How anti-Semites protect themselves

[shira]

In the mendacious media haunts of anti-Zionists it’s worse to accuse somebody of being anti-Semitic than to be anti-Semitic. That extends to Holocaust deniers who coattail on ‘middle-of-the-road’ anti-Semites, like Sheikh Adel Bin Ahmad of Jiddah.

...

The rules are not difficult. The game starts off with a Jew who comes to ‘court’ armed with the accused’s record of anti-Israel invective. He gets no further than the courthouse steps, where a barrage of ridicule greets him. The steps provide a good vantage point for the accused; better than going into court and have to engage with the evidence against him. Like a Marc Antony, he prefers to appeal to an out of court mob, before allowing the mob to carry him off, wearing his victimhood like a medal.

...

But notice the card they all play, the bad Jew card, depicting a crafty and loathsome character. The Jew, we’re led to believe, is intolerant, devious, cowardly, not very bright and short of facts. Denigrators of Israel, on the other hand, supposedly have truth on their side.

...

MORE:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/how-anti-semites-protect-themselves/

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

1. Where are you going with this?

On edit: Does the first poster/commenter (see below) on the article sum up the type of readership that is attracted to the paper?

lsgolf52
thanks for a good column it is sad to see n_____s (edited since I abhor that word) like Tutu express comments like that that. He is from the jungle I can understand why the south Africans had apartheid.

[Mosby]

2. care to comment on the article?

Your diversionary tactic is old news.

[azurnoir]

3. He just did

anything to say about that? eta the comment which is 12 hours old was there at the time the article was posted here apparently that did not faze the poster as it would have me, in fact I have had posters here point the finger at me over comments made on stuff I've posted when the comments were made after I posted an article but I guess that's different?

[Scootaloo]

5. The entire article is a diversionary tactic, Mosby

it starts off with an actual antisemitic comment, by Sheikh Adel Bin Ahmad - flat-out holocaust denial. Alright, so far everyone's on the same page (except perhaps for the Sheikh, but I doubt he's a reader. Call it a hunch.)

Steve Apfel then tries some rhetorical judo, to take Ahmad's complaint, and use it to smear a whole list of people who are, - as this very article makes clear - quite right in pointing out that for some people, screaming "antisemitism!" is a reflexive, nonsensical defense.

He also thinks Louis Farrakhan founded the Nation of Islam. So right now, I can tell we're dealing with someone who wishes he had the intellectual weight of Daniel Pipes.

But notice the card they all play, the bad Jew card, depicting a crafty and loathsome character. The Jew, we’re led to believe, is intolerant, devious, cowardly, not very bright and short of facts. Denigrators of Israel, on the other hand, supposedly have truth on their side.

Note that nobody he quoted actually levied this accusation against Jews. With the exception of mr. Farrakhan, "the Jew" - Apfel's turn of phrase - is not mentioned, and even Farrakhan does not give the characterization to "the Jew" that Apfel describes. That is all coming from Steve Apfel, not anyone he's quoting. Israel is mentioned, but even a basic understanding of reality should be able to tell you that "Israel" does not equal "The Jews" - and anyone who believes otherwise is wading hip-deep in the sea of actual antisemitism.

So we’re presented with a new kind of Jew, quite different in make-up to the tribe known, indeed often despised, for its argumentative ways. Jews are nothing if not divisive. One might even say that God encrypted a hypercritical gene into His chosen people.

Really. Can we get a few Pollack jokes next?

“How to shut your critics up with a single word,” complained Fisk, all the while bent on shutting up his critics before they close on his trail of falsifications and frauds.

Of course we have by now realized that mr. Apfel is doing exactly what Fisk is accusing. he's swinging that word, "antisemite" around like a dead cat, trying hard to make people shut up. This probably isn't the best tactic to use to refute Robert Fisk's point, but the regular reader of "The Times of Israel" seems to be the sort of person who is easily confused, so I doubt they notice this.

They cry foul the moment someone tackles their records of Israel demonization and anti-Jewish bias.

I failed to see any tackling going on by mr. Apfel. perhaps that's because, like the average Israel Supporter, he's not in the field, or even in the stadium, he's the slob watching it all the day after on TiVo.

“Whatever I, or my Palestinians, are guilty of, I’ll make the Jews guilty of that same thing.”

