It is neither “safe to guess” nor accurate that I am an “enthusiastic supporter of Israel,”’

Based on nothing but the above article, which was somewhat critical of Israel and Zionism, you did in fact accuse us of being ‘self-hating Jews’. We have seen this happen time and time again. We have ample personal experience that shows that enthusiastic supporters of Israel often denounce those who disagree with them in that manner. We therefore made a tentative conclusion that you were such a person. It was a quite reasonable assumption.

whatever that is supposed to mean’

The language used was quite clear.

You might want to define Zionism, in passing.’

A brief, operational definition was given.

And if “Zionists” have accused you, I can only suggest [refuting] the accusation.’

All too often, there is no argument to argue against. The accusation is simply a premiss stated at the very beginning. Your accusation of ‘self-hating Jews’ at the very top is a prime example. There is nothing to refute. We could spend all day denying that we are anti-Semites, queers, Martians, shitheads, or other random accusations or insults; but it would achieve little.

A good part of the Israeli government is corrupt to the core–but that doesn’t represent the Israeli people, any more than the Neocons represent the American people.’

We are glad that you realise that. You do not seem to be a rabid right-wing Likudite. However, you are still enough of an Israel supporter to defame people like us who demand justice for the Palestinians.

I don’t regard recognizing Israel’s right to exist an insurmountable mental hurdle.’

It is an insurmountable legal hurdle though. You are going to have to make a good argument in favour of granting a single country a special ‘right to exist’ which does not feature in international law.

You don’t see Israeli “suicide bombers” rushing to Gaza or the West Bank. [...]’

George Galloway once noted that ‘when Ahmed Ben Bella, the leader of the Algerian revolution, was asked why he was placing bombs in baby carriages and leaving them in the soot to explode amongst the French forces and their collaborators, he answered, “if the French will give us some of their helicopters, some of their aeroplanes, we will give them our baby carriages.”’

I’ll assume you’re intelligent enough to get Ben Bella’s point.

Your argument is essentially: ‘the differing tactics used prove that the Pallies are bad in a way that the Israelis are not. Since the Arabs are criminals whilst the Israelis are not, these fictitious Israel crimes cannot be the cause of anti-Israeli feeling.’ Even if you fail to understand the reasons for differing tactics, your argument is still nonsensical.

Please [don't assume] that I am irrational enough to assume that a criticism of Israeli actions is anti-Semitism.’

Although you are rational enough to realise that to openly and unambiguously make such a declaration would make you look silly, you still do make such declarations in an ambiguous fashion. I return to your initial comment, in which you called us ‘self-hating Jews’ (i.e. Jewish anti-Semites) after reading our article which criticised a piece of Zionist propaganda.

If you don’t want people to think you deem criticism of Israel to be anti-Semitic, then refrain from reflexively defaming people critical of Israel. It is quite simple.

Note also that we are fully aware that you do accept some criticism of Israeli policy. We doubt, for example, that you would call someone a ‘self-hating Jew’ for arguing that taxes are too high or too low in Israel, or some other trivial point. However, we have witnessed you (and others) defaming us (and others) for making more far-reaching criticism relating to issues of sovereignty and the conflict with the Palestinians.

[S]pare me the straw men [...] please do point out the logical fallacies.’

There is no point attacking an argument that nobody makes. You need either to decide that people really do make the ‘you’re blaming the Jews for anti-Semitism’ argument (in which case, I can point out the fallacies in it), or to decide that it is a straw man (in which case, I can point out examples of Zionists making that argument). You get to choose.

And stop makiing categorical, simplistic (and innacurate) “anologies.”’ [sic]

You would need to point out some flaw in our analogies.

And you may be shocked to know that the average Palestinian adult (with responsibilities and family) feels quite similarly as do Israelis, regarding hostilities.’

It is hard to comment on this because you do not state what you believe these shared feelings are. If you are saying that they all wish the conflict were over, then we of course agree with them. This does not affect any of the issues we are discussing here.

You really should get around more.’

A gratuitous insult.

It is neither “safe to guess” nor accurate that I am an “enthusiastic supporter of Israel,” whatever that is supposed to mean. A good part of the Israeli government is corrupt to the core–but that doesn’t represent the Israeli people, any more than the Neocons represent the American people. (Check the polls.) And if “Zionists” have accused you, I can only suggest ignoring their “Zionism” and speak to the accusation. You might want to define Zionism, in passing. I don’t regard recognizing Israel’s right to exist an insurmountable mental hurdle.

