Guardian

Defining Antisemitism: ‘Exiledlondoner’s’ Allegations


Exiledlondoner’ accuses us on CIF of adapting the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism to our purposes. On this site he accuses us of ‘doctoring’ and deliberately ‘altering’ the text of the Definition.

Let’s take a look at what he means. First the EUMC provides examples of antisemitism. We introduce these by:

The EUMC then goes on to cite specific examples of antisemitism including:

The text of the Definition includes them by:

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

We really do not see the difference. Recommendation 12 of the MacPherson Inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence said that the definition of a racist incident is:

“A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.

This definition is used by the police in the UK and accepted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The EUMC says “could … but not limited to” implying that the examples are definitely racist (though the final say is with the victim) – but there could be more. “Taking into account the overall context” is there to filter out possible examples where a Jew might not find racism. An example would be the supporters of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club who proudly call themselves ‘Yiddoes’ with no malicious intent (though on the other hand many Jews do find it offensive). Jews do not allege ‘antisemitism’ lightly and that is presumably why the ‘context’ phrase is in the EUMC text.

Now to the Israel-specific examples. We introduce these by:

Specifically with respect to Israel, taking into account the overall context, the EUMC gave the following examples:

The EUMC text says:

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

Precisely the same comments with regard to the ‘context’ word apply as already explained. Jews do not allege ‘antisemitism’ lightly and that is presumably why the ‘context’ phrase is in the EUMC text.  But as Macpherson said in Recommendation 12: It is the right of the victim of racism to judge offence.

So our phrasing – which was done purely for ease of comprehension – makes no difference whatever to the substance of the Definition. (Apart from anything else, if we were trying to be mendacious as ‘Exiledlondoner’ suggests, why would we link to the actual Definition?)

“Exiledlondoner’s” allegations are blatant diversionary tactics, no doubt learned on CIF, where (as we all know from bitter experience) pro-Israel posters are constantly given the run around.

Categories: Guardian

Tagged as: , ,

46 replies »

  1. Do you think he’ll come back and apologise ? If he does can he be bothered clarifying which CIF posters he thinks this site defamed and why ? Which posts in the contributors slot he agrees are anti semitic ?

  2. “So our phrasing – which was done purely for ease of comprehension – makes no difference whatever to the substance of the Definition.”

    So you changed the words purely to make them understandable?

    Shame you didn’t understand them…. From the original text – “could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:”

    You say – “The EUMC says “could … but not limited to” implying that the examples are definitely racist (though the final say is with the victim) – but there could be more.”

    “Could, taking into account the overall context, include” clearly qualifies “could” – if it meant “definitely is”, then the context would be immaterial, and wouldn’t need taking into account. If your interpretation was correct, then “does, but not limited to” would be used – if “could” is used with a qualifier, it automatically presumes the existance of “might not”.

    None of which explains why you changed the text. A definition is a definition – what you are using is not the EUMC definition, but the CIF Watch one.

    I can think of only one purpose for the change – to widen the possiblity of making accusations of anti-semitism, while still claiming to be using the EUMC working definition. Law students would be censured for such behaviour.

  3. Mischa,

    “Do you think he’ll come back and apologise ?”

    Don’t hold your breath.

    “If he does can he be bothered clarifying which CIF posters he thinks this site defamed and why ?”

    No. As all have been branded anti-semitic through intentionally flawed methodology, my main interest is showing the methodology for what it is – the dressing up of smears and vindictive score-settling as a soundly based review.

    “Which posts in the contributors slot he agrees are anti semitic ?”

    Once we establish (CIF Watch accepts…) what’s anti-semitic according to the EUMC working definition, then we can move on to specific cases.

  4. Exiled

    You are just digging yourself deeper.

    The word ‘could’ cannot mean ‘might or on the other hand might not’ since it is followed by the reinfrcing phrase ‘not limited to’.

    And if we wanted to ‘widen’, why would we link to the Definition itself?

    The horse that you are flogging is so dead that nothing is left of it bar the skeleton.

  5. Exiledlondoner

    “None of which explains why you changed the text. A definition is a definition – what you are using is not the EUMC definition, but the CIF Watch one.”

    We never reproduced the text in full and never present it as that; instead we linked to it. The portions of the definition on the site that you spuriously claim we changed were paraphrases that retained the substance of the definition. As Louise points out this was done purely for ease of comprehension.

