I don’t”.

Really?

Having published Lucas’ libel without comment. You get called on it.
In response to having been called on to justify this absurd claim, the sole content of your criticism that it is too much of a “generalisation”,

“I would have personally preferred it as less of a generalisation, but I and so many people I know, here and in other countries, who are anti-Zionists, non-Zionists and even critical Zionists have had years of being denounced by apologists for the Israeli government, as “antisemites” for having the temerity to question Israeli policies or the philosophies that inspire them. And on the Engage site, which I used to contribute to until it it was obvious that it was pointless, the accusation or inference that such critics are antisemites is ever-present. yes the Israeli government and supporters often defend their positions by denouncing opponents as antisemites, mostly, in my view, wrongly and as a cynical political device.

For you, disagreement with an evident lie in such a context, (i.e. in JSG’s magazine and publised elsewhere) is treated not as a political matter but a “personal preference”.

Politically (i.e. in the context of what really matters) you refuse to challenge her slander. Politically, you think she is right, If not, you would have challnged her on the same ground as her comments, i.e. politically. You have refused to do so.

Having treated an antisemitic slur as merely a matter of personal taste, you continue.

“And on the Engage site, which I used to contribute to until it it was obvious that it was pointless, the accusation or inference that such critics are antisemites is ever-present. yes the Israeli government and supporters often defend their positions by denouncing opponents as antisemites, mostly, in my view, wSo rongly and as a cynical political device.”

Now outside a some undoubtedly nasty emails from green inkers (see the Ha’aretz article/interview with Paul Mackney) you offer no evidence whatsoever of these emails as the systematic response of any Jewish or Zionist organisation.

Indeed, in the absence of such proof, you fall back on cheap consiracy theory. You support and justify Mackney’s claim that the emails he (and, no doubt Hari) received were the work of the “international pro-Israel lobby”. That is, that you think that those who wrote the emails have been directed by this Lobby. (Otherwise why would Mackney have mentioned the Lobby in the first place). Apparently, for you no Jew is capable of independent thought or action. Instead, they have to be part of a far bigger scheme, ready to spring into action anytime, anywhere.

How does that work exactly? Do these green inkers get an email from the ADL? Do they get a phone call from the Board of Deputises? Does an advert appear in the Jewish Chronicle in code that tells these diiverse people around the globe to write rude emails?

Maybe it works the same way as the time the Jews were told not to go the world trade centre on 9/11?

“David Rosenberg believes all those who raise the question of antisemitism are doing so to deflect attention form human rights abuses.”

As you state,

“I’ve no doubt that the intentions of targeting critical voices and labelling them antisemites is an attempt to defend the indefensible in Israel’s behaviour by silencing or marginalising critics but many of these targets have enough nous to find ways to fight back.”

I note here the absolutist nature of your claim i.e. the lack of “some” or “often”. I.e. that all se who “target critical voices” have the one thing in common, ” to defend the indefensible in Israel’s behaviour”.

“‘David Rosenberg refuses to comment that the term “International Jewry” contains antisemitic overtones.’
I have no idea about my attitude to this classic antisemitic formulation comes from.”

Above I raised the point about John Wight’s use of the term “international Jewry”.
You refused to address it (whilst responding to other points in the same post).

“if you are going to contest my views at least base them on what I say and not on what you make up.”

I have based every comment that I have made here and elsewhere you have said, word for word.

“JSG (like IJV) are on the fringe of the Jewish community.

They believe that Zionism is wrong intellectually, politically and ethically. They think that the Board of Deputies and Zionist organisations are the “ruling class” of the Jewish community.

Their newly enthused antizionism and their denial of contemporary antisemitism has not been accepted by the majority of Jews in the UK community. They cannot understand why the majority of Jews, no matter how critical a large number of Jews may be of the acts of the Israeli government, support the idea of a Jewish national state, both in theory and practice. Indeed, they cannot believe that any Jew who does not agree with them is or is capable of being critical of Israel. They cannot understand why many of the same Jews are beginning to feel uncomfortable in the present climate,

Their response is to blame these Jews. There first line of blame is, of course, contradictory. They say, on the one hand, that there is no antisemitism (save a few overt cases, but even some of those they do not recognise), yet, on the other hand, they say that contemporary antisemitism is a consequence of Israeli actions. Israel is responsible for antisemitism.

Alternatively, because they believe that if only Jews had a chance to hear the “truth”, then everyone would agree with their “analysis”. Therefore, to account for Jews’ apathy to their own ideas, they have to believe that others are silencing them; after all, why else does not everyone see the world the way they do? Thus, they believe (and probably sincerely) that the internal “Jewish ruling-class” (the Board of Deputies, British Zionist organisations, etc.) is acting in ways (overt and covert) to stop their message from being heard. In short, because they cannot understand why their views are rejected as unacceptable by the majority of Jews (and this despite IJV’s access to national newspapers, journals (Jewish and otherwise), books, etc.) they have to believe in a giant (“Zionist”) conspiracy that undermines them and their legitimacy wherever they go and whatever they say.

As the name “Independent Jewish Voices” indicates, they do not believe that the majority of Jews (i.e. those who disagree with them) are capable of that same “independence”. They think that the majority of Jews are not capable of making their own decisions on matters that concern them “as Jews” both in the UK and in the Middle East. They believe that the majority of Jews have, what in times past, this used to be called “false consciousness”. They believe that their thoughts have been limited by the Jewish Chronicle and by the Board of Deputies. In short, they have no respect for the thoughts for, or belief in the ability to think, for the majority of UK Jews. To JSG and IJV, the majority of Jews are nothing more than dupes.

