A thread in response to the UN Rape allegations thread

[a_unique_person]

I agree with you. Several people jumped in and defended a_u_p (and attacked z-n, in some cases quite nastily), instead of pointing out, in a friendly manner, that a_u_p was out of line and should retreat. They are:

Ian Osborne
Megalodon
Matabiri
The Fool
(Hutch - arguable)
richardm
demon
(Kevin_Lowe – arguable)

I took Fool and richardm to task, and got far from satisfactory responses.

But, let’s not read too much into this. That’s still only eight people (and most of them didn’t say anything particularly objectionable). I don’t think you can conclude that therefore the JREF forum is anti-semitic, or anti-Israel.

Having said that, of course it is true that z-n was being attacked for being a Jew and a supporter of Israel. It happens to me, occasionally on this board (which is not much to me) and in my life (which I can’t ignore). I think we don’t lie down and die, and we don’t go in with all guns blazing. (Perhaps we can discuss this elsewhere.)

(Edited to add a name to the list.)

I don't believe ZN was attacked for being a Jew, but for being a liar, etc. There are plenty more Jews here, yourself for example, who attract nothing like the contempt ZN has brought upon himself.

 

[a_unique_person]

a_u_p: I accept your apology, of course. You have taken rather a battering over this, and I sympathise, but on the other hand I do think it is somewhat deserved. You surely must have known that your parody would cause pain to any Jew reading it, but you ignored that because you wanted to make a point.

So, I think you should just make it clear that you are apologising to all Jews here (including Skeptic and z-n) and leave it at that.

As for your experience of an anti-semitic attack, I think you once mentioned that you had a Jewish great-great grandfather (or something like that) and my first (fleeting) thought about your anecdote was, ‘So, he was spat at in the street for having a Jewish great-great grandfather. Well, he lives in Australia; what does he expect?’. So, perhaps I have a little unsuspected anti-Australian prejudice that I should confront.

Earthborn is right: this is very reminiscent of Mycroft’s gaffe. I was interested to see, on re-reading that thread, that you didn’t fall for the temptation of denouncing him as a racist bigot. (He isn’t, and neither are you.)

Thank you for accepting my apology. I do, however, draw the line at apologising to Mycroft, (who is not Jewish), Skeptic and ZN on the basis that they have yet to apologise for calling me an anti-semite like David Irving. It is these accusations that basically prompted me to start the thread, since I see Skeptic, for example, starting the thread that this one was modelled on, while accusing me of being the most vile sort of anti-semite.

You see, I think that we are all inherently tribal, that is, racist, and this aspect of our humanity just has to be dealt with. It will happen to everyone, if they honest enough about themselves. But these accusations are just intolerable, and, as I say, every bit as harmful as being spat at.

I don't understand your last point.

PS. From the sound of it, you would find Australia less racist than England. One of the great heroes is Sir John Monash. A hero of Word War One, when he was asked to lead a military coup during the great depression, a disaster that some South American countries have suffered, he declined the offer.

 

[The Fool]

Re: TF, was this what you had in mind?

Take a look at this thread, where I posted a newsphoto (AP) of young boys marching through the streets chanting "Death to America, Death to Israel" ----- by offering this image here, would you consider me, TF, to fall into your category of

"the resident biggots for demonising arabs and muslims..."


I am just curious.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52823

No web...nothing happens in isolation. You would probably need to tell me how the photo supports the claim that palestinians are bloodthirsty backward savages in order to qualify....something I have not seen you do. Or you may have to go through bursts of trying to make this place a mirror of Little Green footballs.

It takes an ongoing campagn to attract my attention and I'm not talking about an ongoing campagn of ripping political leaders and governing bodies a second orifice......this is a politics forum, go for it. What I cannot accept is rubbish that generally starts with the words "Palestinians are all..." , "Israelis are all...." Jews are all" , "muslims are all...". This is the territory of skeptic et al who seem to think it is thier duty to demonise and spread hate for all those of the same ethnicity or religion of anyone they percieve is an enemy of Israel....

