Sorry about that. I'll try again.

"And, DMcG, it isn't a debatable alternative definition they seek to use. It's false."

"As it happens, I totally agree. But any form of progress in discussion depends on people recognising their shared ground and where they differ and then seeking a way forward. Peace processes, and all that. I don't think two groups simply declaring the other is wrong gets us very far."

It is not possible to find any shared ground with people who have a dishonest agenda. The efforts to broaden the definition of antisemitism to include attacks on the policies or activities of the Israeli regime come under that category, because they have nothing to do with defending Jewish people against attacks based on their ethnicity or perceived personality traits and everything to do with preventing criticism of the Israeli regime, no matter what they get up to. No-one is forced by such ploys to hold back on criticism of Britain's role in the Middle East or America's role in Vietnam, and we should likewise be free and unfettered in attacking the Israeli regime. The attempt to widen the definition degrades the proper definition and makes it harder to tackle the issue of real antisemitism. That actually disadvantages Jewish people severely, so when Jim accuses people like Keith,Teribus and bobad of antisemitism he's absolutely right, and it's time they ditched the dishonesty and got on the side of the ordinary Jewish people.