Dear Shadow Minister,

Fourth quote? No it was the first quote that you flagged as the one that you felt most directly labeled Steven Salaita  as rabidly anti-semitic. If you have changed your mind and think there is a more egrigious one please post it and I will be happy to discuss it.

You claim;

“However, it is my experience is that many use sympathy for the suffering of the people in Gaza as a thin veneer for an intergenerational hatred of Jews as has been aptly demonstrated on this thread.”

What utter bull. You and your ilk continue to devalue the word anti-Semitic by attaching it to those who would criticise Israel, which was the point Steven Salaita was making. It is dangerous, amoral and toxic.

You should be ashamed.

Foxy,

After criticizing me for linking to a pro-Israeli site that had collected SS's anti-Semitic quotes, you then link to an opinion piece in a blog that is a Palestinian political mouthpiece.

I am also stunned that you cannot see the clear link between the Palestinians and terrorism. The PLO committed a vast variety of atrocities before and after the Oslo peace deal, and Hamas has continued with the bombing of school buses, the kidnapping and murder of children and the use of their own women and children to stab Israeli citizens.

For the illiterate, attacking Israel is not Anti-Semitic, but attacking Jews is. Not all that attack Israel are anti-semitic, but many are. My views are based on decades of evidence, yours apparently not.

SR,

Firstly, I don't accept your extremely tenuous and weaselly attempt to whitewash SS's racist tweet. Secondly, I never flagged that tweet "as the one that you felt most directly labelled Steven Salaita as rabidly anti-semitic" as I deliberately didn't want to play your childish game.

If you need further quotes to work on, there are several in my link in which SS's directly attacks the "Jews". And trying to defend this racist bigot is dangerous, amoral and toxic and you should be ashamed that you so clearly share his values.

Shadow Minister,

In an age of political unilateralism - an arrogant
concept deliberately designed to subjugate one people
to another - we must move past using dehumanisation
and delegitimisation as weapons to be wielded against
the Palestinians.

I support the state of Israel and believe in its existence.
But there must be a way for Israel to exist securely
while allowing justice for the Palestinian people.
A sustainable future for Israel and the Palestinians is
should be our central concern.

Many people are often accused of being anti-Israel and
hostile towards the Jewish people. Nothing could be further
from the truth. Most people support the rights of Israelis
to live in peace and security, but not at the expense of
the Palestinians.

Why do we constantly hear about Israel's need for "security",
as though that justifies walls, checkpoints, barriers,
expansionism and killing of medical personnel, women, and
children? Why is the world told to believe that the Palestinians
should only accept peace on Israel's terms?

I've come to the sad conclusion that many in the West simply
don't like Arabs or Palestinians very much and therefore
believe that Israel has the right to treat them as they wish.

In all of this, the news media plays a crucial role since
they are the conduit for the debate.

It is time for a radical re-thinking of the conflict.

See you on another discussion.

This one for me has run its course and I don't want to
keep repeating things. Besides I can see that nothing
productive is being achieved here and I've wasted enough
time as it is on this topic.

Foxy,

If there was no violent aggression from the Palestinians, there would be no restrictions placed on them and no retaliation. No blockade, no checkpoints, no walls, and a chance for a final peace.

Shadow Minister,

You just as easily could argue that if Israel behaved
differently - there would not be the conflict that there
is.

No wonder there's no resolution possible until one or both
are willing to meet each other half way.

Dear Shadow Minister,

“If there was no violent aggression from the Palestinians, there would be no restrictions placed on them and no retaliation. No blockade, no checkpoints, no walls, and a chance for a final peace.”

Why this is such an utter lie is the fact that Israel is allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers to build illegal settlements on militarily occupied Palestinian land.

It was only through violent resistance that the Gazans now have a territory no longer festooned with settlements and checkpoints but they have paid heavily for their defiance.

So it really comes down to whether you believe that those on the West Bank have the right to resist, violently if needed, to secure their homeland just as the Zionist did when securing theirs from Britain.

If you don't then why can't you be labeled a racist?