On this forum I see plenty of trash directed at palestinians/muslims/arabs that is classic racist hatred I also see loyal bands of apologists following these people around...I also see lots of critisizm of Israeli actions and the IDF, but show me where people are calling Jews bloodthirsty backward savages, show me where people are preaching that Jews have a genocidal hatred of Arabs. because I can show you where that sort of garbage is directed at Muslims, Arabs and Palestinians in particular..

This was my biggest problem with ZN apart from his habit of fabricating claims of things I was supposed to have said or done on this forum...It was his breathtaking Hypocricy in being an apologist for blatant slurs towards muslims/Arabs/palestinians/UN or anyone he thought was anti- zionist yet would constantly try to deflect any critisizm of Israel or zionism onto all jews and cry anti-semitism. It will continue to be my problem with him when he wanders back in with some limp reason as to why his grand final exit wasnt particularly final (or grand).

 

[Skeptic]

No web...nothing happens in isolation. You would probably need to tell me how the photo supports the claim that palestinians are bloodthirsty backward savages in order to qualify...

I'd say that thousands of similar photos like that speak for themselves. Years of antisemitic brainwashing by PLO, Hamas, and Jihad schools would do that to you.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by zenith-nadir
I haven't missed anything, I am openly calling for censorship of trolls at JREF...

It had to happen sometime - a turkey calling for christmas.

 

[Mycroft]

Thank you for accepting my apology. I do, however, draw the line at apologising to Mycroft, (who is not Jewish), Skeptic and ZN on the basis that they have yet to apologise for calling me an anti-semite like David Irving. It is these accusations that basically prompted me to start the thread, since I see Skeptic, for example, starting the thread that this one was modelled on, while accusing me of being the most vile sort of anti-semite.

Amazing, you're saying it again.

You thought starting a thread that's insulting and hurtful to Jews was an appropriate response to being called an anti-Semite.

This is astonishing!

 

[Skeptic]

Amazing, you're saying it again.

You thought starting a thread that's insulting and hurtful to Jews was an appropriate response to being called an anti-Semite.

This is astonishing!

As I said before, AUP is really David Irving--in his insinuations, thinly-veiled languaged speaking of "zionists", "traditional enemies of truth", etc., and occassional embarrasments of the mask dropping off.

David Irving, too, openly declares--repeatedly--that the evil jews ("traditional enemies of truth") have ganged up on him in an international conspiracy to make look like an antisemite.

And, like AUP, Irving just has NO IDEA why he isn't convincing people.

 

[Cleon]

As I said before, AUP is really David Irving--in his insinuations, thinly-veiled languaged speaking of "zionists", "traditional enemies of truth", etc., and occassional embarrasments of the mask dropping off.

I just did a search. The only posts with the phrase "traditional enemies of truth" have been made by you. So either you're being dishonest, or you're outright lying. Which is it?

David Irving, too, openly declares--repeatedly--that the evil jews ("traditional enemies of truth") have ganged up on him in an international conspiracy to make look like an antisemite.

AUP has never said that the Jews have "ganged up on him." That's simply a lie on your part.

 

[Mycroft]

Cleon,

AUP claims he started this thread because he was upset over being called an anti-Semite.

Do you think that makes sense?

 

[Skeptic]

I just did a search. The only posts with the phrase "traditional enemies of truth" have been made by you. So either you're being dishonest, or you're outright lying. Which is it?

Neither. I was speaking of DAVID IRVING'S use of veiled terms for "jews". He uses both "zionists" and "traditional enemies of truth", among others. Check his web site.

 

[Jessica Blue]

Nothing much changed in the politics forum I see. Still got the same cabaret act...

 

[Megalodon]

Having said that, of course it is true that z-n was being attacked for being a Jew and a supporter of Israel.

Sorry Lucky, but you are wrong. I attacked zn because he is an idiot, a liar and a hypocrite. I don't know if he's a jew, and I don't care. I have a great deal of difficulty in accepting anything he says here as true.
And of course, him calling for censorship of trolling is at a minimum, hilarious.

