raised by an investigative journalist, Gal Gabbay, who interviewed more than 30 women from Ethiopia in an attempt to discover why birth rates in the community had fallen dramatically.

One of the Ethiopian women who was interviewed is quoted as saying: “They [medical staff] told us they are inoculations. We took it every three months. We said we didn’t want to.” It is alleged that some of the women were forced or coerced to take the drug while in transit camps in Ethiopia.

The drug in question is thought to be Depo-Provera, which is injected every three months and is considered to be a highly effective, long-lasting contraceptive.

Nearly 100,000 Ethiopian Jews have moved to Israel under the Law of Return since the 1980s, but their Jewishness has been questioned by some rabbis. Last year, the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who also holds the health portfolio, warned that illegal immigrants from Africa “threaten our existence as a Jewish and democratic state”.

Cass, there is all the evidence you need and if you keep ignoring this, then you are lying to yourself what some of the posters on here are like. Seriously I am stunned and though the far right were bad in their racism, but the above has me appalled and stunned, it is time you stopped defending poor views by some on here. I have nothing personal against Veya and never would have but I will condemn his racism and I thought you were against racism too?
If you do not stand up to racism or correct people who are clueless they are being racist as Veya is, they will continue to wrongly believe as he does in his poor views.
Up to you if you wish to continue to deny this, but I will not sit by quietly and not speak out, where I admit this is more ignorance on Veya's part

Veya I am not sure how many times you have changed the goal posts on this topic, but you have proven beyond doubt how indeed you are very racist, I need not say anymore, and again going on about where some Jews are racist is never been denied.
You really are one clueless idiot, where everytime I prove your views wrong you instead change tact and go off on tangent.
Stop denying Jews their identity.

Goodnight

Brasidas wrote:Cass, there is all the evidence you need and if you keep ignoring this, then you are lying to yourself what some of the posters on here are like. Seriously I am stunned and though the far right were bad in their racism, but the above has me appalled and stunned, it is time you stopped defending poor views by some on here. I have nothing personal against Veya and never would have but I will condemn his racism and I thought you were against racism too?
If you do not stand up to racism or correct people who are clueless they are being racist as Veya is, they will continue to wrongly believe as he does in his poor views.
Up to you if you wish to continue to deny this, but I will not sit by quietly and not speak out, where I admit this is more ignorance on Veya's part

Veya I am not sure how many times you have changed the goal posts on this topic, but you have proven beyond doubt how indeed you are very racist, I need not say anymore, and again going on about where some Jews are racist is never been denied.
You really are one clueless idiot, where everytime I prove your views wrong you instead change tact and go off on tangent.
Stop denying Jews their identity.

Goodnight

YOU ARE RACIST
I have not changed the goal posst once
You keep calling Semitics Jews!!!
that is Racist Get it thorough Your Zionist Head
Semitic IS not Jewish to say Semitic are Jewish IS Racist.

Dumb Fuck Seriously STOP Being A RACIST TWAT I don't care what your Zionist Propaganda Promotes the FACT is there are MORE SEMITICS that are NOT Jewish than Semitics that Are Jewish
the FACT is other groups a Semitic are more persecuted, Often by Israel.

So Israel a secular nation that is one of the Biggest persecutors Of Semitic Peoples DOES NOT GET TO CALL ANYONE Anti Semitic for disliking it.
Say they do and you are an Anti-Semitic, Anti African Racist.... Discussion over.....
This site will NOT PROMOTE YOUR RACIST AGENDA I will keep assuring you You are Racist because You are. I don't give a fuck if you think you are liberal You don't have the first clue about what being liberal means You are JUST ANOTHER RW racist troll promoting dominance of a rich group over a poor.

there are 25 million non-jewish Ethiopian Semites in Ethiopia alone
and only 13.75 million Jewish Semites in the ENTIRE world.
You have made your Zionism VERY Apparent by persisting in the Zionist Fallacy that Judaism Israel and Semitic are the same thing.
You then go one level of stupid hypocrisy further and say that Israel is Secular but also Jewish.
You then claim that you can be atheist religious... Again Judaism is Clearly a RELIGION, Israel is clearly a Nation and Semitic is clearly a ethnicity. Only Zionist try and confuse the issue with blatant lies.

a nation, an ethnicity and a religion are different things EVEN if they did have the same name, In this Case they don't even share a name !!!

Unbelievable and still he is as racist as they come denying a Jewish identity, I always said the left were far more racist that then right and there is glowing proof of this and how cowardly the other left wing posters are for not condemning the racist drivel above.

As far as I am concerned there is no difference between this forum and the other for its racism where at least they are more honest in their racism, we have the worst ignorance on this forum in regards to understanding what antisemitism is.

