To: JohnM who wrote (73555 ) 2/13/2003 11:54:19 AM From: Nadine Carroll Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500 The problem with calling a piece, the Hermann piece, which offers harsh criticisms of the Israeli government as anti-semitic is the term loses all serious meaning John, Herman repeatedly called the policies of the Zionists and the State of Israel for the last hundred years - not just the current government - "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing", thus depriving those words of all serious meaning. As I pointed out, one can reliably say that a people suffering genocide or ethnic cleansing decrease in numbers; the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza have more than tripled in number since 1967. I do not include "criticism of the Israeli government" as anti-Semitism. But I do include Zionism=racism=colonialism=Nazism as anti-Semitic; what is it but another way of saying that nationalism is a good thing for other people but the Jews don't deserve any? The third category I object to (which included some of scott's more recent posts) is the Perle-Feith-Wolfowitz-are-members-of-the-World-Zionist-Conspiracy. They are working for Israel, not the US. The Jews are behind it all. This is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion tricked out in a new suit. Did you notice that hyper-dove Rabbi Lerner (certainly no friend to the Sharon government) has been banned from speaking at the next anti-war rallies by ANSWER as a "pro-Israel" speaker? Meaning that Rabbi Lerner favors a two-state solution; he is pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. ANSWER favors a one-state solution: no Israel. Above all, I consider the idea that Israel, out of all the countries in the world, uniquely deserves to be wiped off the map, anti-Semitic.