You know what's worse than the excluded middle fallacy?

The stolen middle fallacy. Calling anti-Zionists anti-Semitic is quite transparent and weak at that.

Likudniks, PNAC Colada drunks, neo-libcon-mercantilists are grateful for your confusion of terms.

Keith

Bethlehem has no encircling fence. Israel has built a protective barrier between itself and the west Bank as a successful means of stopping its citizens being murdered.

Bethlehem once had a predominantly Christian population, no longer, due to pressures on the Christians to leave. Why do you defend the Islamists so much and completely ignore the plight of the Christians, Baha'i, Samaritans, Druze, the Muslim women and the Jews from ancient Middle Eastern communities. I don't think you realise what is really happening in the region.

milligence

I think it is often the other way round. Branding anyone who tries to correct misinformation about Israel a Zionist propagandist is a common trick. If the debate continues a common ploy is to claim that the defender of the Israeli policy is using antisemitism as a tool even when they have not mentioned the word.

being anti-israel does not imply being anti-semitic. but does anybody here really deny that many anti-semites hide under the respectable cloak of anti-israeli-ism?

here's a clue: chances are, if you use the word "zionist" you're anti-semitic. the word is meaningless as used, except as code for "jew".

Merry Christmas Logic,

You didn't answer my question... which was very direct.

Instead firstly you made the false claim Bethlehem has no encircling fence then you went on to say it is a protective barrier. Make up your mind will you. Either there is a fence around Bethlehem or there isn't...regardless of purpose.
The reason the Christians left was economic. The towns business was strangled and people couldn't easily drive, due to Israeli checkpoints, 10 minutes up the road to work in Jeruslem.

Then secondly you tried to avoid exposure of the Israeli criminality by trying to equate the treatment of Christians by Israeli's and Muslims.
Sick logic Logic.

Don't you realise what six year old liberal democratics know and are routinely taught... two wrongs never make a right.

It's only you who introduced Zionism here... is that because of guilt or a Freudian slip?

I loved the little lecture about anti-semitism but did you mean branding anti-Semitic's anti-Zionists is common or did you mean an anti-semitic 's trick is to call those supporting and justifiying the land stealing expansionism of the Israelis Zionists ?

NB To cap it all off didn't you see the author of the work use the dreaded 'a-s' word in describing anyone who criticises Israeli land stealing?

logic, you said "I do wonder about the motives of those who claim that Israel has apartheid which is patently false, who fail to criticise the Islamic extremist world for bringing up children as suicide murderers with TV programs venerating their deaths, who ignore Israeli democracy and the plightsof non-Muslims including Jews and Christians in Muslim lands."

I guarantee this is a misperception. There is, of course, a handful of blind lefties who believe that terrorist muslims are poor souls who deserve sympathy, and it's that loony fringe which makes the papers because its extreme views stick out like a sore thumb.

Trouble is, when someone criticises Israel, Jews demonstrate absolutely no interest in establishing whether the critic condemns Islamic behabour equally. Instead, they prefer to chalk it down to one-sided anti-semitism and cry foul. Strategically, it's an effective tactic, but it's morally bankrupt.

The motive of critics is usually to stamp out injustice and pointless violence, no matter who the perpetrator is. Of course, the perpetrators always believe that their crimes are necessary and justified, while their opponent's are immoral war crimes, therefore any criticism must be based on hatred.

keith

I meant that it often happens that someone who defends Israel is accused of shouting antisemitism at the other side when that has not been mentioned. I am not accusing anyone on this site of anything.

Apartheid means separating different groups, treating them differently not allowing them to live together, giving them different laws, treating them differently.

This is not the case in Israel. It has been however throughout the Arab Muslim world, have you read about dhimmies? Have you heard about a death penalty for Muslims who convert to other faiths? This does not happen in Israel.

There is a security barrier between Bethlehem and Israel, it does I understand not surround (encircle it). The number of tourists this Christmas in Bethlehem has increased this year, despite (or perhaps because of) Israeli security.

Bethlehem is not the only region that Christians are leaving, Egypt, West Bank, Lebanon, etc. Druze, Baha'i Samaritans, Jews all left other Middle Eastern countries, and many went to Israel, including refugees from Darfur. There is a lesson to be learnt somewhere.

And what about the statistics from the Turkish and British occupations showing populations in the 19th century. They don't support the stolen land theory that well. The majority of the population in Jerusalem during the 19th Century according to official figures were Jewish.

And what about the 900 000 Jews who left property behind in other Muslim lands because of real Apartheid. Can't you shed a few tears for them? And how many Middle Eastern Christians have you spoken to?

I am all in favour of criticism of any group, but make it fair and two sided. I am not happy with the situation with the Palestinians but the others deserve some thought. The unevenness in the debate makes me a tad uncomfortable,