  6. Louise,

    The final phrase is “include ,but are not limited to…..”

    If you are genuinely unaware of the structure of the sentence, I would suggest that you get some professional advice – any competent lawyer would do (though they might tell you to stop messing around with the text).

    For what it’s worth, the phrase is broken down as follows….

    could (may), taking into account the overall context (qualifier for “could”), include, but are not limited to (but there are other examples).

    The definition hinges on the context, but is not limited to the list that follows. If you doubt that, then explain why “taking into account the overall context” has been included? Your definition leaves no room for the context to absolve anyone, while the EUMC specifically does.

  7. Exiled

    FFS …. I DID explain why “taking into account the overall context” is there: see my text about Tottenham Hotspur and ‘Yiddoes’.

    Enough already! Please.

  8. Hawkeye,

    “We never reproduced the text in full…..”

    I had noticed

    “…..and never present it as that; instead we linked to it.”

    You headed it “According to the EUMC”. Why would anyone follow the link?

    “paraphrases that retained the substance of the definition.”

    Except they clearly don’t – you’ve removed all of the EUMC caveats and qualifications.

    “As Louise points out this was done purely for ease of comprehension.”

    I think most readers would have made a better stab at comprehending the text than you have. Your “paraphrase” is nothing of the sort – it’s a redraft that changes the meaning of everything that follows.

    Why don’t you just put back the original text, then we can argue about what’s actually anti-semitic?

    I’m not a fan of the EUMC working definition, but I have no problem with you using it – so long as the standard you are working to is clearly understood, and can be challenged on that basis.

  9. Louise,

    “FFS …. I DID explain why “taking into account the overall context” is there: see my text about Tottenham Hotspur and ‘Yiddoes’.”

    FFS?

    So there might be other examples?

    The problem is you conflate MacPherson’s definition of what the British police should treat as a racist incident, with the EUMC working definition of anti-semitism, and you come up with – “Taking into account the overall context” is there to filter out possible examples where a Jew might not find racism.

    The EUMC does not say this – it does not exclude or ring fence the weighing of the context to any specific group.

    You have simply taken two unrelated documents, and imposed one on the other. The most you could say is that if the British police were to adopt the EUMC definition, then they may well record and investigate (but not prosecute) accusations of anti-semitism on that basis.

  10. Let’s move on

    If you were asked by the EU (or the US for that matter) to write a Definition of Antisemitism, what would it be?

  11. Louise,

    “Let’s move on”

    Not until we get somewhere with this.

    “If you were asked by the EU (or the US for that matter) to write a Definition of Antisemitism, what would it be?”

    Something more concise, and less bedevilled by caveats – the EUMC version has, as I expected, become a smearer’s charter.

    Any action, words or other behaviour, motivated by hatred of Jews as a people.

    I can’t see what that should cover that it doesn’t.

  12. Exiled – 12:56pm

    You are being vexacious and deliberately obscurantist and I have nothing more to add.

  13. exiledlondoner

    You are engaged here in some talmudic hairsplitting. (Aren’t you a Jew incidentally with rabbinic ancestry?) The EUMC definition of antisemitism and its version presented here are substantially identical.

    Anyway I am not really interested in some kind of definition at all, even I’m not sure that this blog should call these people on the list antisemites. For me all persons who are denying the right of Israel to define itself as the national home of the Jewish people, are poisoning the debate with totally unfounded accusations as facts on Israel and the Israelis, calling Israel a Nazi and racist entity, denying the the Arabs’ and the Palestinians’ role in the present situation, demanding some kind of saintly behavior from the Israelis, denying their right to self defense and to protecting their soldiers life with modern military technology even expecting to protect the life of enemy combattants and civilians more than their own, ranting about international Israeli lobby, smearing their opponents as paid agents of some shadowy organizations, inciting to violence against Israel are Jew haters irrespectively of their own incidental Jewishness, the number of their Jewish friends and their appreciation of “good” Jews like Lerman, Silverstein, Freedman et al.

    In according to my knowledge of the names on these lists (I’m not familiar with every one of them) if you accept my definition of Jew haters all of them are guilty as charged.

  14. Louise,

    “You are being vexacious and deliberately obscurantist and I have nothing more to add.”

