We ran a piece yesterday asking whether MPAC's comparison between the Nazi genocide of the Jews and Israel's policy towards the Palestinians was antisemitic. MPAC ran this story alongside an image of a yellow star that Jews were forced to wear under Nazi occupation. MPAC compared the Nazis, who killed literally millions of Jewish children, to the Israelis, who apparently run a regime in one of their prisons where some Palestinians who are under-age are forced to work.

The Nazis were killers of Jewish children. But the MPAC piece claims that Israel is similar. We suggested that people read this piece by Anthony Julius if they want to know more about how the blood libel against Jews has worked through the centuries.

But Engage apologises. We were wrong. How could this piece have been antisemitic? It was written by a Jewish blogger. So it couldn't possibly have been antisemitic, could it?

Well, actually, no we don't apologise. MPAC are today running with a piece which proclaims: "Jewish Brother Stands with MPAC". It is a piece that identifies Engage as a "Zionist smearsite".

The argument seems to run both ways. Firstly, if MPAC's argument is endorsed by two anti-Zionist Jewish bloggers, then it is kosher and not at all antisemitic. And secondly, the inference is that Engage is anti-Muslim because it responded to MPAC rather than the two Jewish bloggers. The two Jewish bloggers, you see, are very keen to receive responses.

We judge whether something is racist by what it says not by who says it. Engage argues, and demonstrates, that there is a serious and widespread mainstreaming of antisemitic discourse going on at the moment, and that it is usually expressed in the language of anti-Zionism. Engage argues that this is dangerous because it is facilitating and licensing the emergence of an antisemitic movement. If Engage is right, then it is clear that the role of anti-Zionist Jews will have been significant in helping this future antisemitic movmement to emerge. So no, just because a Jew kosherizes something as not being antisemitic, does not mean that it isn't antisemitic.

Why did Engage choose to criticize MPAC rather than the two Jewish bloggers? Simply because MPAC are taken seriously. MPAC are invited to speak in the media, they portray themselves as a serious and non-violent alternative for Muslims. MPAC are a part of the mainstreaming of antisemitic discourse.

But MPAC needs to think seriously about antisemitism. Interestingly, in their piece, they have reproduced all the links except for one. The one they don't reproduce is the link to the Anthony Julius piece on the blood libel. This is the one that they ought to read.

It is also noticable that MPAC do not respond to the substance of the charge made against them: that it is antisemitic to compare the murder of millions of Jewish children by Nazis with the current policies of Israel. They run with a whole load of fluff about who is Jewish and who isn't - but they fail to defend themselves against the charge.