Veya you invented and changed the debate at every turn because you are a pathetic fucking weasel, no where did I deny any group their identity and yet you still claim it you pathetic scum


Israelis a Secular nation, only a fuckwit racist would deny this.
Only a fuckwit racist would deny Jews their identity, no matter their religious or non religious affiliation.
Only a real fucking idiot would bring up other Semtic groups when none would denied their identity.
If I was you Veya, I would hand yourself into the Australian Police for your racism and antisemitism.

You are no different to the far right racist scum and people like you are  danger to society, with your rancid hatred of the jews.
Now fuck off you pathetic little Racist Fuckwit



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.
  

Louis Harap separates "economic antisemitism" and merges "political" and "nationalistic" antisemitism into "ideological antisemitism". Harap also adds a category of "social antisemitism".^[44]

• religious (Jew as Christ-killer),
  
• economic (Jew as banker, usurer, money-obsessed),
  
• social (Jew as social inferior, "pushy," vulgar, therefore excluded from personal contact),
  
• racist (Jews as an inferior "race"),
  
• ideological (Jews regarded as subversive or revolutionary),
  
• cultural (Jews regarded as undermining the moral and structural fiber of civilization).
  

So all those Jews who oppose Zionism must also be anti Semitic?

Anti semitism is the hatred of a race of people.

Anti Zionism is the disagreememt of 'an idea'.

To conflate an idea with race is illogical. But this is how desperate Zionists like Netanyahu are becoming.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:So all those Jews who oppose Zionism must also be anti Semitic?

Anti semitism is the hatred of a race of people.

Anti Zionism is the disagreememt of 'an idea'.

To conflate an idea with race is illogical. But this is how desperate Zionists like Netanyahu are becoming.

1) Incorrect, it can cross over into antisemitism.

2) Antisemitism incorporates race, ethnicity, religion.

3) Zionists are still people are they not and also Jews in most cases? If you discrminate against a Jew because they are Zionists, is just as bad as discriminating against a Palestinian who is a Fatah supporter.
Itis very much discrimination. Even more if the Rhetoric is based around them being a Jew it can and does cross over to being antisemitism.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:So all those Jews who oppose Zionism must also be anti Semitic?

Anti semitism is the hatred of a race of people.

Anti Zionism is the disagreememt of 'an idea'.

To conflate an idea with race is illogical. But this is how desperate Zionists like Netanyahu are becoming.

1) Incorrect, it can cross over into antisemitism.

2) Antisemitism incorporates race, ethnicity, religion.

3) Zionists are still people are they not and also Jews in most cases? If you discrminate against a Jew because they are Zionists, is just as bad as discriminating against a Palestinian who is a Fatah supporter.
Itis very much discrimination. Even more if the Rhetoric is based around them being a Jew it can and does cross over to being antisemitism.

Racists conflate anti Zionism with anti Semitism. What you don't realise is that you are doing exactly the same thing. So what does that make you? (That's why so many on this board are teasing you).

Not all Zionists are Jews, many are right wing evangelistic Christians.

There are many Jews who can distinguish between anti Semitism and anti Zionism. And hate Zionism. Are they racist?

And you can oppose Fatah and still support Palestinians as a people.

Only racists conflate ideology with race.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

1) Incorrect, it can cross over into antisemitism.

2) Antisemitism incorporates race, ethnicity, religion.

3) Zionists are still people are they not and also Jews in most cases? If you discrminate against a Jew because they are Zionists, is just as bad as discriminating against a Palestinian who is a Fatah supporter.
Itis very much discrimination. Even more if the Rhetoric is based around them being a Jew it can and does cross over to being antisemitism.

Racists conflate anti Zionism with anti Semitism. What you don't realise is that you are doing exactly the same thing. So what does that make you? (That's why so many on this board are teasing you).

Not all Zionists are Jews, many are right wing evangelistic Christians.

There are many Jews who can distinguish between anti Semitism and anti Zionism. And hate Zionism. Are they racist?

And you can oppose Fatah and still support Palestinians as a people.

Only racists conflate ideology with race.

Never claimed all Zionists were Jews, which shows you did not read my last point.
Some Jews can hate Zionism, that does not mean they can discriminate against those Jews who do. That is like saying you can discriminate against Labour supporters, if you are English because not all English people are Labour supporters.
You still cannot grasp discrimination or where when Jews are attacked for supporting Zionism, which is not an extreme ideology either and the discourse is more on their Jewish identity it very much becomes antisemitism. Nobody is saying there is anything wrong in opposing something which is not what is being stated, it is around discriminating. Like boycotts for example of Israel is making all Jews, Christians, Muslims Druze etc culpable for what a Government does or some Ultra orthodox groups do. That is discrimination because such boycotts or sanctions should be aimed at those doing wrong not a nation as a whole. That is why groups like BDS which deny Jewish self-determination and advocate boycotts to everything Israeli are very much crossing over into antisemitism because the view is based on Israeli Jews.
So your illogical views are quite idiotic, illogical, irrational in regards to racism and antisemitism

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Racists conflate anti Zionism with anti Semitism. What you don't realise is that you are doing exactly the same thing. So what does that make you? (That's why so many on this board are teasing you).

