McGrath of Harlow - 13 Oct 16 - 04:06 PM

1: "Challenging the legitimacy of a country isn't the same thing as calling for its annihilation."

In the case of Israel it is. By the way Kevin what other officially and internationally recognised country in the world has had its "legitimacy" challenged?

2: "Many people challenged the legitimacy of apartheid South Africa. What they wanted was a total transformation, not annihilation, nor for the expulsion of the white population."

No they did not Kevin, you are comparing apples to oranges, what people the world over challenged was the legitimacy of the Apartheid Regime in South Africa they did not challenge the legitimacy of the country itself.

Your point (b) was - "on the basis that they challenge the legitimacy of the state of Israel" - that is "racist" and anti-Semitic. To challenge the legitimacy of a country is to challenge its right to exist.

3: "It is also perfectly fair to see countries such as the USA and Australia as having been built on a total illegitimate basis of annexation, theft and genocide. But that isn't the same as saying these countries should cease to exist."

Name a country that hasn't. But with regard to the territory of Palestine {It was never a country} the only people ever guilty of annexation were the Egyptians and Jordanians in 1948. Theft? By and large what the Jews acquired in the territory of Palestine was purchased legally from its owners. Genocide? What genocide? Were there a campaign of genocide being mounted against the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians then surely it must be the most ineffective and poorly conducted in history as it has been underway for 68 years now and the Arab population in the territory formerly known as Palestine has exploded.

4: "It is perfectly possible to challenge the legitimacy of the status quo as regard Israel, seen as a situation in which a state defined as confessionally Jewish, on the basis of past ethnic cleansing, occupies and controls the West Bank, and imposes a territorial blockade imprisoning the Gaza strip, The inhabitants of these territories are in effect living in Greater Israel, but with no effective political rights."

Israel is defined as a "Jewish State" because those were the words used to describe by the United Nations in their 1947 Two-State Plan. Nothing whatsoever to do with "ethnic cleansing", the current situation in the West bank is the situation agreed to by the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority and it is one that in comparison to Gaza has kept the peace for over a decade now. The Israelis forcibly removed all Israeli settlers from Gaza and unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Since then over 15,000 missiles have been fired from Gaza into Israel. I do take it Kevin that you accept that any person or any state that has been attacked has an inalienable right to defend itself? Gaza and the political faction that "governs" it have declared that their intention and goal is the eradication and annihilation of the State and Jewish population of Israel - that is anti-Semitic and anyone who sympathises with them and calls them "friend" automatically become tarred with the same brush. Israel is not the only country that has tightly controlled borders with Gaza. Hamas in Gaza are a danger to all, but to none more so than the "Palestinian" Arabs unfortunate enough to live under their "governance".

5: That analysis can be challenged, and is challenged - but I cannot see how it can rightly be identified with antisemitism.

Your analysis is at fault, the challenge to the right of existence of the internationally recognised State of Israel and the challenge to the right of its population to be allowed to live in peace free from attack and free from the threat of attack is anti-Semitic behaviour of the worst kind.