Now here's the funny thing. Let's go back up to mr. Apfel's own, personally-derived characterization of "The Jews," a view one presumes to be shared by any who would feel obligated to repost the fellow's articles.

a crafty and loathsome character. The Jew, we’re led to believe, is intolerant, devious, cowardly, not very bright and short of facts.

Note of course, the irony; The only one in the article who is accusing someone of being "crafty and loathsome, intolerant, devious, cowardly, not very bright, and short of facts" Is Mr. Apfel.

Like I said, it's an attempt at rhetorical judo.

So was Clint Eastwood and his chair.

Clint's probably better at it.

Also, "my Palestinians"? What the fuck?

AND THAT IS HOW ANTI-SEMITES PLAY THE GAME

All-caps because that makes visual medium louder, I suppose.

Mr. Apfel's whole "thing" here is to accuse people of antisemitism, because those people point out that Israel supporters use the term reflexively as the centerpiece of whatever argument they try to make. In so doing, he's actually proving their claims for them.

And in the process, he gives that delightful characterization of "The Jews" which, along with the crux of his thesis - "Israel = Jews = Israel" - just cements my opinion that actual, real-life antisemitism is the cornerstone of most "Israel supporters."

I could also raise some questions about An Apartheid-era military man from Johannesburg who served as a District officer in Rhodesia, having a goddamned thing to say about Desmond Tutu... But, given the first comment on hte article, and considering who's presenting it to us here, I think I can spare myself the effort.

[shira]

7. At least you agree the Sheikh's comment is antisemitic...

So what do you make of pro-Palestinian types who work alongside such a bigot, rather than steer clear of him?

It appears the rest of your critique can be summed up by the first line of the OP:

In the mendacious media haunts of anti-Zionists it’s worse to accuse somebody of being anti-Semitic than to be anti-Semitic.

[Scootaloo]

18. Well, golly, Shira...

Unlike some posters, my ethical standards don't shift and slide according to which "team" is speaking. Of course Holocaust denial is antisemitic.

Pointing out that shitheads like Steve Apfel use "antisemitism" as a bullhorn screech however, is not. Apfel is decrying that people are pointing this out... while his entire article is designed to do exactly that.

As I said, the average reader of the Times of Israel seems to either be easily confused. THough I suppose they could just have no ethical grounding, and might be people who will try to justify death threats against any Jew they disagree with, hmmm.

[shira]

21. So since you believe that "of course holocaust denial is antisemitic"....

Last edited Sat Sep 8, 2012, 06:05 PM - Edit history (1)

...what do you make of antizionists who support loathsome, holocaust deniers?

And WRT Apfel, since he's a "shithead" who, in your view, has no right to accuse others of antisemitism, then who is qualified to do so? And you can do better than "well you're not".

[Scootaloo]

36. As far as I know, they exist primarily in your head

Feel free to give me some actual people to talk about, rather than a hazy, vaguely-defined group, though.

People who practice antisemitism are not qualified to accuse others of it. When Apfel equates all Jews with Israel, when he characterizes "the jews" as he did - again, that's all Apfel talking, and not anyone he's quoting - he's engaging in actual antisemitic behavior.

An argument could also be made that doing what Apfel is doing - equating all criticism of Israel's government with "antisemitism" (in fact he's equating them with holocaust denial!) is itself antisemitic, because it cheapens the word, dilutes it, and strips it of its meaning.

You notice a similar thing here in the US, with racists. Hold your nose and peek into Stormfront. Go ahead, it washes off. What you'll find there are a bunch of racists... shouting about how everything under the sun is racist against them. Barack Obama elected? Racism against whites! George Zimmerman facing trial for shooting someone? Racism against whites! Spanish phone menu when you dial customer service? Racism against whites! Occupy movement? Racism against whites! Wonderbread sales are down? Racism against whites! And of course, the other half of Stormfront is always accusing everyone else of "playing the racism card."

By repeating the word over and over again, they turn it into a blur, a noise that your brain just passes over. You stop noticing that it's even there, you just accept it as part of the environment, and instinctively begin to regard it as "no big deal." By applying it to every conceivable situation, they strip it of any actual meaning it has, so even if you "wake up" from having the word blurring in your brain, you are still left with a word rendered meaningless and inoperable. And the coup de grace is to shift the onus onto their opponents, who, by talking about the racists, are themselves decried as racist. How dare you call me racist, the fact that you talk about race means you're playing the race card, you racist!