Not all Zionists are Jews, many are right wing evangelistic Christians.

There are many Jews who can distinguish between anti Semitism and anti Zionism. And hate Zionism. Are they racist?

And you can oppose Fatah and still support Palestinians as a people.

Only racists conflate ideology with race.

Never claimed all Zionists were Jews, which shows you did not read my last point.
Some Jews can hate Zionism, that does not mean they can discriminate against those Jews who do. That is like saying you can discriminate against Labour supporters, if you are English because not all English people are Labour supporters.
You still cannot grasp discrimination or where when Jews are attacked for supporting Zionism, which is not an extreme ideology either and the discourse is more on their Jewish identity it very much becomes antisemitism. Nobody is saying there is anything wrong in opposing something which is not what is being stated, it is around discriminating. Like boycotts for example of Israel is making all Jews, Christians, Muslims Druze etc culpable for what a Government does or some Ultra orthodox groups do. That is discrimination because such boycotts or sanctions should be aimed at those doing wrong not a nation as a whole. That is why groups like BDS which deny Jewish self-determination and advocate boycotts to everything Israeli are very much crossing over into antisemitism because the view is based on Israeli Jews.
So your illogical views are quite idiotic, illogical, irrational in regards to racism and antisemitism

So what about those Jews who support BDS by not buying products made on occupied land?

You admit they are racist? Of course you wouldn't dare. That makes your comment above about BDS less credible.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Never claimed all Zionists were Jews, which shows you did not read my last point.
Some Jews can hate Zionism, that does not mean they can discriminate against those Jews who do. That is like saying you can discriminate against Labour supporters, if you are English because not all English people are Labour supporters.
You still cannot grasp discrimination or where when Jews are attacked for supporting Zionism, which is not an extreme ideology either and the discourse is more on their Jewish identity it very much becomes antisemitism. Nobody is saying there is anything wrong in opposing something which is not what is being stated, it is around discriminating. Like boycotts for example of Israel is making all Jews, Christians, Muslims Druze etc culpable for what a Government does or some Ultra orthodox groups do. That is discrimination because such boycotts or sanctions should be aimed at those doing wrong not a nation as a whole. That is why groups like BDS which deny Jewish self-determination and advocate boycotts to everything Israeli are very much crossing over into antisemitism because the view is based on Israeli Jews.
So your illogical views are quite idiotic, illogical, irrational in regards to racism and antisemitism

So what about those Jews who support BDS by not buying products made on occupied land?

You admit they are racist? Of course you wouldn't dare. That makes your comment above about BDS less credible.

They are discriminating against Israelis full stop, and making them all culpable for the actions of the Israeli government. Its like when sanctions are imposed on Iran, they are wrong if they make the whole nation culpable, when it should be aimed at the authorities or those groups that enable inequality etc.
So if they are discriminating against Israeli's they are very much being racist to the Israeli people because they are making them all culpable, guilt by association
So I just did dare, if you discriminated against Palestinians, and you were an American Palestinians, it would still be racism. Your view to supporting such a dispicable antisemitic group is being exposed for what it is

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

So what about those Jews who support BDS by not buying products made on occupied land?

You admit they are racist? Of course you wouldn't dare. That makes your comment above about BDS less credible.

They are discriminating against Israelis full stop, and making them all culpable for the actions of the Israeli government. Its like when sanctions are imposed on Iran, they are wrong if they make the whole nation culpable, when it should be aimed at the authorities or those groups that enable inequality etc.
So if they are discriminating against Israeli's they are very much being racist to the Israeli people because they are making them all culpable, guilt by association
So I just did dare, if you discriminated against Palestinians, and you were an American Palestinians, it would still be racism. Your view to supporting such a dispicable antisemitic group is being exposed for what it is

I knew the word "dare" would motivate you. You're in that state of mind. I guess even intelligent people are susceptible to a bit of NLP.

The reason you won't convince the rational (including many Jews) in this forum or outside, is that they understand the difference between race and ideology. There is no point someone like you banging your head against a brick wall mate.