    If the EUMC had a definition for “vexacious and deliberately obscurantist” I think it might be something like – “refuses to be deflected from the point”…

  15. Hi Peter,

    “You are engaged here in some talmudic hairsplitting. (Aren’t you a Jew incidentally with rabbinic ancestry?) The EUMC definition of antisemitism and its version presented here are substantially identical.”

    Talmudic hairsplitting and debating meanings have a lot in common – if they can’t find a lawyer, a rabbi might do just as well.

    The problem is that they are not “substantially identical” – if they were, there would have been no reason to change it. The CIF Watch definition removes all context and caveats from the original, and is therefore far wider, and far more open to abuse.

    “In according to my knowledge of the names on these lists (I’m not familiar with every one of them) if you accept my definition of Jew haters all of them are guilty as charged.”

    Well your definition is a shopping list, with no account taken of context or motivation – so no, I don’t accept it.

  16. Then why don’t you explain within the definition and spirit of the EUMC identify in your opinion, which posts ARE antisemitic – that’s to exiledlondonor.

  17. Mischa,

    “Then why don’t you explain within the definition and spirit of the EUMC identify in your opinion, which posts ARE antisemitic – that’s to exiledlondonor.”

    Because I’ve got no intention to be deflected from the purpose of my original complaint, and the purpose of the thread. The issue isn’t what I consider to be anti-semitic, it’s CIF Watch’s re-writing of the EUMC definition.

    Of course if you’d like to do so, be my guest.

  18. exiledlondoner

    “The problem is that they are not “substantially identical””

    Then let us agree that we disagree. I have no rabbinical ancestry (as far as I know) so I won’t continue discuss the subject.

    Regarding the items on my “shoppinglist” they need no context or motivation, everyone of them stands without them. If you don’t accept them – tough luck, this is my opinion and it won’t be changed, abandoned or modified by the acceptance or nonacceptance by anybody.

  19. Peter,

    That’s fine – you’ve set out your stall, and are honest about it.

    I disagree, but that isn’t the first time, and doesn’t stop us talking.

  20. talmudic hairsplitting is the right idea but not an accurate description.
    exiled revels in pilpul, often referred to as bilbul.

    This is a most common characteristic shown regularly on CiF, narrowing the scope to such a point that it no longer is relevent to the discussion.

    Rather than deal with the point, which is anti-semitism, he prefers pedantry and boring repetition of “points” to satisfy some inner need to win something or another not realizing his steady loss of credibility.

    pilpul, a steady drone of pipul is what exiled presents.

  21. Why do you accuse me of trying to deflect you, to the contrary, I want you to answer a question you seem to have some knowledge of. You said yourself, once you got somewhere, you’d go through specific cases. You said some posts were anti semitic now you don’t want to identify them or explain why they are. Pointless following your argument if after all that you decide not to do what you say you will. If you feel queazy pointing out what is anti semitic instead of what isn’t, why talk about the posts that you agree are anti semitic. Pointless.
    Good evening.

  22. modernity, it seems to me that he has given his definition of antisemitism:

    “Any action, words or other behaviour, motivated by hatred of Jews as a people.”

    That “motivated” puts his “definition” in a very murky area!

    It seems to me that Sharansky’s 3Ds are very easy to grasp. They relate to certain expressed or implicit attitudes to Israel as a manifestation of Jew-hatred. peterthehungarian has covered them very well above. They are: demonisation, double standards and delegitimisation.

    All we have or anyone has to judge by is what we see or hear or read. Not what intent might fester within the person who produces the objectionable material.

    Could that be why exiledlondoner would like a focus not on the matter but on the man?

    It works of course to some extent over time when, say, a deceitful “historian” is repeatedly exposed as the antisemite he is. We can then assess the value of the man as historian.

    But I haven’t noticed any antisemites applying that kind of modest test to the false historians!

  23. “…You headed it “According to the EUMC”. Why would anyone follow the link?..”

    Well why not? You did.

    And I am with Mischa. Put your money where your mouth is. You have said that you have seen antisemitic posts on CiF regularly. Come here and tell us which CiF commenters you think this site has defamed and give us some examples of posts which are antisemitic which you failed to challenge out of (what?) fairness.

    You conveniently fail to tell us though that any challenge to CiF antisemitism is deleted and the the posters often banned.