 

[Brahe]

Come now, Megalodon. Z-N also deliberately misrepresented arguments even after his error was graciously explained to him...numerous times. Claiming that he was attacked because he's a black Christian vegan from Poland (or whatever the dishonest accusation is supposed to be) is nothing more than an attempt to ignore valid criticism while demonizing Z-N's opponents. It's rather similar to the fundamentalists' accusation that anyone who supports the separation of Church and State in America is a rabid anti-Christian. The accusation is not made because of any compelling evidence, only because the accusers desperately need some way of distracting people from their own sorry case.

 

[Lucky]

From a_u_p:
I don't believe ZN was attacked for being a Jew, but for being a liar, etc. There are plenty more Jews here, yourself for example, who attract nothing like the contempt ZN has brought upon himself.

From The Fool:
lucky you have a persecution complex the size of texas.

You seem so desperate to be persecuted that you cannot wait for it to actually happen but must create your own straw versions.

Are you sure, a_u_p?

I couldn’t resist that, but Fool, kindly don’t take the huff. Of the people here who frequently express strong views on Israel/Palestine, you are the only one that I have not yet attempted to engage in discussion, and I would like to try. First, I will try to clear up some misconceptions.

I have not said that I (or anyone else) was attacked in this forum for being a Jew, and I would be very surprised to see that kind of open anti-semitism here. My point was (and I hoped I had made it clear) that we are attacked (or, more usually, dismissed) because we are Jews who support Israel. Cleon, for example, is never attacked by you and the other posters that I have in mind, because he is perceived as anti-Israel.

I really do feel that you have chosen to dismiss anything I say on the subjects of anti-semitism or Israel/Palestine because I am ‘a Jew and a supporter of Israel’. (And I would be very pleased for you to prove me wrong about this.)

For instance, I explained, in a moderate and non-confrontational way, how and why any Jew would be hurt by a_u_p’s parody. You appear not to have given that a second’s consideration, though a_u_p has accepted it.

I absolutely do not claim it is anti-semitic to criticise Israeli actions (else I would be anti-semitic myself). But why pretend that this is not a complex and sensitive issue? There most certainly are people, usually of the intellectual type, who use pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli political statements as a cover for a deep anti-semitic prejudice. And, no, I am not saying you are one of them.

True I don’t post very much here (mostly because I can’t be bothered embroiling myself in mindless, unproductive slanging matches), but I have said enough for you to have noticed that:
1) I strongly disagree with the concept of a religious state.
2) As a socialist, I am very critical of the present Israeli government for almost everything, and of past governments for failure to progress the peace process.
3) I am sympathetic to Palestinians, and Muslims in general, and defend them against insults and attacks.
4) I don’t insult other posters, but treat everyone with courtesy and respect, provided they do the same for me (and if they don’t, I just disengage).

With my ‘confusing your Yids’ comment, I was trying to make a serious point by using a bit of sarcasm (and, obviously, not succeeding). You said to z-n: ‘Skeptics thread drew no response from you’, when it should have been utterly obvious that he hadn’t read it and therefore didn’t understand a_u_p’s ‘point’. But why assume that z-n must know of everything Skeptic has posted? You almost seemed to be suggesting that they were in cahoots.

You made of point of throwing in z-n’s face a number of (unacceptable, in my opinion) comments from Skeptic, as though z-n were in some way responsible. But how on can you not have noticed the difference in their views on Israel/Palestine, and politics in general? I think that a_u_p is right in saying that we all have ‘tribal’ prejudices (yes, I include myself). I think that, to you, Skeptic and z-n are Jews and vocal supporters of Israel, and therefore they are the same. I think you should confront this (perhaps unconscious) prejudice (as I said to a_u_p that I would confront my anti-Australia prejudice).

To conclude, you are wrong in your suggestion that I go around looking for potential anti-semitism to be offended by. I do my best to shrug it off and get on with my life (while remaining alert to physical dangers to myself and my family). I also do my bit to counter unconscious or unthinking anti-semitism when I perceive it, by trying never to react with aggression or abuse but to explain in a conciliatory way why I think the person may be prejudiced. Just as I do if it’s any other kind of prejudice, for example against Palestinians or Muslims.