I will add, if they want to target those doing wrong, then you would rightly boycott anything made or produced in the Settlements, you are then only targeting a group doing wrong and not all the Israeli people/ Or you impose sanctions on the officials of Israel like we see in Russia. You hit those doing wrongs, not the entire nation of a country otherwise it is very much discrimination

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


They are discriminating against Israelis full stop, and making them all culpable for the actions of the Israeli government. Its like when sanctions are imposed on Iran, they are wrong if they make the whole nation culpable, when it should be aimed at the authorities or those groups that enable inequality etc.
So if they are discriminating against Israeli's they are very much being racist to the Israeli people because they are making them all culpable, guilt by association
So I just did dare, if you discriminated against Palestinians, and you were an American Palestinians, it would still be racism. Your view to supporting such a dispicable antisemitic group is being exposed for what it is

I knew the word "dare" would motivate you. You're in that state of mind. I guess even intelligent people are susceptible to a bit of NLP.

The reason you won't convince the rational (including many Jews) in this forum or outside, is that they understand the difference between race and ideology. There is no point someone like you banging your head against a brick wall mate.

So all you could reply with is just gibberish and view points on me.
Many people are actually starting to wake up to this discrimination, me being one person myself, which before I did not see myself and now do, which is testimony to proving your view wrong.
The fact is what you fail to grasp is where in many cases the Rhetoric is aimed at Jews, you see this all the time in the discourse of Hamas and others, when they say Jew and not Israeli even.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I knew the word "dare" would motivate you. You're in that state of mind. I guess even intelligent people are susceptible to a bit of NLP.

The reason you won't convince the rational (including many Jews) in this forum or outside, is that they understand the difference between race and ideology. There is no point someone like you banging your head against a brick wall mate.

So all you could reply with is just gibberish and view points on me.
Many people are actually starting to wake up to this discrimination, me being one person myself, which before I did not see myself and now do, which is testimony to proving your view wrong.
The fact is what you fail to grasp is where in many cases the Rhetoric is aimed at Jews, you see this all the time in the discourse of Hamas and others, when they say Jew and not Israeli even.

I have already said that racists conflate ideology with race. You are doing the same thing as Hamas.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

So all you could reply with is just gibberish and view points on me.
Many people are actually starting to wake up to this discrimination, me being one person myself, which before I did not see myself and now do, which is testimony to proving your view wrong.
The fact is what you fail to grasp is where in many cases the Rhetoric is aimed at Jews, you see this all the time in the discourse of Hamas and others, when they say Jew and not Israeli even.

I have already said that racists conflate ideology with race. You are doing the same thing as Hamas.

I am doing no such thing being as I believe we are all one biological race, but sadly it is idiots out there that target people by their identity of which Jews are an identity.
You still cannot grasp discrimination or in fact antisemitism. This normally happens when people try to poorly excuse it.

Have a good Easter

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I have already said that racists conflate ideology with race. You are doing the same thing as Hamas.

I am doing no such thing being as I believe we are all one biological race, but sadly it is idiots out there that target people by their identity of which Jews are an identity.
You still cannot grasp discrimination or in fact antisemitism. This normally happens when people try to poorly excuse it.

Have a good Easter

Didn't know you were such a hippy or a pagan (Easter).

You used a scientific term (biology) but science says there are different races. Indeed DNA tests can trace racial history. Look up Time article "What Science says about race and genetics". And stop giving me psuedo science babble.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


I am doing no such thing being as I believe we are all one biological race, but sadly it is idiots out there that target people by their identity of which Jews are an identity.
You still cannot grasp discrimination or in fact antisemitism. This normally happens when people try to poorly excuse it.

Have a good Easter

Didn't know you were such a hippy or a pagan (Easter).

You used a scientific term (biology) but science says there are different races. Indeed DNA tests can trace racial history. Look up Time article "What Science says about race and genetics". And stop giving me psuedo science babble.

Am neither, as it is a holiday in the Uk am just wishing a good holiday.



Beyond the Ferguson, Mo., media reports on the "racial divide," the facts require some correction: Despite notions to the contrary, there is only one human race. Our single race is independent of geographic origin, ethnicity, culture, color of skin or shape of eyes — we all share a single phenotype, the same or similar observable anatomical features and behavior.  

Science highlights these similarities in our embryonic development, physiology (our organ-based systems), biochemistry (our metabolites and reactions), and more recently, genomics (our genetic makeup). As a molecular biologist, this last one is indeed the most important to me — data show that the DNA of any two human beings is 99.9 percent identical, and we all share the same set of genes, scientifically validating the existence of a single biological human race and one origin for all human beings. In short, we are all brothers and sisters.

http://www.livescience.com/47627-race-is-not-a-science-concept.html


I shall await you admitting you are wrong

I guess you cannot eat humble pie Zack, and I have been saying this for a very long time knowing full well we are one biological race.

Laters