    And I don’t see you challenging CiF antisemitism much either. If I am wrong post some of your comments here.

  24. I just noticed modernity’s post.

    You are in a real knicker-twist about the EUMC definition aren’t you, Londoner?

    And you say elsewhere that there are regular instances of antisemitism on CiF which means you must be able to recognise it.

    That being so, give us your definition of antisemitism exiledlondoner if you think you can interest us.

    If not then you have little to add to this discussion.

  25. I had my ‘posting rights’ withdrawn by CiF recently after a heated spat on the subject of bullfighting (basically, the torture of a captive animal) with a Guardian contributor who goes by the pseudonym of ‘BeatonTheDonis’ (just by coincidence, he’s on your watch list). I have posted comments on a myriad of different subjects, including Israel-Palestine – so I know the site pretty well.

    I have to say, there is a load of offensive stuff posted on ALL topics, (animal welfare threads are probably the worst) with some users generally mouthing off whatever crap they can get away with. But I also have to say this: there are frequent ‘boy who cried wolf’ calls of anti-semitism – to the point of demeaning the term, from the most ardent of Israel supporters at any critic of Israel. Furthermore, Jews who criticise Israel (particularly Jewish contributors) are regularly the subject of abuse – and sometimes it gets very nasty indeed — ‘court Jew’, ‘Auschwitz kapo’, ‘house-nigger’ and so on and so forth.

    So — I think we need to open up our focus, broaden our perspective here just a wee bit — and perhaps try to be a little less heated. ExiledLondoner has been outspoken on what he see as deliberate altering of the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism (I have NO view on this at all) — and to put his case he has responded to ALL comers here. He has been met with aggression, rudeness and outright hostility by many users — which is certainly not where it’s at, now is it?

    Louise — you’re one of the directors of this website — do you really feel it necessary (or professional) to approach a discussion with:

    “Exiled

    FFS …. I DID explain why “taking into account the overall context” is there: see my text about Tottenham Hotspur and ‘Yiddoes’.

    Enough already! Please”

    I can’t see CiF’s Matt Seaton coming onto a thread in that way…

  26. “I know the site [CIF] pretty well”.

    Judging by your adeptness in twisting around what has previously been written on this thread, no-one could possibly disagree with you there.

  27. @theinternetismygod,

    too late to pick you up on some of the issues you sure up. But about exiled, I don’t think everyone has been rude to him, I also find his off the cuff a bit too brittle at time. On cif he can certainly give it, but is sensitive when he gets it. He does have a tendency to get in a strop and take his cricket bat home!
    He set out his argument but then folded when pushed by Mischa to expand, and who I don’t honestly think anyone can accuse of being in any way rude. hope there will be open debate here – with no selective-mods or groups gaming certain posters it could be interesting…. if we all relax a bit – but I hope exiled will accept that posts he might not like will not simply disapear (or at least, I hope not) I hope, it’s gonna be a level playing field, same rules apply to everyone, regardless. Who knows, might all learn something.

    “I can’t see CiF’s Matt Seaton coming onto a thread in that way…”

    True….Georgina on the other hand !!

  28. Whatever exiledlondoner’s thoughts are on this issue, and I must agree more with peterthehungarian that anti-Semitism is masked on CIF by hiding behind the vilest comments about Israel and Israel’s with a not too subtle implication often that this includes all Jews, what is interesting and positive IMO is that it can be debated here.

    Experience shows that on the Guardian website it would be picked to death, slanted to the party line, and made incomprehensible by the moderators. Despite the heat of the debate here, it seems to be within the bounds of reasonable politeness from both sides.

    The may turn out to be the one forum where those who have followed the Guardian’s sickening descent into cheap Israel-bashing probably to raise its click rate on the Internet can actually debate the issue fully.

  29. Ariadne,

    “That “motivated” puts his “definition” in a very murky area!”

    You’re absolutely correct – it is a murky area. There is no clean scientific way to identify human belief or behaviour.

    This is recognised in the EUMC definition (though not the CIF Watch version), in which examples of possible/probable anti-semitism are attached to caveats about context.

    In the end, “definition” is the wrong word – what they’ve sought to do is to create a test for measuring comments and actions against. Like any such test, the purpose should be to identify as many genuine cases as possible, without too many false positives.