 

[Cleon]

I didn't really want to get back into this thread, but Lucky's post made a couple of points I'd like to address,

I have not said that I (or anyone else) was attacked in this forum for being a Jew, and I would be very surprised to see that kind of open anti-semitism here. My point was (and I hoped I had made it clear) that we are attacked (or, more usually, dismissed) because we are Jews who support Israel. Cleon, for example, is never attacked by you and the other posters that I have in mind, because he is perceived as anti-Israel.
[/b]

Well, I for one disagree that the attacks are because you're a "Jew and a supporter of Israel." (I get your point, though.) Mycroft--who isn't Jewish--is also on the receiving end, IMO deservedly so. (I also am unaware of ZN ever claiming to be Jewish; as the present Administration is constantly reminding us, fanatical support of Israel does not require Jewish identity.)

This is a political question more than anything else. It has less to do with the idenitity of the poster than the political views involved. There are individuals here, such as "Skeptic," Mycroft, etc., who will uncritically whitewash anything Israel does, any actions they undertake, any crimes that IDF soldiers have committed. That kind of fanatical attitude will generate strong responses from anyone who understands that the Palestinians are holding the short end of the stick. Compare the dialogue with "Skeptic" and the dialogue with you and, say, Cleopatra (who isn't Jewish, but an Israeli citizen). Just look at this thread; you have been treated with considerable respect. "Skeptic" has not, and frankly, I see no reason that he deserves it.

I really do feel that you have chosen to dismiss anything I say on the subjects of anti-semitism or Israel/Palestine because I am ‘a Jew and a supporter of Israel’. (And I would be very pleased for you to prove me wrong about this.)

This hits on one of the main reasons that I, personally, am so hostile to the IDF Cheerleaders (not just here, but in RL as well). They abuse the term "anti-semitism" so much by throwing it towards any critic of Israel, even devout pacifists, that it's stopped having any real meaning. It's gotten to the point where, when I see someone mention anti-semitism in a discussion about Israel, my initial response is to dismiss it. It's used to simply dismiss critics of the Israeli state, rather than a real subject to be discussed.

I absolutely do not claim it is anti-semitic to criticise Israeli actions (else I would be anti-semitic myself). But why pretend that this is not a complex and sensitive issue? There most certainly are people, usually of the intellectual type, who use pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli political statements as a cover for a deep anti-semitic prejudice. And, no, I am not saying you are one of them.

Ah, but throw the shoe on the other foot. Aren't there people who use support for the Israeli state as a cover for deep racism? "Skeptic" has made anti-Arab comments way more damning than AUP's parody, yet few other than AUP, demon, Fool, myself, and a couple others call him on it. Why is a parody that, taken out of context, Jews might find offensive unacceptable, but out-and-out racist sentiments are perfectly ok?

 

[a_unique_person]

I just did a search. The only posts with the phrase "traditional enemies of truth" have been made by you. So either you're being dishonest, or you're outright lying. Which is it?



AUP has never said that the Jews have "ganged up on him." That's simply a lie on your part.

One more in a litany. The old skeptic "He said this", trust me on this tactic.

 

[Cleopatra]

I didn't have any intention to return in this discussion and in any discussion for some time but I wish to address a couple of things.

Well, I for one disagree that the attacks are because you're a "Jew and a supporter of Israel." (I get your point, though.) Mycroft--who isn't Jewish--is also on the receiving end, IMO deservedly so. (I also am unaware of ZN ever claiming to be Jewish; as the present Administration is constantly reminding us, fanatical support of Israel does not require Jewish identity.)

This is a political question more than anything else. It has less to do with the idenitity of the poster than the political views involved. There are individuals here, such as "Skeptic," Mycroft, etc., who will uncritically whitewash anything Israel does, any actions they undertake, any crimes that IDF soldiers have committed. That kind of fanatical attitude will generate strong responses from anyone who understands that the Palestinians are holding the short end of the stick. Compare the dialogue with "Skeptic" and the dialogue with you and, say, Cleopatra (who isn't Jewish, but an Israeli citizen). Just look at this thread; you have been treated with considerable respect. "Skeptic" has not, and frankly, I see no reason that he deserves it.

