Originally posted by joneschr
I don't know if Obama is Anti-Semitic or not, but it seems like you ought to have a stronger argument before accusing someone of such a thing.
Well Hagai Ben-Artzi does have an argument even if it is not a strong one. People like whodey, uthependragon - and Scriabin in the past - and others, hurl the "anti-semite" accusation with no argument whatsoever, neither strong nor weak. And refuse to substantiate it.
I just found the BBC's decision to lay it out on Hagai Ben-Artzi's behalf interesting. A lot of news outlets label political players and stances and refer to them without really ever explaining things. This allows terminology to be used pejoratively.
The longest, most illuminating, most unsounbitified interviews on TV with Israeli settlers on the West Bank that I have ever seen were on Al-Jazeera. They were just allowed to speak for 10 or 15 minutes without significant editting. This is rare on TV news now. And it has contributed to my understanding of the issues.
The BBC could have talked about Ben-Artzi's accusation of anti-semitism without explaining it - and if they had done so it would have probably made Ben-Artzi's accusation seem completely unfounded - but instead they presented the substance of his perspective quite succinctly and neutrally. To claim that his accusation is "unfounded" would be inaccurate. Weak. Unconvincing. Wrong, even. But not "unfounded". Ben-Artzi has based his claim on something and the BBC explained it. If the BBC were "hard left" would it do this?
And there's a lesson for the likes of utherpendragon here too. If you think someone here at RHP, like me, for instance, is anti-semitic, why not explain your reasoning instead of just throwing it out there as a free floating smear?
As for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, I wonder what he really thinks.