    My issue with the EUMC definition isn’t that it necessarily, in itself, will damn the innocent, but that it is far too easy for those with an agenda to take its examples, and conveniently ignore the caveats about context.

    I’ve written on this subject many times over the years, and have described in some detail what the unintended (?) consequences would be – CIF Watch encapsulates all of my concerns (in fact, in re-writing the definition, they’ve gone further than I expected), which is why I’m so interested.

  30. Arran,

    “Well why not? You did.” (follow the EUMC link).

    No I didn’t – I didn’t know there was a link until Hawkeye pointed it out. I saw the CIF Watch definition, noticed unfamiliar wording, and googled the PDF original from the EUMC.

    “And I am with Mischa. Put your money where your mouth is.”

    On what basis? To what standard?

    Sure, there’s a debate about what is and isn’t anti-semitic, but without an agreement on the unit of measurement, it is just opinion. I called Khondakar yesterday on a post, but I didn’t do it on the basis of the EUMC or even my definition – I did it because I thought it was anti-semitic.

    “You conveniently fail to tell us though that any challenge to CiF antisemitism is deleted and the the posters often banned.”

    Firstly, the challenge will normally be deleted with the original comment (personally, I think both should stand). Secondly, I don’t believe that anyone has been banned for calmly highlighting anti-semitic posts. Who are these banned posters?

    “You are in a real knicker-twist about the EUMC definition aren’t you, Londoner?”

    Well, if you don’t think it’s important……

    “If not then you have little to add to this discussion.”

    As I’m the named subject of this discussion, that would seem a little silly.

  31. Blue,

    “On cif he can certainly give it, but is sensitive when he gets it. He does have a tendency to get in a strop and take his cricket bat home!”

    You’re perfectly entitled to your opinion, however, I can’t see how anyone could say that I’ve been in a strop here, and I haven’t gone (with or without my cricket bat).

    “but I hope exiled will accept that posts he might not like will not simply disapear”

    On the contrary – I sincerely hope that they all remain for posterity. Have you actually been reading?

  32. You were nitpicking.

    And you should put your money where your mouth is as regards what does or doesn’t constitute antisemitism. You have a right to your opinions, but your criticisms are worthless unless you can come up with a better definition.

    A series of operational definitions from you might be a start. You say you challlenge antisemitism and other hatreds “regularly” on CiF. What are you challenging? As has been asked from you before, please send copies of the posts you have challenged and copies of your replies.

    My posts were calm and reasoned. I always tried to argue cogently and politely but I am pro-Israel and would call out antisemitism on CiF. Often my complaints would be ignored. It was only after I went one up and complained formally to the mods when one of my uncontentious posts was removed that I was banned.

    Again, how exactly did YOU challenge antisemitism/racism that you are still allowed to post there? Share your secrets with those who come here who may still be allowed to post. Give them some examples and advice as to how they can best complain about posts since you are obviously successful at it. In that way you can even the odds against those who support Israel and call out anti-Jewish racism on CiF and make CiF into the honestly level playing field it thinks it is.

  33. Can I broaden my request to exiledlondoner to anyone who looks in or posts to CiFWatch?

    I for one would like to hear your definitions of what constitutes antisemitism/anti-Jewish racism in general and not only on CiF.

    Thanks

  34. @exiled

    “On the contrary – I sincerely hope that they all remain for posterity. Have you actually been reading?”

    Yes, I have and with much interest but within time constraints. I have no problem with anything I’ve written standing for as long as time nor, though quick and not particularly substantive so far, being tested by any authority.

    WRT The authors behind posts deleted after having been published by cif – these should not think they are free of legal or criminal redress where appropriate. They should not be too comfortable that i.e. libel suit would be pointless because of their lack off assets – there are, I am given to understand, other avenues. Those authors are still responsible for any incitement, harassment and libel, etc. of others. OK, moving on

    You wrote: “Once we establish (CIF Watch accepts…) what’s anti-Semitic according to the EUMC working definition, then we can move on to specific cases.”

    When would you like to move on to these specific cases which you have mentioned ? I hope Mischa is incorrect and that you have not come over at all queasy at the thought of actually pointing out the posts in the contributors bio’s, which you agreed you would, which are antisemitic, and which you have already agreed exist. As you earlier promised, will you identify, in your opinion a) posts antisemitic according to the eumc. b) which you personally would accept as antisemitic…or not ?

