I did not call you a liar for the reasons you say I am quite capable of reading and understanding the EUMC definition and what could be or is anti-Semitism. I asked you whether in context as the definition prescribes what Mr Flynn said about Mr Gould was in context anti-Semitic when most people have labelled it as such but you declined. I therefore consider you have aligned yourself with Flynn especially as you use the same unsupportable argument employed by the UCU to attempt to dismiss the EUMC definition in order to save yourself from being labelled an anti-Semite. You do not even suggest what you consider to be anti-Semitic.
On the other hand I called you a liar for saying that the majority of the Arabs who left the scene of the War of Independence in 1948 were expelled rather than having left for other reasons from what became the State of Israel because you called that fact for which there is considerable corroboratory evidence a "myth" (shorthand for lie) quoting a left wing propagandist reference book written by someone who sits on the board of JStreet which has been shown to be anything but pro-Israel. As david pryce-Jones has ably put it:
"Historians . . . are supposed to work in the realm of facts. . . . But exactly like poets, clergymen, or politicians, historians have habitually transferred allegiance to some foreign cause, compromising their reputation and even trading upon it by placing themselves at the service of something fanciful and unrelated to their scholarship. To each professor his cause, from each professor his bias."