That's a tad silly and dramatic, don't you think? Your soul definitely isn't up for grabs, and who cares what Seliger or others like him consider credible?

You are imprisoned by the Israeli discourse, but not in the sense of "censorship".

You are imprisoned by the absence of political strategy and discipline towards the goal that you state, or rather "litmus test".

Some of us hold "litmus testing" as an immature political stance, a stance for those committed to being on the armchair, permanently in the periphery, NEVER accomplishing.

Being asked not speak is not blacklisting, its relative to strategy.

I won't walk in a demonstration with anyone carrying a sign "Death to Israel", NEVER.

Backbone isn't constructed by the perspective of non-compromise or non-strategy. Its constructed by the perspective of determination IN CONTEXT, respecting context.

That Uri Avnery accepted that, indicates that there is more merit to it than you judgemental litmus test.

Should Those Who Critisize Israel Be Called Anti-Semite Lights?

http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2008/08/should-those-who-critisize-israel-be.html

Would you walk in a demonstration with someone carrying these signs? And why do you immediately paint a picture in the reader's mind of someone carrying a sign saying "Death to Israel." Such imagery serves the purpose of diverting all attention from the brutal Israeli aggression and in its stead creates an image of a lunatic who wishes "death to Israel," whatever the hell that means. But, mission accomplished, right? We're immediately taken from the concrete reality of Israeli killing, torture, and brutal aggression, to the fantasyland of "poor little Israel." Poor, poor, little Israel…

Maybe he is ignorant as to the potential and actual affects of his words and is merely naive.

Higgisnlads,
You strike me as someone who will willingly express a great deal of momentum and outrage politically. I consider that 90 degrees to thought and politics that is likely to result in kindness and greater good.

It takes mutual sensitivity (the most important word, sensitivity) to realize justice in the world. You won't get there by outrage alone.

If the need is force, then maybe outrage accomplishes the collective political will necessary.

If the need is to convince, then it hinders.

Why do I strike you "as someone who will willingly express a great deal of momentum and outrage politically?" And what exactly does that mean? And what does it have to do with the matter at hand?

For the record, I am a very sensitive person, and I try to avoid the need to convince, although I do admit it is sometimes difficult when "conversing" through a computer screen. Most of all, I am interested in understanding, and I think the best way to achieve understanding, and kindness, for that matter, is through straightforwardness and absolute honesty, and complete purity and integrity of motive. I am not interested in any sort of intellectual dissertations, and I have no patience for academic obfuscation.