So too is it done with the word "antisemitism." It's been applied to practically everything, with the result being that it's stretched into a misshapen meaninglessness:
Is bombing a Synagogue antisemitic! YES!
Is disagreeing with Bibi's policies antisemitic? YES!
Is buying Lebanese tahini instead of Israeli tahini antisemitic? YES!
Is throwing bacon at worshipers at the wailing wall antisemitic? YES!
Is thinking Jerry Seinfeld is a shit comedian antisemitic? YES!
Is disagreeing with Shira on anything antisemitic? YES!
Is spray-painting a swastika on the hood of a Jewish guy's car antisemitic? YES!
Is opposing the illegal colonization of the west Bank antisemitic? YES!
Is calling fried shredded potatoes "has browns" instead of "latkes" antisemitic? YES!
Is voting for a Democrat Antisemitic? YES!
Is denying the Holocaust antisemitic? YES!

I've seen all these things called antisemitism. Some of them I wholly agree are antisemitic, as would most people. But the word has been used to cover all of 'em... So... if thinking Bibi is a jackass is antisemitic and blowing up a house of worship is antisemitic and not buying Israeli goods is antisemitic and nazi grafitti is antisemitic... what the fuck does the word even mean?

Much as with the Stormfront site, the word has mutated to mean "whatever the fuck I want it to mean, so shut up, racist / antisemite!"

And that is what Steve Apfel is doing in this article. making a word meaningless, turning it into empty invective that he can hurl around with impunity, with hte hopes that it'll shut someone up when they say something he disagrees with. In so doing, he belittles and diminishes actual antisemitism, simply so he can be lazy.

Your hero.

[shira]

38. You're making Steve Apfel's argument for him...

Last edited Sun Sep 9, 2012, 10:06 AM - Edit history (1)

He's not claiming all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. Of course, that's what his most foul detractors say in order to play the victim card.

Apfel isn't slamming liberal zionist critics of Israel who are part of PeaceNow, for example. Or any liberal zionist critics of Israeli policy, for that matter. Nor is he making broad generalizations of the liberal zionist movement. If he were, THEN you could actually claim he's a right-winger cheapening the term.

You need to realize there's a big difference between criticism of Israel vs. going off the deep end with a pathological and obsessive hatred of Israel.

Read the article again.

Would you consider representatives of PeaceNow or those from the Geneva Initiative (all liberal zionists) qualified to levy this charge of antisemitism against Israel's most hostile critics? How about Dems from Congress or the Senate like Bernie Sanders? You know, Sanders criticizes Israel but no one accuses him of antisemitism. Wonder why?

[azurnoir]

49. after reading your comment about Apfel I did some looking around

seems some of his 'best' work has been missed

CHRISTIANS WHO PUNT FOR THEIR PERSECUTORS

In the West meanwhile irate churchmen compete with secular activists to bring Israeli leaders to book for the type of crimes committed by maniacal tyrants and Apartheid architects. Asserts the Archbishop Emeritus Tutu: ‘Israel does ‘things that even Apartheid South Africa had not done.’ The Presbyterian Church of America, helping Tutu’s claim go down, alludes to what those things might be, though what they actually are remains up the Church’s sleeve. It – Israel commits ‘horrific acts of violence and deadly attacks on innocent people.’ If you want the Presbyterians to be specific you are there and then booked into the Zionist camp. These Presbyterians are worth more than a minute of our time. For one thing they blame Jews for getting blown up by suicide bombers. ‘Occupation is the root of terrorism.’ The root of terrorism outside of Israel, where the suicide bombing tally would be in six figures, is different, and we are not surprised; the dead are Christians and Muslims, not Jews. But we don’t ask the Presbyterians about that; Occupation accounts for Jewish dead. Point out that Arabs murdered Israelis before they occupied anything – before they had a state to call Israel – and you’ll be met with a dry look. Point to the genocide laced charter document of Hamas and you’ll raise a chuckle. And you dare not tackle the Presbyterians, or Christian Aid, on their resolve to obliterate Israel by moving refugees around: (We insist) on ‘the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland.’ Ah – where subterfuge treads irony follows hard on its heels. Who are these refugees but Arabs living in countries where Christians are fair game; where religious cleansing has all but wiped out Christendom’s ancient footprint. Don’t ask the Presbyterians to join the dots: (a) the free-for-all cleaning out of their brothers in Christ and (b) Palestinian refugees who have witnessed if not taken part in that religious cleansing. Remember who holds the exclusive Victim rights. If the rights holder proved to be a persecutor it would harm the brand irreparably.

