Peter Tatchell has always had a very serious naive streak. That could be what attracted him to the Green (+ naive) Party.

Why didn’t he take the hint after the Bermondsey by-election, and just fade away?

Is this news?

The points I chose to make were related to Rupert’s apparent stance on Israel because in the following snippet alone, I feel his understanding of the conflict is wanting:

“Stop supporting Israel – and, instead, boycott it, until it tears down the apartheid wall, drops its racist policies against Arabs, and frees Palestine. “

To even begin to address the lack of even-handedness and over-simplification here would take too long, but it is worrying that someone who wishes to become a parliamentarian uses the words ‘apartheid’ , ‘racism’ and ‘boycott’ with such apparent lack of comprehension of the situation itself.

My second point was with regard to Rupert’s response on this thread – although I have added an ‘if this is Rupert’ proviso. When you choose to enter politics on any level, you have to realise that you are unlikely to get positive responses on all occasions. As I’m sure you know, Peter, it isn’t always cuddly; it can be very stressful and occasionally quite traumatic. Even at a local level, you can receive far worse than I’ve seen on this thread for far, far less controversial issues. Whilst I completely understand that Rupert would be upset by Yossi’s post, I was taken aback by a would-be parliamentarian using words like ‘putrescent bile’, and, ‘what a dreadful place…’ etc. etc.

These are ‘the people’, Peter, and whether you agree with them or not, at least engage with them so that either a) you learn, b) they do or c) you agree to differ. Personally, when I was a councillor I would never have dreamt of addressing people in this manner. Of course, I don’t know Rupert but his response on this thread seems a little high-handed. If you want to be ‘of the people’ you do have to be quite vigilant about your ego – and we’re all prone to letting that slip.

Israelinurse makes some valid points, too, Peter. Perhaps I could also add to them by explaining that unfortunately, some people cloak their anti-semitism in the ‘respectability’ of being ‘anti-Israel’ – which appears to be almost fashionable these days. During Operation Cast Lead, for example, both my husband and I received hate mail – and we live in the UK. Those 22 days of conflict created hundreds of articles, blogs and opinions where it was quite common for people who said that they were simply against Israel’s actions to unconsciously slip up by failing to differentiate between the words ‘Israeli’ and ‘Jew’.

That isn’t to say that criticism of Israel should be stifled for fear of offending, but if you have a public profile, at least be fully aware of both sides of the coin from as many angles as possible, and be aware that overly-emotive language may fuel a little more than criticism of a country.

“I thought HP was above such crude, vulgar nonsense.”

You have not read much on Harrys Place then?

The witchhunts, the slurring and the smearing are the modus operandi here.

How about those in the so-called “Green Party” who promote antisemitic policies? You know, the “boycott Israel” crowd?

But I don’t agree that the position Read stands for is a legitimate one in the politics of a constitutional Left. The letter I quoted about the Madrid bombings leads me to that view. Read says: “Aznar, Blair and Bush should choke on their words of condolence to the victims in Madrid. It is their atrocious criminal violence that has led to this counter-atrocity.”

I pointed to this letter on my site because it indicates a distinctive position of Rupert Read that is unlikely to be widely shared among the voters of Norwich North. I’d genuinely be interested to know whether you think it’s a reasonable position for a progressive candidate.

I don’t for a moment dispute your own record of disinterested support for human rights, incidentally. I’m just asking your view on the political legitimacy of Read’s position. For my part and on the evidence I’ve quoted, I don’t agree that Read has “got vision”. He seems to me to be unimaginative and doctrinaire.

I have been away campaigning and out of internet access for the last day and a half. Hence my delay in repsonding.

I am absolutely satisfied that Rupert Read is not anti-Semitic. His views have been twisted, distorted and misrepresented. He does not believe what some people say he does. His comments have been given a malicious spin.

I would suggest that people’s efforts should concentrate on fighting real anti-Semities, not imaginary ones.

Given the way many people on HP has been reviled and misrepresented, I am suprised that some of them are making or tolerating what untrue, libellous statements against Rupert.

Parts of this particular thread echo the crazed, vicious sectarianism of the far left cliques. I thought HP was above such crude, vulgar nonsense.

My record stands for itself: I have challenged face-to-face anti-Semites including the NF, BNP, Hizb ut Tahrir and many others over many years, often when totally outnumbered. As a result I have been beaten and arrested.

I have spoken out against the apologists for terrorism against both Palestinian and Israeli citizens, and defended the Jewish people against true anti-Semities like Hamas, Ahmadinejad, Hizbollah etc.

I hope this clarifies.

Best wishes, Peter