There are 500 million plus Semitic people on earth, those whose mother tongue is one of the Semitic languages there are16 million Jews, worldwide, of whom perhaps 5 million speak Modern Hebrew --- a constructed language --- who can realistically be considered Semitics, but let us allow the whole 16 million to be Semitics, and imagine that some slur, or truth, offends the whole 16 million, how can or could a person casting that slur or truth, be considered 'antisemitic'?
Offending a miserable 16 million out of 500 million when the person may, in fact, be a true Semitic?
It is so obviously an absolute nonsense, The word itself is such a nonsense within the normal construct of English that it ought never to be used. Why not use specific words or terms, Jew-hatred, anti-Judaism, anti-Zionism ---- and who could be otherwise? ---- anti-Israeli.
The use of antisemitic is an insult to approximately 500 million people, an insult to those who it is levelled at when it is so obvious that it is impossible for anybody to anti-Semitic --- anti 500 million people from a variety of nations?
‘He writes that if BDS actually took hold, the elites would leave, as happened in South Africa:’
Has anybody ever doubted that if Israel was ever forced to comply with the original partition agreement — which was unjust — there would be an exodus?
‘They must ask themselves if for the chance of ending the occupation, they’re willing to sacrifice the prospect of a prosperous, liberal, democratic Israel in recognized borders.’
Difficult to know where to start!
Prosperous? Six million Jews living on stolen land, using the Palestinians as if not slave labour, then certainly indentured labour, compelling the incarcerated Palestinians to buy their food products, flogging off the Palestinians natural resources, a war crime, and receiving a mere 3.3 billion $US a year?
Is there a ‘nation’ or religious sect anywhere that would not be ‘prosperous’ under such conditions?
A ‘liberal’ (1. accepting different opinions and ways of behaving and tending to be sympathetic to other people) ‘democratic’ (all citizens must be equal before the law) in recognised boarders. The Palestinians would be overjoyed — back to the 1948 proposal as a beginning for negotiations.
Past time the myth of this tiny religous group fighting overwhelming odds — it was never true.
And yet again another Israeli Jew, or a Jew in any event, learns and understands the truth, the fact that Israel is built upon a litany of lies, that the numerous 'wars of survival' were merely attacks by a vicious, far better armed and more numerous bunch of war criminals than those who were supposedly 'an existential threat'.
The Palestinians were from day one, day one being around 1880, 1890, the victims of colonisers, of the various governments who were supposed to be in control of, or administrating the Palestinian territory.
The British either actively took part in such events as described above, or at best promised villagers under threat that if they gave up their (few) guns, they would protect them, and them stood by and watched the slaughter.
This is one of the very few articles that I have seen that gets close to the truth, that recognises that it is the Jews who have the problem.
After approximately 15 years of activism I have not heard ay of the Jews who decry Israelis treatment of the Palestinians come out and say/accept that they must return that that was stolen, pay reparations, compensation and continue paying until the damage done has been to some extent ameliorated. Rather I have heard that the Palestinians must make concessions — concessions when all they owned has been stolen from them?
The Israeli experiment is against history, against the trend of the times, and surviving only because the US has intervened, propped it up, blocked diplomatic initiatives. But the US is no longer top dog, or the ‘super power’. Political reality will inevitably catch up, compels the US to abandon the Israeli cause. At that point Israel will cease to be, in its present form.