Are there no Christians willing to blow the whistle? To be sure there have been stirrings that augured well. In March 2012 theBethlehemBibleCollegeheld the largest Christian conference in theMiddle East. Our ears prick. The plight of Christians in the region was the main agenda item surely. But no – evangelicals from all parts of the world gathered not to defend their faith but to promote a new Muslim state. They came to support ‘a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,’ a code easily cracked by looking not at the meaning of the words, but at what the words mean. To the Russell Tribunal they meant finding Israel guilty of Apartheid crimes; to the ‘Christ at the Check Point’ (CATC) conference ‘finding a just solution’ is the code for supporting the Palestinian bid for statehood, peace with Israel be damned. In supporting the bid CATC participants attacked their brothers – Christian Zionist groups that supportIsraelout of a belief that the return of Jews to theHoly Landis a condition for the return of the Messiah, and final redemption. They denounced Christian Zionism as ‘an exclusive theology of the land that marginalizes and disenfranchises the indigenous people;’ quite at odds with their in-flavour theology that God’s promises toIsraelare null and void. After that it was the turn of the Jews. Participants heard that Israelis have no connection to the people of the bible. Mitri Raheb, a pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Christmas Church in Bethlehem, denied the connection between modern Jews and those of the Bible: ‘I’m sure (he said) if we were to do a DNA test between David, Jesus and I Mitri, born just across the street from where Jesus was born…the DNA will show that there is a trace. While, if you put King David, Jesus and Netanyahu (together) you will get nothing, because Netanyahu comes from an East European tribe who converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages.’ An architect of that first CATC was cleric Stephen Sizer, the vicar who on a trip toTehranmade a defense of Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial.

http://stevenapfel.wordpress.com/

it is a windy broad brushing affair but that's not all scroll down a bit and he's going on about the state of affairs in South Africa these days and how ANC members get all the best jobs, guess he misses the good ole days or something

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

10. "Where are you going with this" is considered a diversionary tactic?

I asked the poster of the op to give a rational as to where s/he is going with the article.

[Mosby]

14. your focus on a "talkback" to the article

Is a fairly common diversionary strategy.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

16. No, my question was a legitimate one; regardless of how you wish to discredit it.

[shira]

22. So what's your take on the actual content of the article?

Is the author wrong about those he puts "in the dock"?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

29. I did a little reading on him today. He seems to have a simmilar shtick.

Label a few well know racists and then use a larger brush to discredit others.

Great work if you can get it. When does he appear on fox news?

[shira]

39. Okay, who are those well-known racists you agree are anti-Semites? n/t

[Scootaloo]

4. I got a good laugh out of that, after reading the article.

"There seems to be an unwritten law that Israel and Jews cannot be criticized, particularly by blacks." - Founder of Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan

First off, Elijah Mohammed founded the Nation of Islam. Read a fucking book, right? But, Steve Apfel responds to this statement with the following:

It’s not a pretty picture. And notice the racial card played by the final statement: superior Jews regard lowly black people unfit to judge them.

Followed by this in the comments:

thanks for a good column it is sad to see niggers like Tutu express comments like that that. He is from the jungle I can understand why the south Africans had apartheid.

Things that just make you go "wow," right?

[shira]

6. Where do you think I'm going? You think the OP is wrong?

And of course that comment is vulgar. It's as vulgar as what the writer describes in the OP. You disagree?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

9. Again, I ask you where you are going with this?

Don't ask me to second guess you. Just explain yourself.

[shira]

11. Not going anywhere with it. I agree with the OP. n/t

[azurnoir]

13. Thank you so very much n/t

[shira]

24. You're very welcome. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

17. So you have nothing additional to add?

[shira]

23. What do you want me to say? IMHO, the pro-Palestinian movement....

...led by the BDS types, Mondoweiss and Electronic Intifada crowd, as well as those who support or work alongside the ISM, FGM, and PSC are described to the "t" in the OP. There's another busy thread currently going in I/P about these pro-Palestinian types who are nothing of the sort. They're anti-Israel and consumed with hatred. They loathe Palestinians almost as much as they do Israelis and their supporters. The foul movement they are part of is rotten to the core.

Anything else you think I need to add?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

30. You needn't waist my time.

Your comedy routine needs a new direction.