I disagree. Lucky has a point. Some people of israeli/jewish/whatever origin enjoy some respect in discussions about Middle East exactly because they criticize Israel and this is what hurts me most.

Whether you will admit it or not Mycroft ( for example) has never been uncivil or irrational. You might find his style annoying because it is always calm and it can drive others crazy but this isn't Mycroft's problem.

Phrases like " Israel's apologists" or " IDF's cheerleaders" are dipping prejudice and you have to see that.

If the whole discussion is about politics as you suggest then Mycroft of all people here ( second comes Z-N) talks about politics but since you don't like his political views you have named him an "Israel's apologist" .

Cleon, Mycroft has the right to hold his political views, you cannot name him an apologist of Israel just because you disagree with his views.You cannot keep doing that. You have to see when you bias blurs your vision and in this case you are biased.

Palestianians have rights in this conflict but they don't have ALL the rights. They have screwed things up for them by themselves in many occasions and they are equal players in the political chess board they are not the innocent victims here.

You don't become an Israeli apologist when you wish to demonstrate to the general public that the coin has a second side as well.

As for people using the term antisemitism in excess let's get some things straight here.

You have history against you. I wish you didn't but you do have History against you. Jewish people have been prosecuted in societies for thousands of years and they have suffered the most humiliating form of genocide. Don't say that other people have suffered as well. First we are not talking about other people now but about jewish people and second no, nobody has ever suffered for such a prolonged period of time and nobody has ever being extinct in an industrialized genocide. Fact. Period.

So, in our days many antisemites are hiding behind the conflict in order to demonstrate their hatred and hypocriticaly they blame it on Israel, in Europe those" Israel critics" that claim that it's Sharon their real problem, go and burn down synagogues and vandalize cemetaries,that means that they continue the long antisemitic tradition.

If you have felt the contempt for being a jewish even once you can sense it from miles away and to return to my initial point people like you when you start spitting on your people. You cannot post any moderate comment because " the enemies" who in reality don't give a dime-- jump on you to adopt you.

Personally, I want to have the right to post my opinion and I don't want to be adopted by any anti-Israeli. I love my country, I am proud of my country, I am trying hard to debunk the tons of lies that circulate about my country without losing my hope that things will be better for us and for them but I hope that nobody here is fooled. All I care about is Israel , I hope that the Palestinians find their way but it's their duty to do so not ours.

So to make things clear. If there are people who respect my views just because I criticize Israel some times then they have to reconsider their view or better they have to start wondering about their stance and their passion about an issue that doesn't affect their real lives.

I like Unique or Capel Dodger for reasons that haven't anything to do with the topic we keep discussing although they make me furious all the time.. I like demon because he knows who Swinburne is and he knows about Art and I happen to like Mycroft a lot because he is a very smart and polite man although I disagree quite often with his views and let me tell you something Cleon. You have to admit that Mycroft is really good in those games and even when he plays dirty he does it with class.You have to aknowledge good players it's important to do that in a debate.

Why is that difficult for the rest of you to separate the person from his views?

 

[a_unique_person]

I didn't have any intention to return in this discussion and in any discussion for some time but I wish to address a couple of things.



I disagree. Lucky has a point. Some people of israeli/jewish/whatever origin enjoy some respect in discussions about Middle East exactly because they criticize Israel and this is what hurts me most.

Whether you will admit it or not Mycroft ( for example) has never been uncivil or irrational. You might find his style annoying because it is always calm and it can drive others crazy but this isn't Mycroft's problem.

He is exremely irrational, his support for LGF is a clear example of it. He is also extremely uncivil, I have quoted the example where he says I should be 'proud' for being such a subtle and sneaky anti-semite. It's not just uncivil, it is libelous.

Phrases like " Israel's apologists" or " IDF's cheerleaders" are dipping prejudice and you have to see that.

If the whole discussion is about politics as you suggest then Mycroft of all people here ( second comes Z-N) talks about politics but since you don't like his political views you have named him an "Israel's apologist" .

Cleon, Mycroft has the right to hold his political views, you cannot name him an apologist of Israel just because you disagree with his views.You cannot keep doing that. You have to see when you bias blurs your vision and in this case you are biased.

