I hope its for something not shown, because the rest of the statement isn't anti-Semitic as it occurs in a comparative example to dismiss the reply of the holocaust. Its critical, but is it purely anti-Semitic or just the 'shrill cry of the racial top trump card'. Probably the later.

I'd like to see what stemmed the question 'what debit do we owe the Jews' though. That's probably the most concerning. Unless were going to reduce anti-Semitic as being anything critical of actions undertaken by some Jewish people or comparing the Holocaust to something. Its not worthy that the only use of Jews as a generalisation, is the question.

Peoples words are oft quoted without even including the rest of the sentence, let alone in what respects.

So much is taken out of context.

Meanwhile, the panama papers are pushed to the back of the news agenda.

Upon looking around a bit on the subject - I would like to change my position. As the evidence of the statement, is based on a falsehood.

The role played in the slave trade by Jewish citizens was very minimal and it would be unfair to single it out as worth mentioning as other ethnic groups, notably white Christians, were far more significant in the profit and proliferation of the trade.

Whilst some Jewish people and financiers were involved in the slave trade, they were not overly represented of the populations they came from.

As such, the statement is anti-Semitic, because it falsely associates Jewish people role in the Slave trade, as a means of co-opting the horrors of the Slave trade as an argument against the 'Holocaust' retort.

Of course, had there been a significance of Jewish finance and involvement in the slave trade then it wouldn't really have been anti-semetic.

A generalisation is acceptable, when its applicable and defensible. Once you dismiss the basis of the generalisation then it becomes about ignorance and the willing acceptance of stereotypes.

Sack her.

Upon looking around a bit on the subject - I would like to change my position. As the evidence of the statement, is based on a falsehood.

The role played in the slave trade by Jewish citizens was very minimal and it would be unfair to single it out as worth mentioning as other ethnic groups, notably white Christians, were far more significant in the profit and proliferation of the trade.

Whilst some Jewish people and financiers were involved in the slave trade, they were not overly represented of the populations they came from.

As such, the statement is anti-Semitic, because it falsely associates Jewish people role in the Slave trade, as a means of co-opting the horrors of the Slave trade as an argument against the 'Holocaust' retort.

Of course, had there been a significance of Jewish finance and involvement in the slave trade then it wouldn't really have been anti-semetic.

A generalisation is acceptable, when its applicable and defensible. Once you dismiss the basis of the generalisation then it becomes about ignorance and the willing acceptance of stereotypes.

Sack her.

Insurance is based on the slave trade but given that certain classes such as motor insurance are a legal requirement they unfortunately can't be boycotted.

Further, a particular German firm insured the concentration camps...

Neither of these to my knowledge having any Jewish investors.

To be honest, her ignorance combined with that of those defending her is the most infuriating thing.

Edited by johnfirewall (05 May 2016 3.59pm)

There were some Jewish slave traders in the Carribean apparently, mainly from Holland.