    You enjoy being adversarial which I don’t have a problem with – but what I’m interested in, at least here, is a working definition that will actually work and the rebuilding of trust wherever possible. I would think the first step is to identify problem areas. Take it away, exiled…..

  35. Blue,

    What you’re asking me to do in effect is to trawl through CIFWatch’s archives, and declare posters to be anti-semitic on the basis of individual posts – without knowing whether the posts are faithfully reproduced, without reading the threads, and without any context.

    Sorry, but that’s CIFWatch’s game, not mine. If anyone wants to know my history, there’s a shed load of it on CIF – my views, my challenges, my temper tantrums and my quieter moments. I post my opinions – I don’t do requests.

    It seems that everyone wants me to wade through the CIFWatch archives, and endorse where they’ve got it right – what will they do if I think they’ve got it wrong? Remove the accusation?

    Yet nobody thinks that they ought to do the same with my posts before accusing me off all sorts of acts and ommissions – I would guess that if they had found anything, it would already be in their rogue’s gallery.

    Just to remind you, my complaint is about the way they’ve changed the EUMC working definition in order to make more accusations – those accusations are the symptom, not the cause. Put that right, and then honestly hold up posts to the real definition, and there shouldn’t be a problem, should there?

  36. exiled, are you saying that you think that CiF’s archives may not be faithful reproductions of the originals? That is quite an assertion, isn’t it?

    And pray what “context” do you think might excuse an antisemitic remark?

    I believe that the request made of you was a fair one – to put up or shut up. You’ve spent most of the time trying to weasel out of putting up by nitpicking. There is only one alternative left to you unless you have other information for us here.

    All your teeth-gnashing about the EUMC has been asked and answered.

    And yet you yourself, having tried and failed to undermine the EUMC definition, refuse to come here and tell us what you think constitutes antisemitsm or what would be a better definition.

  37. @exiledlondoner

    “Blue, What you’re asking me to do in effect is to trawl through CIFWatch’s archives, and declare posters to be anti-semitic on the basis of individual posts – without knowing whether the posts are faithfully reproduced, without reading the threads, and without any context.”

    No, I’m not, I’m asking you to do exactly what you said you would do. This would not declare posters antisemitic but the content of certain posts antisemitic.

    “Sorry, but that’s CIFWatch’s game, not mine. If anyone wants to know my history, there’s a shed load of it on CIF – my views, my challenges, my temper tantrums and my quieter moments. I post my opinions – I don’t do requests.”

    I’m no more associated with this site than you, exiled. I already know your “history” hence my own post here: http://cifwatch.com/2009/08/27/the-company-they-keep/ at August 28, 2009 at 7:32 pm in which I should probably not have called you a twat (apologies) when, wind up merchant, would have been more appropriate.

    “It seems that everyone wants me to wade through the CIFWatch archives, and endorse where they’ve got it right – what will they do if I think they’ve got it wrong? Remove the accusation?”

    You stated that antisemitic posts existed in CifWatch’s bio section, I take it you did check this before making such an anouncement? Because of what you did write and because I agree with you in so far as the eumc is concerned (and of which you seem to have some understanding) I was interested to know which posts you were referring to as antisemitc in the CifWatch bio section. If you do feel “queasy” about identifying antisemitsm then you shouldn’t have mentioned it in the first place. As for endorsing this site – by posting here some will say we are both endorsing the site ? In regard to my posts, you’re looking for/assuming traps which do not exist except in your head! which is pretty ironic given what I’ve already posted on this site. What a shame. If you do not want to identify antisemitism which you actually agreed existed within the bio section, exiled, you should keep quiet about it.

    “Yet nobody thinks that they ought to do the same with my posts before accusing me off all sorts of acts and ommissions – I would guess that if they had found anything, it would already be in their rogue’s gallery.”

    I’ve already responded to and disproven this, should you follow the links I have provided, you will see this isn’t true. Who knows, you might even apologise. Then again…

    “Just to remind you, my complaint is about the way they’ve changed the EUMC working definition in order to make more accusations – those accusations are the symptom, not the cause. Put that right, and then honestly hold up posts to the real definition, and there shouldn’t be a problem, should there?”