He is not just an apologist for Israel, which is his right, and every cause will have it's apologists, if you use the word in it's technical sense. He is also quite happy to label anyone who is a critic of Israel, as is also their right, an anti-semite. There are numerous Jews who are critics of Israel to various degrees, yourself included. What is irrational about Mycroft is his inability to see anything wrong with the way it acts, but no end of ability to see what is wrong with Arabs and Palestinians.

Now that the peace initiatives are under way again, the new mantra is being preached to us already, there can be no peace, because the Palestinians will never stop till Israel is destroyed. This is all the evidence needed to show that exremists such as himself are not really interested in peace, and I noticed you have asked Skeptic that question already. I don't recall seeing a reply from him. Given that they don't believe that there will ever be peace, that it is not possible with the Palestinians, then the peace talks should be cancelled right now and stop wasting everyones time. The question is, if the extremists such as Skeptic know that the Palestinians will never stop till they destroy israel, then what is the logical response of Israel to this threat. You won't get an answer on that question either.

Palestianians have rights in this conflict but they don't have ALL the rights. They have screwed things up for them by themselves in many occasions and they are equal players in the political chess board they are not the innocent victims here.

Debateable, and you are willing to debate this, as are others. The Palestinians certainly haven't been too smart in their response, nor was Arafat, in my opinion, a good leader. Oslo failed for several reasons, and one of them was the failure of the Palestinians to capitalise on the opportunity, but Israel was also to blame.

You don't become an Israeli apologist when you wish to demonstrate to the general public that the coin has a second side as well.

I think that I have indicated many times that there are Isaelis who think the occupation is a mistake, and want it ended. I have shown many times Israelis protesting at what their country is doing. I don't think Israel should be destroyed and it's citizens killed. I do think it needs to take a reality check, and think to itself just what is a just outcome for all parties. Find something that Mycroft or ZN or Skeptic ever had to say that was an attempt ot provide a balanced assesment of the Palestinian viewpoint. Good luck.

As for people using the term antisemitism in excess let's get some things straight here.

You have history against you. I wish you didn't but you do have History against you. Jewish people have been prosecuted in societies for thousands of years and they have suffered the most humiliating form of genocide. Don't say that other people have suffered as well. First we are not talking about other people now but about jewish people and second no, nobody has ever suffered for such a prolonged period of time and nobody has ever being extinct in an industrialized genocide. Fact. Period.

And from a Jewish point of view, that is a totally rational attitude to take. Others, however, have their own history that they see first.

So, in our days many antisemites are hiding behind the conflict in order to demonstrate their hatred and hypocriticaly they blame it on Israel, in Europe those" Israel critics" that claim that it's Sharon their real problem, go and burn down synagogues and vandalize cemetaries,that means that they continue the long antisemitic tradition.

That's a big leap in logic, blaming Sharon to burning down synagogues. I would hazard a guess that those European burning down synagogues wouldn't really know much about the middle east at all, but would do it middle east or not. Their hatred, as you point out, is based on something that goes back longer in history.

If you have felt the contempt for being a jewish even once you can sense it from miles away and to return to my initial point people like you when you start spitting on your people. You cannot post any moderate comment because " the enemies" who in reality don't give a dime-- jump on you to adopt you.

Personally, I want to have the right to post my opinion and I don't want to be adopted by any anti-Israeli. I love my country, I am proud of my country, I am trying hard to debunk the tons of lies that circulate about my country without losing my hope that things will be better for us and for them but I hope that nobody here is fooled. All I care about is Israel , I hope that the Palestinians find their way but it's their duty to do so not ours.

The first step in that path is to give them their country. Not negotiate over interminable years and conferences, give it to them tomorrow, with no conditions. Justice delayed, as the saying goes, is justice denied.

So to make things clear. If there are people who respect my views just because I criticize Israel some times then they have to reconsider their view or better they have to start wondering about their stance and their passion about an issue that doesn't affect their real lives.

