"First they came for the Jews" and we did nothing. then they came for us. That is one reason why this is important

Please give examples of criticism of Israel that is not deemed anti semitic. Please explain how as an atheist I am less Jewish than someone for whom "there can be no separation between religion and the sense of identity with a people." Is the right of return for all Jews inviolable, including those discovered by the Israeli police to have indulged in Nazi activities after emigrating to Israel? Please explain how a two state solution (which I support) will deal with the anomaly of around a million non-Jewish citizens in a state that has a "Jewish character." Please explain how "the most moral army in the world" can murder a stone throwing 10 year old boy with live fire one day and a 17/8 year old youth with rubber bullets the next. Thank you.

In some ways the article points to uncomfortable truths, but in more important ways it's disingenuous (for instance even if he's right about Hamas, the threat to the two-state solution comes at least as much from settlers in the West Bank, the building around Jerusalem, and similar activities). Where I agree with Brichto, although I disagree with the interpretation he places on it has to do with *tone*, which often does bother me very greatly. I'm a founder member of ICAHD UK, and signatory of the Statement of Jews for Justice for Palestinians, and I spent 10 days looking at life for Palestinians in what I hope I'm allowed to call the occupied territories. I think it is true that with regard to a disconcerting number of campaigners on behalf of Palestinians, Jews and non-Jews, there is a certain tone of voice, or in writing, of style, that is not used in any discussion of the wrongdoing of other states or governments (when these are discussed, which is not so in every case). I've spent the past few years trying to understand why this should be so in terms that avoid making attributions of antisemitism. I acknowledge that it is often hard to do so. But when I consider the motivation of those fellow Jews known personally to me, who campaign, as do I, for justice for Palestinians, what I see is a deep revulsion from, for example, what the intellectual and activist Jeff Halper has recently referred to as the *cruelty* of much Israeli behaviour towards ordinary Palestinian people (the house demolitions in the absence of any terrorist threat, the checkpoint humiliations, the way the separation wall destroys the lives and livelihoods of farmers, and so on). What I do *not* see in the people known to me (I am not talking about those I don't know) is anything that would justify such terms as "self-hating" or antisemitic: indeed, I maintain that, considered in terms of their perception of the conflict, they are if anything self-respectful, deeply committed to preserving, and projecting, the good moral name of Jews and of Judaism - even when they may not be believers in God or any gods. Rabbi Brichto might choose to call us "marginalised" but he is profoundly mistaken if he thinks we don't care. And what is really difficult to come to terms with is when some ardent defenders of Israel (although very often not Israeli Jews themselves) simply try to deny - both to themselves and to others - the realities of these Israeli cruelties. When they are admitted, they are often excused either as tragic accidents of the situation, or as some sort of necessary evils to defend the state against worse evils of terrorism. I don't believe that Israel is the worst human rights offender on the planet, I don't believe that it is either appropriate or helpful to invoke, indiscriminately, terms such as Nazism when discussing the country. And to that extent, I'm at one with Brichto. But I disagree fundamentally with the use he makes of legitimate criticisms of that order. We must not let the way some people talk about Israel prevent us from facing and admitting unpleasant truths. The fact that Israel is not the worst offender doesn't mean that it is not offending at all. Perhaps above all, we need a new post-Zionist definition of antisemitism, one that recognises that expressions of revulsion - for instance at the effects of the siege on Gaza, at the way many sick Gazans are dealt with by the Israeli authorities - are valid moral responses to acts that are quite simply wrong. If we choose to write this off as "antisemitism" we are not merely confusing logical categories, we're doing a huge disservice to humanity. Dr Brian Robinson, Milton Keynes, UK

It baffles me to see how so many intelligent, educated people still believe in gods in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. All faiths make excuses for their god's indifference in the face of terrible devastation, rather than accepting the fact that he/she/it just doesn't exist.

Szeni, The 10 year old was Hammad Hassam Mousa of Nil'in, shot by an Israeli officer on 29 July 2008. The 17 year brain dead from being shot in the head by rubber bullets was Yousef Ahmad Younis Amira, also of Nil'in. My point was that criticism of Israel in the West is regularly dismissed by people like Brichto as thinly disguised anti semitism. I offer an example of criticism of Israel and you accuse me of spreading a blood libel. Thanks for your help in demonstrating this in practice.

Szeni and now Sidney have attributed to me references I am not making. For the record, the Nazi behaviour i was referring to was when Israeli police busted an ring of self avowed Israeli Nazis in Petah Tikvah earlier this year. there was quite a fuss about it, with MKs demanding changes to the Law of Return. The story is here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3448276,00.html Debate is great. It happens when issues are dealt with, instead of erroneous accusations.

of course Judelson is anti-semitic. His demonisation of the IDF is a case in point, while at the same time he is so very deafening in his silence of the very real barbarity and fascist violence of Israel's numerous enemies from Hezbollah and Hamas to Syria and others in the Middle-East. Such blatant double standards can only be accounted for by anti-semitism.

This article should receive the widest possible circulation amongst all Jews in the UK. Pulling no punches it is a timely reminder of the 'enemy within'. It gives in very simple terms the responses to those Jews who would see Israel 'put to sleep' rather than speak up for the Marvel that is Israel. The anti-semitic Jew (for kid us not, it is they who we are fighting, has the cheek to suggest that only they seek peace) "Peace Now"- a title that infers we do not all wish for, pray for, and will work towards a Just Peace, has his /her answer in this article. Practical suggestion: Do we have any moles who can discover when they will next take space in the Press? We could afford an ad. which boldly suggests that they and readers take note of this article by inviting readers either to look it up on a designated website or sending for a Copy. It could also be reprinted and distributed widely in synagogue magazines or distributed at HHDays.

An interesting article Sidney. I found Dr Brian Robinson's comments iteresting and helpful and I think the tone of the argument between Dan Judelson et al is perhaps a case in point concerning Brian's comment that the viciousness of some accusations seems slightly baffling without suspecting a touch of anti-semitism, Dan's comments being phrased in such an inflamatory way produced almost as strong reactions in others leading to an argument rather than discussion. Perhaps this can partly be explained by passion on both sides in these types of discussion where everyone has seen/read deeply distressing things. Another possibility is the contrast between a well armed army and poverty stricken youngsters throwing stones is what makes Israel such a villified force, I guess there are few other constant conflicts which look from a certain perspective so unfair and David vs Goliath-esque. While I am relatively ignorant and have no solutions what concerns me is why does this contrast remain, why doesn't Palestine seem to improve? Surely that is not all Israel's fault? If Palestine's government and its oil-rich Arab neighbours were to spend more time and money improving Palestinian infra-structure and the quality of life of Palestinians then surely that would be of more value to Palestinians right now than sorting out Israeli/Palestinian relationships? Improved living conditions, education, infra-structure in Palestine I believe would produce happier, more moderate and less radicalised Palestinians and then from that base perhaps negotiations with Israel might proceed much more smoothly and also reduce the "big vs little" image. I think my writing is probably very confused here, please excuse this, but essentially what I am saying is - whenever I think about Israel/Palestine I'm always left wondering why people don't choose to focus on how to improve Palestine for Palestinians first with the intention of then returning to the question of Israel once this has been achieved.

To Richard: No, they are all bad. Personally I think the UN should just step in, removing religion and ethnicity from the equation - and in any other situation that seems unable to be resolved.