[shira]

41. You asked. n/t

[bemildred]

8. The journey is the reward.

The idea is to wallow in outrage and self-pity, near as I can tell, not to actually arrive at some conclusion.

And yes, this sort of stuff is quite common in Israeli media.

[Bradlad]

12. After reading the article . .

I failed to see any self-pity. Outrage, perhaps, but if so it was pretty understated. Sometimes outrage is justified and the article makes a credible case for it here. Maybe he should have added another example: If one can't logically refute any of the points made in an article, accuse the author of wallowing in self-pity and outrage. For extra points you could claim that it is common throughout all Israeli media.

[bemildred]

27. Thank you for sharing your views. nt

[azurnoir]

15. second comment "In America, anti-Semites use four simple words. "Hey, I'm a democrat".

speaks quite eloquently for those who agree with this article if not this publication IMO

Dan Smathers · Top Commenter · Oregon State University
In America, anti-Semites use four simple words. "Hey, I'm a democrat".

[Scootaloo]

19. Well, Shira's been on a three-month bender

of claiming that liberals are fascists and everyone on the left is antisemitic.

I've never seen anything from Shira that I couldn't find on a slow day at FreeRepublic.

[azurnoir]

20. well I dunno about bender however there seems to be a running theme here

and that is that criticism of Israel is based on antisemitism

[shira]

26. That argument is such an easy out for you, isn't it?

Shira doesn't claim liberals are fascists and everyone on the left is antisemitic. Most democrats and liberals support Israel. Liberal Zionists in Israel support Israel. The majority of Israelis are w/o question left of center Liberals, not fascists or anti-Semites.

I'll be very clear....

Shira does indeed have a problem with that part of the Left (Marxist, Anarchist) that is hostile towards Israel. The Mondoweiss/EI crowd who support and are involved with BDS, the ISM, FreeGaza, and the PSC. But here's the laugher. You probably think that part of the Left is actually THE Left, right? And that criticizing these folks is therefore criticism of all Liberals, Democrats, and Leftists? Is that why you rage on about my 3-month "benders" from FreeperRepublic?

[Scootaloo]

31. "Marxist, anarchist"?

Shira... Don't use words if you don't know the meaning of them. This is a perpetual problem you seem to have, you use these words, because to you, they don't actually have meanings, they're just code for "something nasty I dislike." And once again, it's something you have in common with your average Freeper - when they scream "OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST!" they don't actually know what "socialism" is, they just know they don't like it, and they don't like Obama, so they put the two together and call it a winning formula.

if you want to bitch and moan about BDF, or FreeGaza, or whoever, by all means, I long to see you actually make a coherent case for your position against them. Any coherency from you would be something of a godsend, as a matter of fact. But... you don't do this. You instead lump them into "the left," you call them "liberals," you use this huge, wide brush, because, evidently you equate these organizations or ideas with "the left" and liberals as a whole.

When called on it, you run behind this stupid "Marxist Anarchist" bullshit thing. Because you think it'll cover your ass when you're busy screaming about how liberals are utter shit, on a website that happens to be a liberal haven.

Tell you what. You want to shit-talk Marxists? Check out the "Socialist Progressives" group here on DU - http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1024
The reading list recommended by user White_Wolf Includes quite a bit of Marx and Engels. You'll want to drop him, and a few other posters there a line, to explain to them how you are committed to the belief that they are, one and all, antisemites an fascists. I'm sure htey'll be glad to have you, just as I'm happy to address your nonsense.

As for Anarchists, DU lacks an anarchism forum (though I hear the "Birders" group can get pretty wild!) but i'm sure you could try out the occupy forum, which might have a few Anarchists floating around:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1252
And you go there. And you explain to them that they are also one and all antisemites and fascists. Don't worry, the laughter you'll hear from calling anarchists "fascists" is natural, and is the expected result of such a public display of lunacy.

Hell Shira, how about you step outside the I/P forum a few times, post some of your awesome, insightful articles on how evil and nasty "the left" is. Don't worry, so long as you explain "Oh, I just mean marxist anarchists!" everything will go fine, right?

[shira]

40. You're still doing it. You can't admit that a small part of the Left...

...those Marxists and Anarchists who are hostile critics of Israel (not even all Marxists and Anarchists fit that bill) do not represent the Left, or even most of it. Here's an article written by a very hostile leftwing critic of Israel that is aimed at the "International Left":

http://972mag.com/time-for-a-changing-of-the-guard/

See if you can tell the difference.