I like Unique or Capel Dodger for reasons that haven't anything to do with the topic we keep discussing although they make me furious all the time.. I like demon because he knows who Swinburne is and he knows about Art and I happen to like Mycroft a lot because he is a very smart and polite man although I disagree quite often with his views and let me tell you something Cleon. You have to admit that Mycroft is really good in those games and even when he plays dirty he does it with class.You have to aknowledge good players it's important to do that in a debate.

Why is that difficult for the rest of you to separate the person from his views?

Once again, I can't see someone saying "I should be proud" that I am such a clever anti-semite is anything other than contemptible.

 

[Meadmaker]

nobody has ever suffered for such a prolonged period of time and nobody has ever being extinct in an industrialized genocide. Fact. Period.

Gypsies?

 

[Skeptic]

He is exremely irrational, his support for LGF is a clear example of it.

No, he simply disagrees with you. In any case, you never showed what is WRONG with LGF's views. You merely heap abuse on them.

He is also extremely uncivil, I have quoted the example where he says I should be 'proud' for being such a subtle and sneaky anti-semite. It's not just uncivil, it is libelous.

Truth is an absolute defense, hence it's not libel.

He is not just an apologist for Israel, which is his right, and every cause will have it's apologists, if you use the word in it's technical sense.

See what he means about you being a "sneaky anti-semite"? This is a perfect example. Compare your statement with the similar:

"I don't deny her right to think women have a right to vote. Every opinion has somebody that agrees with it."

Or perhaps:

"I am sure your wife loves you, 'A Unique Person'. After all, some women will fall in love with anybody."

In all three cases, the statements are, technically, true. But they insinuate--falsely--that the REASON Mycroft defends israel (or women want to vote or your wife loves you) is that, well, some people will do anything. Which you gracefully "allow" Mycroft to do, since it is "his right". Gee, thanks...

He is also quite happy to label anyone who is a critic of Israel, as is also their right, an anti-semite.

No, he is not. What he is quick to do is to label those who call for israel's destruction and deny it has a right to exist anti-semites. As you deny israel has a right to exist as a jewish state, you are an antisemite.

There are numerous Jews who are critics of Israel to various degrees, yourself included.

Cleopatra doesn't deny israel's right to exist as a jewish state. You do.

In any case, it is irrelevant; some jews indeed hate israel and want it destroyed. So? Some jews also cooperated with the nazis and some blacks loved their masters and apparently preferred to be slaves; that hardly makes either israel's destruction, slavery, or nazism are respectable positions.

The "but jews do it too" defense of antisemitism is no more honest than the "some blacks liked it" defense of slavery.

What is irrational about Mycroft is his inability to see anything wrong with the way it acts,

This is no argument. It merely means, "what is irrational about Mycroft is his continuing disagreement with me". As amazing as this seems, disagreeing with you is no sign of irrationality.

but no end of ability to see what is wrong with Arabs and Palestinians.

But, first, you never show us where what he criticizes Arabs and Palestinians for is WRONG. When he notes that Palestinians schools teach genocide of the jews, is he wrong? No, they do. Compare this to your own criticism of israel: in nine times out of ten, your claims of (say) israel "targeting journalists" or "war crimes in Jenin" or the Palestinian child "shot in the face" whatever israeli atrocity du jour you are ranting about is quickly proven to be false, merely parroted propaganda.

And , second, he certainly doesn't ONLY criticize them: in the last few days, for instance, he wrote a few posts that were positive, or at least neutral, about Abbas, and had quite often posted understanding or even agreement with some Palestinians and some Palestinian views. On the other hand, when it comes to you, you never, ever, post anything about israel except criticism that is white-hot with hate.

See the difference?

Now that the peace initiatives are under way again, the new mantra is being preached to us already, there can be no peace, because the Palestinians will never stop till Israel is destroyed.

What's new about that? That's been the goal since 1948. One could probably publish a few Encyclopedias full of the Palestinian claims in this regard, starting then (and earlier) and ending, well, on whatever date the Encylopedia is published.

This is all the evidence needed to show that exremists such as himself are not really interested in peace,

Oh? Why is it "extremist" to point out the simple truth? You seem to suggest that this is so obviously not true about the Palestinians that it's not worth contemplating. But just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean it isn't.

and I noticed you have asked Skeptic that question already. I don't recall seeing a reply from him. Given that they don't believe that there will ever be peace, that it is not possible with the Palestinians, then the peace talks should be cancelled right now and stop wasting everyones time.

