Is being anti-Israel unlawful? That goes to the heart of the push to redefine antisemitism to include criticism or rejection of the apartheid state which at present is conducting a genocide.
There has been a response to my statement by and a report about developments in
1 of 2
An error both have made is deeming I apologised for my post, which is not the case - I apologised for any distress and hurt it caused. There is a very big difference and I’m surprised The Australian failed in their comprehension of the statement.
Apologising for the post would be an admission I should not have posted the speech, and as such that I would not re offend, so to speak. That is not the case. Journalism cannot be tailored around not causing offence. In this case, the complainant sought legal redress for hurt feelings, which the law permits.
Alon Cassuto asserts Nasrallah’s speech was unlawful, and ‘echoing’ his call is unlawful, thus implying my post was unlawful. I disagree with both assertions.
Another error in his understanding of my statement is that I accepted the excerpt of Nasrallah’s speech ‘was antisemitic’. I in fact stated some of his comments ‘may be seen as’ antisemitic. That is contested, and here is why:
In the clip of the speech I posted Nasrallah did not call for all Jews to leave. He clearly called for dual passport holders to leave. This is an important distinction and goes to the heart of the Middle East conflict. He is objecting to the long term circumstances that have lead to the genocide - the push to drive Muslim Palestinians out through demographic engineering, with the mass expulsion of Palestinians born there (and rendered stateless), with no right of return, and dual citizenship for Jewish people born anywhere in the world (and, as we know, periodic massacres Israel refers to as ‘mowing the lawn’).
Furthermore, in Julian Assange’s half hour interview of Nasrallah some years ago, the Hezbollah leader articulates his vision for a just peace: one State, where Jews, Muslims and Christians ‘live in peace in a democratic state’ - live together with equal rights. Is that antisemitic? It is certainly anti- Israel. Is being anti-Israel unlawful? That goes to the heart of the push to redefine antisemitism to include criticism or rejection of the apartheid state which at present is conducting a genocide.
1 of 2
An error both have made is deeming I apologised for my post, which is not the case - I apologised for any distress and hurt it caused. There is a very big difference and I’m surprised The Australian failed in their comprehension of the statement.
Apologising for the post would be an admission I should not have posted the speech, and as such that I would not re offend, so to speak. That is not the case. Journalism cannot be tailored around not causing offence. In this case, the complainant sought legal redress for hurt feelings, which the law permits.
Alon Cassuto asserts Nasrallah’s speech was unlawful, and ‘echoing’ his call is unlawful, thus implying my post was unlawful. I disagree with both assertions.
Another error in his understanding of my statement is that I accepted the excerpt of Nasrallah’s speech ‘was antisemitic’. I in fact stated some of his comments ‘may be seen as’ antisemitic. That is contested, and here is why:
In the clip of the speech I posted Nasrallah did not call for all Jews to leave. He clearly called for dual passport holders to leave. This is an important distinction and goes to the heart of the Middle East conflict. He is objecting to the long term circumstances that have lead to the genocide - the push to drive Muslim Palestinians out through demographic engineering, with the mass expulsion of Palestinians born there (and rendered stateless), with no right of return, and dual citizenship for Jewish people born anywhere in the world (and, as we know, periodic massacres Israel refers to as ‘mowing the lawn’).
Furthermore, in Julian Assange’s half hour interview of Nasrallah some years ago, the Hezbollah leader articulates his vision for a just peace: one State, where Jews, Muslims and Christians ‘live in peace in a democratic state’ - live together with equal rights. Is that antisemitic? It is certainly anti- Israel. Is being anti-Israel unlawful? That goes to the heart of the push to redefine antisemitism to include criticism or rejection of the apartheid state which at present is conducting a genocide.
posted by Satish Sharma at
11:48
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home