The terminology I use is "apologists for the Israeli regime." That does not mean "Jews." That does not mean "people who oppose Hamas." That does not mean "people who defend Israel's right to exist." That does not mean "people who feel sorry for ordinary Israelis whose leaders and allies are imposing insecurity on them." It means people who seek to justify even the worst excesses of the Israeli regime, such as killing hundreds of children in Gaza, carrying out massacres in Lebanon, stealing the best Palestinian land for settlements, building an apartheid wall that cuts Palestinians' farms in half and the Arab citizens of Israel as second-class. On the few occasions I've used the term "Israel apologists" it's because I'm responding directly to equivalent terminology in your posts. I am not going to resort to pedantry every time. Life's too short. Now you know bloody well what I mean and always have, but, if you've forgotten, this post will clear it up. Now stop being so bloody dishonest. As for dismissing people's views on antisemitism, yes I do dismiss people's views that are not predicated on the proper definition, which is very simple: if you attack Jews BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWS, you are antisemitic. I dismiss views predicated on a false brand of antisemitism that says you can't criticise the actions of the Israeli state. I don't care whether you think that's antisemitic just because I don't happen to criticise everybody else in the same way at the same time. That is just childish. The aim of your preferred definition is to prevent criticism of the actions of the Israeli state. That is incredibly dishonest and yes I dismiss it out of hand. Now you don't deserve this explanation, so just clear off, will you.