Just telling me that you don't agree with two of my points, then failing to explain why, is a bit lame in a discussion forum, Keith, don't you think?   I have told you in very simple terms what antisemitism is, Keith. It is disparaging or attacking Jews BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWS. Not because of their politics or what their regime gets up to. It's so simple. People like you and the pro-Israel lobby expend a great deal of energy dishonestly trying to expand that very simple definition. If I say that Jacob Zuma is a prick and that it's regrettable that so many ANC members support him, that does not make me a racist. If I say that Jacob Zuma was bound to fail because he's black, and managed to take so many black people with him, that's racist. Keith, you want a broader definition of antisemitism so that you can then use it to suppress debate about the evils of the Israeli regime, which you unconditionally support no matter what injustices they perpetrate on Palestinians. By the way, Keith, it wasn't my idea to call Israel a Jewish state. One quarter of the people who live in Israel are not Jews. To me, that makes Israel a state with a predominantly Jewish population, but not a Jewish state. To call it that is inaccurate at best and racist at worst. My view is that Israel receives special and privileged treatment from the West, therefore we should expect high standards of behaviour in return. As much of that aid is military, I think we should expect at the very least the quest for peace and security for its own people and for its neighbours, built on a position of strength, precisely the opposite of what actually happens. We can't expect anything as particular from countries that we don't aid in the same way, though we may hold them to certain international standards when it comes to human rights. In other words, Keith, there should be conditions attached to that massive aid. The fact that it doesn't happen in the case of Western aid to Israel is the very reason why, for decades, peace talks involving Israel have been a sham. Israel knows that it can do what it likes but the aid will keep going in. They never need to give a single inch. Now all that is my opinion. If you think a single word of it is antisemitic, you'd better give a clear explanation as to why you think so. And, for a change, let's hear what YOU think, not some higher authority. Think for yourself for a change, Keith. It would be quite refreshing.

Can I support my assertion that the pro-Israel lobby tries to broaden the definition of antisemitism in furtherance of its interests? Why yes, I can. This is from wiki, Keith.

Zunes [Professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and specialist in Middle East politics] writes that "assaults on critics of Israeli policies have been more successful in limiting open debate, but this gagging censorship effect stems more from ignorance and liberal guilt than from any all-powerful Israel lobby." He goes on to explain that while "some criticism of Israel really is rooted in anti-Semitism", it is his opinion that some members of the Israel lobby cross the line by labeling intellectually honest critics of Israel as antisemitic. Zunes argues that the mainstream and conservative Jewish organizations have "created a climate of intimidation against many who speak out for peace and human rights or who support the Palestinians' right of self-determination." Zunes has been on the receiving end of this criticism himself "As a result of my opposition to US support for the Israeli government's policies of occupation, colonization and repression, I have been deliberately misquoted, subjected to slander and libel, and falsely accused of being "anti-Semitic" and "supporting terrorism"; my children have been harassed and my university's administration has been bombarded with calls for my dismissal."

In an opinion piece for The Guardian, Jimmy Carter wrote that mainstream American politics does not give equal time to the Palestinian side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that this is due at least in part to AIPAC. George Soros pointed out that there are risks associated with what was in his opinion a suppression of debate:

"I do not subscribe to the myths propagated by enemies of Israel and I am not blaming Jews for anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism predates the birth of Israel. Neither Israel's policies nor the critics of those policies should be held responsible for anti-Semitism. At the same time, I do believe that attitudes toward Israel are influenced by Israel's policies, and attitudes toward the Jewish community are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby's success in suppressing divergent views."