    I refer you to earlier responses. a) I am NOT associated with this site and b) I merely asked you, with some knowledge of the working definition in question and in view of your earlier assertions wrt posts you agreed were antisemitic, to point them out with brief explanation for further clarity. I would have thought this was pivotol to the debate and added further clarity – You respond to me by backstepping on the basis of thinly veiled insults of (my) trying to trap you, exiled. Take two and lie down, honey, when you see this many conspiracies you’re in danger of falling over. It makes further interaction with you a complete waste of my time.
    Adieu.

  38. Blue,

    “No, I’m not, I’m asking you to do exactly what you said you would do. This would not declare posters antisemitic but the content of certain posts antisemitic.”

    What I said I would do was compare posts to an agreed standard – the last time I looked (10 seconds ago), CIF Watch are still using their own standard.

    “I’m no more associated with this site than you, exiled.”

    Did anyone say you were?

    “I already know your “history” hence my own post here
    :http://cifwatch.com/2009/08/27/the-company-they-keep/ at August 28, 2009 at 7:32 pm in which I should probably not have called you a twat (apologies) when, wind up merchant, would have been more appropriate.”

    So if you know my posting history, you don’t need to ask, do you?

    “You stated that antisemitic posts existed in CifWatch’s bio section, I take it you did check this before making such an anouncement?”

    I did.

    “If you do feel “queasy” about identifying antisemitsm then you shouldn’t have mentioned it in the first place.”

    I don’t – I do so when I feel it is needed, not in response to demands.

    “I’ve already responded to and disproven this, should you follow the links I have provided, you will see this isn’t true. Who knows, you might even apologise. Then again…”

    Either you are well versed as to what I’ve written, in which case you’re merely deflecting, or you’re not, in which case I was right (though the comment wasn’t aimed at you personally).

    The first rule of deflection is to set up hoops for people to jump through – once they start, they can’t stop.

    “I would have thought this was pivotol to the debate and added further clarity”

    Which debate? The thread debate (the altering of the definition), or the debate about how to change the subject?

    “You respond to me by backstepping on the basis of thinly veiled insults of (my) trying to trap you, exiled.”

    Did I? I’m not sure I credited you with that much intelligence?

    “Take two and lie down, honey, when you see this many conspiracies you’re in danger of falling over. It makes further interaction with you a complete waste of my time.”

    Further interaction? Do more than three posts give you a nosebleed?

    BTW, you never did mention your CIF username.

  39. Raya,

    “exiled, are you saying that you think that CiF’s archives may not be faithful reproductions of the originals? That is quite an assertion, isn’t it?”

    Where did I say that?

    “And pray what “context” do you think might excuse an antisemitic remark?”

    CIF Watch doesn’t claim that all the remarks are, in themselves, anti-semitic – it claims that “when viewed in their aggregate they evince disturbing antisemitic sentiment”. You seem to believe that context can only convict, not absolve?

    “I believe that the request made of you was a fair one – to put up or shut up. You’ve spent most of the time trying to weasel out of putting up by nitpicking.”

    Then you should feel very pleased with yourself! Meanwhile I remain on topic.

    “There is only one alternative left to you unless you have other information for us here.”

    Roll a spliff? Top myself? Take my clothes off?

    “All your teeth-gnashing about the EUMC has been asked and answered.”

    Has it? I must have missed it! I wonder if they retain copyright on it?

    “And yet you yourself, having tried and failed to undermine the EUMC definition……..”

    Which one? The real one or the fake one?

    “….refuse to come here and tell us what you think constitutes antisemitsm or what would be a better definition.”

    Read the thread again. It’s near the top somewhere…..

  40. @exiledlondoner

    I’ve dealt with most of the regurgitated nonsense in this post already – However….

    “I’m no more associated with this site than you, exiled.” – “Did anyone say you were?”

    Not in so many words.

    “So if you know my posting history, you don’t need to ask, do you?”

    I Don’t don’t need to ask what ?! What did I ask ?!

    “You stated that antisemitic posts existed in CifWatch’s bio section, I take it you did check this before making such an anouncement?” – “I did.”

    I know.

    “If you do feel “queasy” about identifying antisemitsm then you shouldn’t have mentioned it in the first place.” – “I don’t – I do so when I feel it is needed, not in response to demands.”

    We covered this one already…moving on….

    “Either you are well versed as to what I’ve written, in which case you’re merely deflecting, or you’re not, in which case I was right (though the comment wasn’t aimed at you personally).”

