Former Israeli Minister of Education says calling critics "anti-Semitic" is a trick they always use.

Easy:

Valid criticism usually has some kind of humanitarian element to it.

Example: Israel are nothing more than murdering pigs for the occupation of the West Bank, denying Palestinians basic human rights, and destroying settlements that have existed long before Israel did, thus the inhabitants have more right to the land than any jew. Let alone the slaughter of innocent children.

That's a valid criticism.

Hate speech does not have any validity and is just an attack with out reason. Example: I'm going to kill any Palestinian because I hate Arabs.

Or:

Individually, Israelis lack the social skills to be allowed in to civilised society, and as a country, they should be barred from the United Nations given their inability to co-exist peacefully with their neighbours. They are no better than some IS scum bag. Ooops. My mistake. That was actually valid criticism. I understand why you had to ask the question - it can be difficult can't it?

 

Pretty much all of that is inflammatory, and with no intent to discuss any topic at all. I don't know that I'd call all of it Hate Speech (as there is a very legal definition for that), but it's certainly not conducive to any rational discussion.

 

Islam is ideology of jihad and subjugation disguised as a religion. Its motto is 'convert or die'. Its goal is global conquest. Terrorism and harassment are its tools since the time of Muhammed. This is a valid criticism. How many non-muslims live in the ME?

 

Just baiting the Baitor.

 

I won't call you a racist unless I can rationalize it. As for the OP there is plenty of evidence of selective bias and visceral hatred of the Palestinian Jews by the so called "critics". It's on a case by case basis. No generalization as you attempt to do is possible.

 

Did I say there wasn't valid criticism in that statement?

 

What generalization am I attempting to do? What I said was that constant use of a label - especially in situations where it is not warranted, reduces the power that label has, until eventually the person doing the labeling is marginalized. So in the end, the effort is self-defeating.

 

It wasn't reply to your post.

 

In same cases the accusation is correct, in some it's not warranted. You say it's always incorrect. I say it's on a case by case basis.

 

Please show me the post where I said it was always incorrect.