This man needs to be banged up

[EFLImpudence]

Plus of course, there could have been some Jewish people who were not Semitic who 'slipped under the radar'.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

the difference between Semitic and Jewish.

... there could have been some Jewish people who were not Semitic ...

Still waiting for any official modern-day use of the term Semitic to describe an existing ethnicity.
Yet here you are, still insisting on using an obsolete term.
Semitic people is an obsolete term and used to refer to descendants of Shem.

The anthropology of that era gave the name “Semitic” – from the Hebrew “Shem,” one of Noah’s sons​

Inaccuracy: Arabs who hate Jews cannot be labeled “anti-Semitic” because they themselves are Semites.
Response
The term anti-Semitism was formulated to refer specifically to the hatred of Jews. The term has never been used to refer to hatred against Arabs. Claims to the contrary are an effort to diminish the term’s potency or to seize ownership of it
https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheets/response-to-common-inaccuracy-arabs-cannot-be-anti-semitic
​

And now we have a potential motive for you persisting in your flawed argument.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Still waiting for any official modern-day use of the term Semitic to describe an existing ethnicity.

I cannot find any that do not refer to the origin a long time ago.

The term anti-Semitism was formulated to refer specifically to the hatred of Jews. The term has never been used to refer to hatred against Arabs.

It was 'formulated' so that they could immediately silence any criticism with accusations of racism.

Claims to the contrary are an effort to diminish the term’s potency or to seize ownership of it

No, they are to state that false seizure of ownership was the original reason for the choice of a word that means something else.

https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheets/response-to-common-inaccuracy-arabs-cannot-be-anti-semitic

I refer you to the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies.
http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/06/meijs_blackwell/
​

And now we have a potential motive for you persisting in your flawed argument.

What happened to your preference for logic?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I cannot find any that do not refer to the origin a long time ago.

Then why do you persist in using an obsolete term?
But thank you for your honesty. I recognise that.

​

It was 'formulated' so that they could immediately silence any criticism with accusations of racism.

It was formulated because there were various definitions of antisemitism, and 'they' thought that there was a need for a standard definition.
They being EUMC, IHRA, UK Parliament, and other organisations.
In fact the definitions were creeping to include criticism against the state of Israel, and perhaps 'they' thought there was a need to curtail that creep.

​

No, they are to state that false seizure of ownership was the original reason for the choice of a word that means something else.

Only in your opinion, in contrary to all notable organisations.

​

I refer you to the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies.
http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/06/meijs_blackwell/

Why would they say that?

​

What happened to your preference for logic?

I think your response to the comment above indicates your flawed argument.
You provided a link to a university document.
Why would they say whatever it is you think they said?
We know 'who' they are? They are Willem Meijs, Language Consultancy Desk, and Susan Blackwell, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Why do you refer to them as 'they'? What are you suggesting is ominous about the Language Consultancy Desk and Birmingham University?
And what are you referring to as 'that'? It's a long article. What are you referring to as 'that', specifically?

 

[transam]

I am with EFL on this caper

He makes a good point

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I am with EFL on this caper

He makes a good point

You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Why would they say that?

Oh dear. My comment refers to your link.
Then there is my link.

I should have left a blank line between them so that you could understand.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Oh dear. My comment refers to your link.
Then there is my link.

I should have left a blank line between them so that you could understand.

OK, but ADL are saying exactly the same as all the other sources that I have quoted, that antisemitism refers only to discrimination against Jews.
It's another notable organisation whose comments and definitions you are dismissing without argument, logic or reason.
And there are other incidences of Arabs being antisemitic:

Antisemitism in the Arab world increased greatly in the 20th century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world

In the past few years, anti-Semitism has once again become an issue. Jews and non-Jews alike claim that it is on the rise and the veracity of this assertion has by now become a bone of contention.1 This anti-Semitism is seen to exist not only in Europe but on a global scale, and for many, the main realm of a rampant and vicious anti-Semitism are the Arab world,
https://pij.org/articles/366/western-perceptions-of-antisemitism-in-arab-and-islamic-discourse​

 

[transam]

I am not convinced

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I am not convinced

You sure you don't mean certified?
or probably concerted?
Or contrived more likely?
Even castrated?

 

[Brigadier]

I too have been told by specialists that it is not degenerative. But I am experiencing more difficulty now than before, much more.

That's called "getting older".

 

[EFLImpudence]

OK, but ADL are saying exactly the same as all the other sources that I have quoted, that antisemitism refers only to discrimination against Jews.

Of course they are, they are a Jewish organisation.

"They would say that, wouldn't they?"

It's another notable organisation whose comments and definitions you are dismissing without argument, logic or reason.

On the contrary. Their views do not stand up to argument nor logic although obviously they do have their reason.

blah, blah, blah

You are only quoting Jewish organisations.

Here again are two Jews who disagree, whom you dismiss.
https://www.tikkun.org/who-gets-to-define-anti-semitism

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Of course they are, they are a Jewish organisation.

"They would say that, wouldn't they?"

I could accept your comment, accept that their definition mirrors other non-Jewish organisations' definitions.

On the contrary. Their views do not stand up to argument nor logic although obviously they do have their reason.

But you have provided no logical reason or argument to dismiss them, You have simply dismissed them without argument, logic or reason.

You are only quoting Jewish organisations.

Nonsense, unless you consider the University of Birmingham, Wikipedia, Language Consultancy Desk, and Palestine-Israel Journal to be Jewish organisations.

Here again are two Jews who disagree, whom you dismiss.
https://www.tikkun.org/who-gets-to-define-anti-semitism

You've used that source before, They pass themselves off as providing a media for radical new ideas, but they proffer old Victorian ideology. Ideology that you cling to despite it being the only source that you can find. A source that is the only modern day reference that uses Semitic as a description of an existing ethnicity.
So, yes, I dismiss it because it goes against the main and major modern-day thinking of the issue, and I have provided several arguments why i dismiss it, supported by numerous references.

 

[Bodd]

I got lost 2 pages back.... Yet I agree with EFL....

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I got lost 2 pages back.... Yet I agree with EFL....

Then maybe you should take his advice:

...You are allowed to think for yourself.