    I’ve read enough of your posts to be confidently defend you against charges of antisemitism IMO, I don’t understand why you are touchy about identifying antisemitic posts which you’ve already agreed, exist.

    I have a feeling I’m going to regret asking, but anyway: Who am I deflecting from what and why ? And about what were you right about (me) even though initially you didn’t mean me, but in hindsight, now you do ….??

    “The first rule of deflection is to set up hoops for people to jump through – once they start, they can’t stop.”

    And what else am I doing apart from trying to entice you through hoops…do I eat fire…a bit of trapeze perchance. The drugs don’t work do they, my sweet. Either that, or you’re seriously on the wrong kind of blog…..

    “Which debate? The thread debate (the altering of the definition), or the debate about how to change the subject?”

    The one I was trying to have with you (in good faith) in between being accused of deflecting on behalf of a site I’m not involved with, but lets not go there again…

    “Did I? I’m not sure I credited you with that much intelligence?”

    As I was saying…..

    “Further interaction? Do more than three posts give you a nosebleed?”

    No, but on reflection they / you have been an enormous waste of my time.

    “BTW, you never did mention your CIF username.”

    Well, you never asked.

    Bi

  41. @Raya

    You’re not going to get a straight answer out of exiled. Instead of him explaining for the benefit of all – i.e. By changing the text of the working definition in question, sample A is wrongly classed at antisemitic when sample B would be classed as antisemitic within the definition of the eumc.

    This despite earlier saying that Hate Speech should be allowed to stand and challenged. Well, he seems to be shy of challenging the same hate speech which he has actually said exists in this sites Bio section. And any request that he expands is met with insults and accusations.
    In short, a waste of time unless one actually enjoys being insulted …and soooo badly!
    Enjoy the rest of the week end, y’all.

  42. Blue
    you had ExiledLondoner on the ropes a while back, he cleared up any doubt when he reverted to argumentum ad hominem.
    Nicely done.

  43. This is why pilpul (bilbul) is frowned upon. it always amounts to much ado about nothing, when you arrive at a “conclusion” you realize there was nothing to debate in the first place.
    Its a regular baiting game of exiled. Truth and Facts are unimportant, how to dress them up is.

  44. 1peter, agree with you about pilpul.

    I believe that exiled is like an old 78 stuck in a groove. “Debating” with him is a lot like pulling wisdom teeth with tweezers.

    His is probably a deliberately constructed way of being, predicated on passive aggression, which goes something like this:

    “The EUMC definition is all wrong or deliberately altered” (or a variation one that theme)
    “Well, if you think so, give us a better one, with examples”
    Of course, he can’t but he persists:
    “But the EUMC definition is all wrong…”
    “You’ve been asked to supply a better one. Where is it then?” (Of course he can’t, so he:
    Wiffles and waffles and (here we go again) ” .. but the EUMC definition is all wrong….”

    And then we should all join in the chorus:

    #There’s a hole in my bucket dear Liza, dear Liza….#

  45. Hi Blue,

    Nice to see you holding my end up for me while I was otherwise engaged.

    “You’re not going to get a straight answer out of exiled.”

    Straight answer being the answer you want me to give?

    “Instead of him explaining for the benefit of all – i.e. By changing the text of the working definition in question, sample A is wrongly classed at antisemitic when sample B would be classed as antisemitic within the definition of the eumc.”

    To do that I would first have to accept that CIF Watch have honestly applied their own twisted criteria, which they haven’t. They’ve added another entirely subjective, and unmeasurable, catch-all –

    “Although some of the posts when viewed individually may not necessarily be antisemitic per se, when viewed in their aggregate they evince disturbing antisemitic sentiment.”

    “This despite earlier saying that Hate Speech should be allowed to stand and challenged. Well, he seems to be shy of challenging the same hate speech which he has actually said exists in this sites Bio section.”

    You’re getting rather repetative – I refer you to the answers I made previously….

    “And any request that he expands is met with insults and accusations.”

    Coming from someone who has called me a twat, among other things, I can only assume that this is an attempt at self-depreciating irony? It’s either that, or a disturbing lack of self-awareness…

    “In short, a waste of time unless one actually enjoys being insulted …and soooo badly!”

    I suspect that you’ll be back to waste some more time….