ilxmordy

I'm not Lipstadt but fwiw I agree with you. The historical conditions that led to the term's widespread usage are understandable but it is mostly a linguistic artifact at this point that obscures comprehension. I prefer Jew hatred, anti-Jewish, or (what is more popular in the UK) Jew baiting which get w/ clarity more quickly to the issue.

Parties to the JCPOA may have to consider whether these are attempts to undermine the agreement or whether these efforts are directed by the Iranian government.

Is there reason to believe that these were attempts to undermine the agreement and who do we believe would be the underminer - Iranian hardliners who want to undermine the deal (but who weren't directed to procure by the government) or other parties making claims about Iranian procurement that may not be supported by fact?

If these were directed by the Iranian government would that be sufficient to find Iran in violation of the JCPOA?

There have been numerous criticisms of the deal including Iran's self-inspection of facilities, Iran's continued development of nuclear payload capable missiles, and the recent revelation that Iran is still pursuing nuclear material (in Germany). Do you consider any of the many criticisms of the deal significant, and what exactly would Iran need to do at this point for snapback sanctions to take effect?

There's discrimination against people in all societies. We don't call a society apartheid just because of the presence of discrimination. Israeli Arabs have enough civil rights and participation at all levels of professional, academic and political society that an accusation of apartheid is prima facie absurd. Professor Lipstadt recognizes that such an accusation is not as obviously obscene when applied to the WB where Palestinians are under the rule of Israel but do not have the franchise.