[cont]
Quote "Weren't the Jews remarkably prescient in voicing their opposition to Germany's slide into dictatorship?"
Yes they were. So I don't understand how this is any different to Palestinians objecting to their occupation; and using boycotts just as the (people representing Judea) did?
How is an occupation different to a dictatorship?
At least with a dictatorship the dictator might do good things for his own people.
Under an occupation theres not even much chance of that.

And so if Jews conducted boycotts against others why is it unfair for others to bring boycot against Jews?
If Jews think BDS is Anti-Semitic and requires a response then how shouldn't some of Germany's actions which you mentioned be considered unreasonable after Jews (or people representing Judea) not only declared a boycott on Germany, but openly declared war upon them?
Please explain.

Also my position on the 'Holocaust' just so you know.
This can be considered example number 2 of 100

I object to the use of the word 'holocaust' in connection to WWII on the grounds of the defamatory use of the term 'holocaust denier' which is associated with it.
My core objection to the use of the word is 'my right the question the official story of that war', a war my forebearers fought in.
Nothing more, Nothing less.
One either accepts 'the official story', or one is labelled a 'holocaust denier', and there is no free area in which to question events without persecution.

I object to being defamed and your discrimination simply by exercising my right to question the events of a war my family took part in.

Dear Critic,

<<Let me ask the others - Was that a fair comment?>>

That would depend on your sincerity, on what is your intention in your heart of hearts. I cannot tell.

Are you anguished by the suffering of others?
Or are you desirous of more suffering?

I can listen to the facts, the similarities and the dissimilarities: both are present, but why, what drivers you to write what you write, is not for me to tell.

I think that the line is crossed when you say "The Jews".
There are good people and there are bad people. The fact that one happens to be born Jewish does not change these basics.
You may legitimately say "there are Jews", or "some Jews", but generalising by saying "The Jews", I think is anti-Semitic and Hitler did just that.

The following person was a Jew, in fact a religious orthodox Jew. He was speaking out of pain, not out of glee, seeing the reality around him, in Israel. So do I. I care not for the Palestinians as such - I care for the spirit of the people of Israel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM2fXTkjU2E

I believe in liberty and freedom for all people Yuyutsu.
(But I don't believe that one persons liberty and freedom should be infringed upon so that another person can have theirs.)
I don't take any pleasure in seeing people suffer regardless of their nationality or religious beliefs but I do believe in putting my own countries interests first.

You said "I think that the line is crossed when you say "The Jews"."

It's hard to sometimes get the terminology right.
As you can see I did firstly try to replace that word with (people who represent Judea) but got sloppy in further instances; and David himself did use the term, so it can be hard to navigate.
Arguments can ensue regarding terminology Jews / Israeli's / Zionists...

You also said the determination of whether my comment was fair '...would depend on my sincerity, on what is your intention in my heart of hearts.'
So is it a question of content, or delivery?
These are the important questions.

Also there's a question of truth.
How can telling the truth in a discussion be considered racism or hate speech?
I don't get that, though I can imagine it could be used to induce someone to self harm.

An important aspect of this whole saga is that if speech is limited so that one cannot criticise the government of one particular nation, then how long until one cannot criticise the government of our own nation?

And what of policing these proposed new laws?
What do you want to impose fines, put me in jail and/or send me to a re-education camp for simply telling the truth?

Dear Critic,

Please calm down, I don't want to impose fines and certainly not to put you or anyone else in jail or a re-education camp. You should also know well by now that I do not believe in human-imposed laws.

The only reason I replied was that you explicitly asked for other members' judgement. I didn't find this easy.

The instruction in Hinduism is clear:
The first Yama, or restraint, is Ahimsa (non-violence) - the second is Satyam (truth-telling). Hence, if telling the truth conflicts with non-violence, then non-violence prevails and one should remain silent. Hopefully one can then wait for another opportunity, for a different situation where the truth can be told without hurting others.

Regarding terminology, Jews/Israeli's/Zionists refer to three different groups of people. Sure there is some overlap between those groups, but you should be as clear as you can. These three classes of people form 8 different combinations and one can find examples of all 8!

This becomes even more complicated because different people use different terminology, so you need to tread carefully. In Israel for example, Zionism is a common synonym for good citizenship: if you help an old lady to cross the street or if you smile and greet others with "Good morning", then many consider your act as "Zionist", even if the old lady is an Arab.

Prof. Leibowitz was a Jew, an Israeli and a Zionist, yet I think that you would agree with his words and ideas. Perhaps a criteria you may want to use before posting could be: "does what I am about to write include Prof. Leibowitz?".

So yes, correct delivery is at least as important as the contents.

Sorry Yuyutsu,
That last comment wasn't directed at you.
And I do appreciate you responding on such a sensitive issue.

Different cultures have different ways of seeing things, therefore a 'one size fits all' approach to censoring the internet may not be a good idea.
(I'm not advocating any violence by discussing any topic by the way)

Other people have given reasons why they oppose ending anonymity on the internet.
Jay of Melboure wrote of the Coburg protests that some people track others down in their homes to harass them.
So for me personally, I worry that this will tie our own hands in our own ability to share stories or deal with issues of importance in our own country.
If these Australians who wish to tell a story cannot do so because they become targets in their own homes then that's a problem to me.

There's 2 sides to every story.
Free speech can be used to offend others, but it can also be used to inform others.

I see this proposal essentially as an attack on our nation by a foreign country.

There's no way to touch on many of the Israel facts without being intimidated, threatened and persecuted for simply telling the truth and David has demonstrated this time and time again.
To me it's completely insane.

#Yuyutsu

You posted the following video of an interview with Professor Leibowitz:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM2fXTkjU2E"

You advised #armchair critic:
" Prof. Leibowitz was a Jew, an Israeli and a Zionist, yet I think that you would agree with his words and ideas. Perhaps a criteria you may want to use before posting could be: "does what I am about to write include Prof. Leibowitz?".

However you misrepresent Leibowitz's "words and ideas" by omitting these relevant facts:

1. The video was posted 8 January 2014

2. Leibowitz died on 18 August 1994 - so the reality Leibowitz saw around him was the reality in 1993 - not 2014.

3. Leibowitz expanded on this reality on 1 February 1993:
"'The direction of Israeli politics is changing, which means there is a chance for a voluntary agreement between the state of Israel and the PLO. That is a possibility.

'What is more probable is that the partition will be effected not by voluntary agreement but by pressure of the United Nations - which means the US. There is this chance now. Five years ago there was no chance for an agreement at all.'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/an-israeli-prophet-sees-signs-of-hope-yeshayahu-leibowitz-tells-sarah-helm-in-jerusalem-why-he-1470235.html

Leibowitz's assessment proved correct.

Negotiations between Israel and the PLO - starting in 1993 - led to offers by Israel in 2000/1 and 2008 to cede its claims in more than 90% of the West Bank which were rejected by the PLO.

Israel's total withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 has brought thousands of rockets and dozens of attack tunnels into Israel.

The Independent article above also contains the following statement:
"Until 1967 the fault was all on the other side, he says: it was the Arabs who prevented the 1948 partition and then invaded Israel. It is only since 1967 that Israel has become the oppressor."

The direction of Israel politics has indeed changed since 1993 but not that of the PLO and Hamas.

Arab rejectionism in 1948 is matched by Arab rejectionism in 2016.

Were you merely ignorant in not knowing about Leibowitz's "words and ideas" expressed in the above interview or was it deliberately concealed on your part?