The last thing that crosses their mind is that people have heard their arguments, have thought about them and rejected them on intellectual, political and moral grounds.”

Whenever David is unable to answer peoples’ questions he accuses them of “infantile abuse” , a smear tactic designed to confuse the issues being discusses.

David , i’ve asked you several questions and you ignore them. I can only presume that you have no answers.
David is like the kid in the playground who owns the only football and takes it away when he’s on the loosing side.

My experience with the Greens, based on being a member between 1997-2001/2, staying in touch with a number of them, and reading and hearing in particular what Caroline Lucas and Derek Wall have been saying in recent years, has generally been a positive one with regard to anti-racism of all kinds and commitments to universal human rights. (it is an attitude or lack of attitude to class politics that I have more of an issue with them about)

On the point you made about the list and the Palestinians – remember your list was in your own words people “who have been know to criticise israel” rather than “antisemites”. But interestingly enough, the point you made about the likely dissipation of hostility from Palestinians if a peaceful solution is found, leaving the rump of die-hard pathological antisemites is a point that has been made by Tony Lerman – only he got a torrent of abuse from the types who are venting infantile abuse here, for not seeing the Palestinians as eternal Jew-haters. Funny old world. Goodnight!

“I really don’t think there is any useful chat the JSG could have with the likes of Gerald Ronson and his cronies.”

well, you won’t know until you try? and if you don’t try and talk with the CST then you can’t complain as above about “at the Simcha in the Square”, but that’s up to you.

you wrote:

“I think it is a shame (and discredits your analysis) that you impute negative psychological qualities “

[sigh] David, it wasn’t analysis, it was something that occurred to me in a moment, and frankly as my mind is largely fried and working on about 10% of normal, I preferred not to have to BELABOUR every point.

But here’s goes, in trying to get to the root of antisemitism various different approaches have been taken, some of them might be characterised as psychological. I don’t think that they fully explain the outbreaks of antisemitism, or social and political aspects, nevertheless there is scholarly research on this particular theme. I would recommend reading Jocelyn Hellig’s Holocaust and Antisemitism, page 77-85. I’m sure that Wilhelm Reich also probably has something to say in this area, but I can’t say I haven’t managed to read him yet.

If you study fascists and anti-Jewish racists for long enough you’ll see that there are certain character traits. I’m not a professional medical person but I know a racist crank when I see one, and that certain obsessive character, which I pointed out to you and you conspicuously ignored, is key to determining if an individuals characterisation as an antisemite or not, in my book.

So far from being incidental there is plenty of material in this area, and as I said, but again you didn’t particularly pay much attention, I tend to base my view on evidence, so if you’d like to read http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/moshe-id-love-to-grow-wings/#comments and http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/the-awl-israel-and-iran/#comments

I could go on, but I won’t :)

as for the List, you spotted the obvious, the lack of Palestinians?

well personally, I don’t think that their “antisemitism” is really that much of a problem. I don’t consider that the average Palestinians to be particularly racist any more than anyone else, there is racist filth on their TV, they are surrounded by armed militia and in the middle of a conflict. So I wouldn’t be too surprised at resentment on either side, and when there is a final settlement I imagine that will dissipate.

But you really didn’t see the issue of that list, did you?

Once the Palestinians and Israelis have made peace, for a lot on the list it won’t change very much. They are fundamentally opposed to the existence of a Jewish state, an Israeli state, or a state where there are a lot of Jews.

See that the problem which you don’t seem to understand, there are people who are expressly, utterly opposed to any concentration of Jews. Jews with power frighten them. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is merely a vehicle for them, a vehicle for their hatred.

Once it has been solved/resolved, that lingering hatred towards Jews won’t disappear. David Duke won’t change, nor will aryan nation and I doubt that Trots who are explicitly opposed to a Jewish state will change much either.

There are people who use this conflict for their own purposes, and contrary to your view they’re not all in the Israeli government, some of them even dislike Jews, because they believe a lot of racial nonsense, nothing will convince them either way.

You wrote:

“I suspect it woudl be similarly superficial exercise, but don’t you think I could constuct a list of some extremely dodgy supporters of Israel?”

But that was not the key issue, Ms. Lucas’s statement was.

Now, unlike others, David, I’m not going to accuse you of bad faith, but we’ve been all around the house and when it comes to the Greens you brook no criticism of them, and frankly it’s a bit annoying, not to say illogical, when their statements don’t have the evidence to back them up.

But I leave it at that, my mind’s not up to much more.

I really don’t think there is any useful chat the JSG could have with the likes of Gerald Ronson and his cronies.

Of course not, you’d rather invite an official PLO spokesman to the Passover Seder.

Good old Jewish Socialists Group! Won’t sit in the same room with a Jewish capitalist, but happy to guzzle that Seder wine with spokesmen for PLO terrorists.

You couldn’t make it up !

“David Rosenberg thinks all criticism of Israel is labelled antisemitic.”

I don’t.

“David Rosenberg believes all those who raise the question of antisemitism are doing so to deflect attention form human rights abuses.”

I don’t.

‘David Rosenberg refuses to comment that the term “International Jewry” contains antisemitic overtones.’

I have no idea about my attitude to this classic antisemitic formulation comes from.

if you are going to contest my views at least base them on what I say and not on what you make up.

I expect to see an apology on Engage (next to a picture of flying pigs)