Well according to the internationally agreed IHRA definition of antisemitism it is. This includes:I'm not sure it was tbh.
Paid shill. Would you like to withdraw that you arsehole?I never said there is a right side, I said the two of you sit here day after day defending the indefensible. Post something about how unacceptable the IDF action is without somehow trying to justify it like some kind of paid shill and I'll stop giving you both a hard time over it.
Well according to the internationally agreed IHRA definition of antisemitism it is. This includes:
So guilty on two counts I'm afraid.
- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Not particularly. It's the impression given when someone inexplicably defends the indefensible repeatedly. It's also an opinion, so I won't ask you to withdraw the one you expressed in your post either.Paid shill. Would you like to withdraw that you arsehole?
I suggest you read through the thread and count how many times I’ve criticised Netanyahu’s government and how many times I’ve criticised the excessive force used by some IDF soldiers then come back and withdraw your ludicrous comment.I never said there is a right side, I said the two of you sit here day after day defending the indefensible. Post something about how unacceptable the IDF action is without somehow trying to justify it like some kind of paid shill and I'll stop giving you both a hard time over it.
Well according to the internationally agreed IHRA definition of antisemitism it is. This includes:
So guilty on two counts I'm afraid.
- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Well then I've reported it.Not particularly. It's the impression given when someone inexplicably defends the indefensible repeatedly. It's also an opinion, so I won't ask you to withdraw the one you expressed in your post either.
I would agree with this. I couldn't agree more with the idea that the Jewish people have a right to statehood. What I don't accept is that they can unilaterally dictate the boundaries of that state, in the face of dispute from the 'natives', without challenge.To quote Joseph Heller - " its a hell of a catch that Catch-22". So any Palestinian who finds his land now has a new settlement built on it against his will who then complains that they have no right to do so is therefore being anti - semitic? Would that be taken as denying the Jewish people a right to self determination - i.e. building a settlement where they want to on what they consider to be their land?
I would agree with this. I couldn't agree more with the idea that the Jewish people have a right to statehood. What I don't accept is that they can unilaterally dictate the boundaries of that state, in the face of dispute from the 'natives', without challenge.
I said the manner in which you were trying to justify something was that of someone who had been paid to do so. I never said or implied that you were paid to do so, just that you were acting in that manner. You seriously think that merits reporting? How about if you were a bald journalist and I posted that you seemed like a Mourinho shill? Would you report me for that?Well then I've reported it.