The issue is, robomatic, that both Jim and I have argued that antisemitism, apart from attacking Jews because they are Jews, also includes putting Jewish people in harm's way. One major way of doing that is to smear the whole of the Jewish people with the outrages perpetrated by the Israeli regime. That's what happens when you try to extend the definition to include any criticism of Israel, which bobad and Keith are hell-bent on doing. Call it ironic, call it unintended consequences, but that's how it is. Unfortunately, unless they recognise this and pull back from it, it makes them no less antisemitic than the scumbags who express their hatred in the more explicitly-bigoted fashion. But they just aren't listening. If we can't agree that unfettered and unconditional criticism of what that regime does is allowed without our being branded antisemitic, then the definition is degraded and useless. And no, I don't have to criticise everybody else at the same time in the same breath for doing the same things. I can do that, and do do that, that at different times.