Galloway is not "my man" and never has been. Naz Shah did not mention Jews. She mentioned Israel, which is one quarter Arab and three-quarters Jewish. Her sentiment was that the state of Israel has been a confounded nuisance in the Middle East for decades, and she made a whimsical suggestion that it could be moved to its puppet, the USA. Whimsical means not serious, something that can't come about, pie in the sky. It was a bloody idiotic thing to say, a divisive remark made with no regard as to outcome. But it was not antisemitic because she referred to the state of Israel, not to Jews. I don't expect you and Keith to see the difference. You don't want there to be a difference, because you want a definition of antisemitism that is so broad that it disallows any criticism whatsoever of the state of Israel. Not once in any post of yours, either as bobad or as that dishonest, trolling, cowardly anonymous Guest, have you ever accepted the slightest criticism of Israeli actions. If I were to mention that an Israeli soldier shot dead a Palestinian child, you'd manage to turn it round and somehow blame Hamas.You'd tell us that Hamas murdered the child. That's what you told us told us when the IDF were shelling schools in Gaza. That's how rotten to the core you are, utterly twisted and bitter, and certainly no friend of the Israeli people, ironically (though, naturally, you don't see the irony). Most Israelis would hate to have people like you and Keith on their side. All you do is put them in harm's way.