Let's also see if you can admit your views on Israel do not match the views of most Liberal Dems in Congress and the Senate. Can you do that?

[King_David]

28. Free Republic ?

An argument could be made that a lot of times one can find identical stuff posted here as on David Dukes site.

[Scootaloo]

32. Posted by Shira, no less n/t

[shira]

42. You're the one bringing FreeRepublic up, not me.

It's easier to make up crap and ridicule rather than argue the points, isn't it?

You know that's Apfel's argument, right?

[King_David]

45. Nope

And both your posts are offensive, cheesy,in poor taste and probably against DU rules !

[shira]

25. Waitaminute. Since I agree with the OP....

...that means I must also have to agree with foul comments that follow it?

I mean, REALLY?

[Scootaloo]

33. Who was that journalist you and I talked about not too long ago?

I wish I could remember his name. He's a Jewish journalist who you adamantly insisted was a neo-nazi (which I'm sure doesn't shorten any lists, frankly) and your rationale was that his articles were published on some skinhead's website.

Turns out, one of his articles was copy-pasted onto a forum on said website, back in 2007, by a user there.

You maintained that because someone, somewhere, read this guy's article, and posted it to some racist website's forum, that makes the author of the article a "neo-Nazi." By this logic, you - who chose to post an article with that sort of commentary already present - certainly are endorsing said commentary.

Now, myself? I don't use this logic - The journalist-whose-name-I-can't-remember isn't a neo-nazi becuase some twit decided to post his stuff on such a website, and you are not a racist because of a comment on an article you breathlessly endorse in all other aspects.

But, by your logic, previously applied... Or, is your logic like your ethics, highly mobile depending on time of day and who we're talking about?

[azurnoir]

34. maybe it was Glenn Greenwald?

if I remember it was a thread where-in the OP was praising rightwinger Josh Trevino which it was claimed was posted as a condemnation of Greenwald

[Scootaloo]

37. That's not the thread...

But it does give proof to my point that saying "The Jew you accused of being a nazi" doesn't shorten any lists where Shira's posts are concerned.

Though, I think it might been the Rosenburg fellow mentioned in the article. Seems right. Wish I could find the damn thread. Oh well.

[shira]

43. Neve Gordon, who compares Israel to Nazi Germany...

Last edited Sun Sep 9, 2012, 10:10 AM - Edit history (1)

...and is BFF with Norm Finkelstein, a cretin who is considered an ally by Ernst Zundel because he agrees with about 3/4 of his own Nazi agenda. Gordon didn't just defend Finkelstein's work due to academic freedom. He makes the same f-ing arguments! They're not actual neo-nazis (like Gilad Atzmon) but they're not much better.

You say you consider holocaust deniers anti-Semites. Does that also go for those who compare Jews to Nazis and who support maniacs who believe Jews are so bad they need to die?

The point I'm getting at is Gordon's bile mimics that of neo-nazi criticism of Israel - it works towards the same goal - and it's so "good" that Zundel and his minions love quoting and using a Jew who agrees with them. You'll never find Gordon or Finkelstein railing into the jew-hating Zundel or Hamas and Hezbollah types, and you know why? They'd turn off a significant percentage of their supporters.

[Scootaloo]

46. You compare Jews to Nazis...

And then ask me if I think people who do that are antisemites.



I'm sorry Shira, I didn't realize I was being so subtle in my opinion of you, that you felt you needed to ask.

[shira]

47. The EU working definition of antisemitism states...

...the following tends to be antisemitic:

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

It doesn't pertain to individuals.

Again, it appears all you've got in your arsenal are diversions and ridicule. Nothing of substance.

[azurnoir]

48. ah so I guess according to you it's okay

to compare individual Jews to Nazi's (well when you do it anyway) but not groups of Jews say like Kach or Lahava ? I see that is indeed interesting

[azurnoir]

35. In all fairness the post about Democrats was made after you posted the article however

the one calling Tutu a n*gger was there at the time it was posted now if it had been me that comment alone would have made me think twice and such a comment would I expect have been pounced on, my point was that you decided to post the article anyway and while you have not used the same racist language about Tutu you have denigrated him as an antisemite on more than one occasion

[shira]

44. I didn't see that foul comment when I posted. n/t