Probably correct, since the sole result of the "peace" process, so far, had been unprecedneted increase in terror and death for israel.

The question is, if the extremists such as Skeptic know that the Palestinians will never stop till they destroy israel, then what is the logical response of Israel to this threat.

I didn't say they NEVER will stop. I said that the PLO and the Palestinians UP TO NOW have not stopped and show no intention to. This is not the same thing. Probably, what is needed is an intense "de-PLOization" scheme, similar to the de-nazification plan.

Debateable, and you are willing to debate this, as are others. The Palestinians certainly haven't been too smart in their response, nor was Arafat, in my opinion, a good leader. Oslo failed for several reasons, and one of them was the failure of the Palestinians to capitalise on the opportunity, but Israel was also to blame.

No, Oslo failed because Arafat never wanted peace, but instead was merely interested in achieving a terror base in the territories (which he did) to start the war again (which he also did).

I think that I have indicated many times that there are Isaelis who think the occupation is a mistake, and want it ended. I have shown many times Israelis protesting at what their country is doing. I don't think Israel should be destroyed and it's citizens killed.

Oh? You said that the Arab countries were justified in attacking israel and its inhabitants in 1948, which as they openly said at the time, was intended to kill all the jews. If they were justified then, they are justified now.

Does israel have the right to exist as a jewish state or not? You never answered THAT question, instead repeatedly hemming and hawing about how israel actually does exist.

Well, to say that so-and-so has no right to live and should have been killed at birth but, alas, simply IS alive today is a rather obvious veiled way to urge his killing; similarly, to say israel has no right to exist, and should have been destroyed at birth, but noting that (alas) it exists today, is nothing but a rather obvious way to urge israel to be destroyed.

And from a Jewish point of view, that is a totally rational attitude to take. Others, however, have their own history that they see first.

Yet another attempt at minimization of jewish suffering. Palestinian sufferings, AUP tells us, are an outrage the entire wourld should care about and stop.

But jewish suffering? Since AUP cannot actually deny that the jews suffered terribly, he says that it's "understandable" that this is something to care about "from a jewish point of view", but who are those jews to think other nations should give a damn?

That's a big leap in logic, blaming Sharon to burning down synagogues.

You obviously haven't talked to some of the European "progressives" lately.

I would hazard a guess that those European burning down synagogues wouldn't really know much about the middle east at all, but would do it middle east or not.

Oh? So why has the burning and attacks been directly proportional to the intensity of the conflict in the middle east? Why had the new waves of unprecedented (post-WWII, anyway) antisemitism started just as the second intifada (more precisely, the 7th war for israel's destruction) did?

You cannot avoid the connection, AUP. It is the same people who are "anti-zionists" that burn down synagogues, and they often openly say that their actions are to "avenge the Palestinians".

Their hatred, as you point out, is based on something that goes back longer in history.

Indeed it is; it's known as antisemitism. Cleo's point is that today the common name for antisemitism is "anti-zionism", but this doesn't make it any less hatered of jews, any more than, say, those who killed jews for poisoning the wells during the black death were really enraged about sanitary conditions.

I can well imagine you at the time... "I am not an antisemite, I am just for clean wells and healthy drinking water..."

The first step in that path is to give them their country. Not negotiate over interminable years and conferences, give it to them tomorrow, with no conditions.

"With no condition" = "even if they don't give up their attempt to destroy israel".

As usual, Palestinian rights for AUP are absolute; they DESERVE a country and that's that.

On the other hand, jewish rights--even the most basic one, survival, or the right not to have a hostile terror state on your border--are negotiable, something that's just important "from the jewish point of view", and superseded instantly by any and all Palestinian "rights".

You might as well say that people's rights to own guns are absolute, so, Ms. would-be rape victim, give Mr. would-be rapist his gun back RIGHT NOW!

No conditions!

Once again, I can't see someone saying "I should be proud" that I am such a clever anti-semite is anything other than contemptible.

I don't give a damn how you "see" it.