It is no surprise that they are targeting a series of 10 films about Tel Aviv. Every protest today by intellectuals or artists who think they are intellectuals has to be about Israel. It is the worst country in the world, is it not?
http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com/2009/09/charles-lewis-boycotting-israel.html#links

Kindly refer to TR’s archived, anti-Semitic lies and slander on this site for further proof of his Jew hate.

Since antisemitism has appealed to so many contradictory groups, anti-capitalist, anti-communist, anti-religious and anti-secular, anti-traditional and anti-modernist, there are a multitude of clever and fashionable ways it might appeal to the 50+ signers, who might therefore buy into it in some ways without endorsing all other expressions of it.  So people can be more or less antisemitic in practice and belief.  Denying the legitimacy of Tel Aviv is antisemitic in foundation.  But this does not mean that each signer is fully antisemitic in other respects.  And even if they are, this still does not mean that they knowingly endorse the consequences of their own delegitimization of Israel, which of course is the annihilation and wiping out of the entire city, along with the rest of the state.  There is naturally no other way, realistically speaking, that Tel Aviv would disappear.  You can depend on it: the Israelis would defend their right to life and to live in Israel.  But many of the 50 + signers may well just be the usual sort of artistic and faddish simpletons.

Contested borders, by the way, do not mean that the states involved are “contested,” only that the borders at certain points are.  No illegitiimacy arises from this.  There are plenty of nations whose borders are still contested, but no one for example supposes that China is “contested” and illegitimate because of its aggression against India and seizures of certain areas, its contested takeover of Tibet, its contested claims on Taiwan, or other conflict regions.  Or that Russia is illegitimate because of its dubious borders now enclosing such satellites as Western Ossetia and Chechnya.  Spain still occasionally suffers from separatist terrorist movements “contesting” various provinces; no one supposes that Spain does not exist legitimately.  Saudi Arabia’s border with Yemen is contested; does that mean that all of Saudi Arabia is “contested territory” and that it is not a legitimate state? 

Just to repeat something from a previous thread, there are four chief traits of antisemitism: Demonization, Delegitimatization, Double Standards (Natan Sharansky’s “three Ds") and Obsessiveness.  The attempt to wish away Israel’s very successful 60 years of existence shows the “delegitimization” trait quite clearly, and so does the underlying demonizing supposition that Israel alone among the nations of the world is illegitimate: this is also blatant double standards.  As for obsessiveness, see Ehren’s other posts at this Jewish website.  I would suggest to him that he grow up, stop picking on others, and get a life.

It is noteworthy that Fonda has joined them because in the past she had been a strong supporter of Israel. Maybe it’s another sign that it doesn’t take a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

I find the logic in Heilman’s rant as questionable as the logic in Glover’s rant. Do the political opinions of a neurosurgeon have anything at all to do with her/his professional area of expertise? Do the political opinions of an astronaut impede or impair his/her professional competence? Why would the political opinions of a professional actor be held to a different standard?

Personally, I loath Mel Gibson’s political, religious and ethnic opinions. But I’ve enjoyed every “Lethal Weapon” movie because none of them are about his political, religious or ethnic opinions.