You are quick to assume that Israeli actions “cause or intensify” the Militants on the Palestinian side. This is sloppy thinking. There’s a big difference between the two. You don’t see Israeli “suicide bombers” rushing to Gaza or the West Bank. You don’t see dancing in the streets of Tel Aviv after a military raid on terrorist strongholds. You don’t see Israelis moving portable rocket launchers up to the border in order to lob missles into areas that were previously occupied by Greenhouses (built by Israelis for Palestinians.)

Please spare me the straw men of “The Protocols of…(etc)” and Hitler, or assuming that I am irrational enough to assume that a criticism of Israeli actions is anti-Semitism.

Oh please do point out the logical fallacies–please do. And stop makiing categorical, simplistic (and innacurate) “anologies.” There is no comparison between the hatred of the Palestine militants and their actions on the one hand, and the Israeli military and their responses, in any way shape or form. And you may be shocked to know that the average Palestinian adult (with responsibilities and family) feels quite similarly as do Israelis, regarding hostilities.

You really should get around more.

‘I am really weary of self-hating Jews.’

No comment on this gratuitous insult.

‘The “anti-Arab” feelings among Israel[is] just might have some teeny relationship to the massive hatred from the Arab side for the past 60 years [...]’

Of course. We are well aware that racists always have their excuses. On the three occasions I have been attacked or robbed in the street, it was at the hands of ethnic minorities. I can imagine basing a generalisation upon that. However, we at Pro-reason are of the opinion that racism is racism, regardless of excuses.

We do, however, seek to comprehend these excuses and stimuli. Therefore, we are already aware of the facts that you note, and have already taken them fully into account.

Essentially, you are implying that Israeli racism is okay — or is even not racism — because it is justified. This is very interesting, because we have explored the same theme but from the other side. That is to say, we have examined anti-Jewish feelings amongst Arabs, and considered whether they are justified. Our conclusion is again twofold: (1) racism is racism, regardless of excuses; (2) the fact that such feelings are generated or intensified as a result of Israeli terrorism is something to be understood and taken into account.

It is probably safe to guess that you an enthusiastic supporter of Israel, i.e. a Zionist. It is worth noting that Zionists have previously accused us of ‘anti-Semitism’ for making the twofold conclusion detailed in the paragraph above. We imagine you would agree. The argument they make is that to recognise that Israeli actions cause or intensify anti-Jewish racism is to ‘blame the Jews for anti-Semitism’. Furthermore, they argue that ‘blaming the Jews’ in this manner is ‘anti-Semitic’ because it is typical of the sort of thing anti-Semites say. The examples given include stuff like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Hitler’s speeches.

Now, there are various logical fallacies that we could point out in that, but we shall restrict ourselves to pointing out the inconsistency (one might say hypocrisy) in, on one hand, demanding that we recognise that Jewish anti-Arab racism is provoked by Arab actions (and implying that such racism is therefore okay), and, on the other hand, declaring that it is ‘anti-Semitic’ to recognise that Arab anti-Jewish racism is provoked by Israeli actions.

We have noted such hypocrisy in many Zionists, and it would appear, based on your comments so far, that you probably agree with such people. That is unfortunate.

The “anti-Arab” feelings among Israel’s just might have some teeny relationship to the massive hatred from the Arab side for the past 60 years, indoctrination of hatred in the schools, matched only by suicide bombings on a regular basis, followed by celebrations in the street on the Palestinian side.

I suggest that the writer–and anyone else–go to Israel. Go to Palestine. Speak to people on both sides, and then see what you have to say.

— A certain person (person A) has a history of making comments of a certain type (type 1).
— Person A has made a certain comment (comment α).
— Ergo, comment α is an example of comments of type 1.

By your logic, since I (person A) have a history of making comments in Spanish (comments of type 1), then any comment that I make now (comment α), is necessarily in Spanish (comment α is an example of type 1). Since this is nonsensical and demonstrably false, your argument is falacious.

In simpler terms, your accusation of previous ‘anti-Semitic’ comments, as well as being libellous and not backed up by any attempt to provide proof, is utterly irrelevant to what is discussed in this article.

See also http://pro-reason.info/index.php/2006/04/09/livingstone-finegold/

I can only presume that you are referring to Livingstone’s clash with the Evening Standard. We plan to produce an article analysing that event also.