On anti-Semitism, anti-anti-Semitism and anti-anti-anti-Semitism

This might prove to be a huge mistake - reader's anger etc. - but I'm going to delve into the are-progressive-Jews-encouraging-anti-Semitism debate. I've avoided this subject for a while, thinking I already had my fair share of anti-Semitism in this blog for one month. I've been following the debate though, and now, late in the game, I'm not going to repeat all that's been said already, just to make some remarks. So, here it is:

1. First, if you still need to familiarize yourself with the story itself, here it is, in short: Prof. Alvin Rosenfeld of Indiana University published an article on the American Jewish Committee web site blaming Jewish progressive critics of Israel of encourage anti-Semitism, if not exactly practicing, anti-Semitism. The controversy that followed included a front page NYT story and many other articles, remarks, tirades and angry responses (If you want a sample try the British Guardian piece here, a Boston Globe opinion piece here, Samuel Feedman in the Jpost , Bret Stephens in defense of anti anti-Semitism here).

2. Rosenfeld blames Jewish intellectuals for providing ammunition to anti-Semites, but I'm not convinced this makes a good case against their views. Let's say that Rosenfeld is right in the sense that Tony Judt's opinions actually encourage anti-Semites. So what should he (and the other anti-Israel Jewish progressives) do - stop expressing them? Judt (fortunately) isn't a leader; he has no constituency and is responsible mainly for himself. If other people choose to use his words to justify their anti-Semitism - well, shame on them. He should be taken to task on the merit of his arguments, not on others' misuse or misdeeds.

3. Rosenfeld was quite clear though that he wasn't criticizing people who might disagree with Israel's policies, but rather those who question Israel's right to exist. Did it help him in any way? Nope. People kept criticizing him for trying to silence political debate. And you know why they did that? To score points and present themselves as martyrs. Easier for them to argue over the alleged "censorship" than over the actual argument he is making.

4. And speaking of censorship, it's really time to drop this ridiculous, pathetic complaint. Rosenfeld, rightly, points out that "Israel is singled out more than any other country on the globe for inaccurate and one-sided condemnations of its alleged human rights abuses and targeted for boycotts and divestment campaigns." Crying "censorship" is just another way of de-legitimizing Israel and its supporters - and, by the way, an attempt to silence Rosenfeld, who also has the right to express his distaste of the people he criticizes.

5. One can ask: why did Rosenfeld bother at all? What's the significance of some extremely radical Jewish intellectuals questioning Israel's right to exist? Are Israel and the Zionist dream so weak that they can't withstand an attack from such figures?

6. However, one can ask the same question from the other side. Why are these anti-Israel people and their defenders so angry and jumpy about this one article? Do they care because it is all a lie - or because they feel that some readers might detect a kernel of truth in Rosenfeld's arguments?

7. Apparently, the ultimate insult is calling people anti-Semitic. But why isn't being just anti-Israel bad enough?

8. AJC is the real casualty of the Rosenfeld-affair, losing some of its credibility as an impartial organization. Already, people started insulting it by comparing it to AIPAC (I guess that's the flip coin of calling someone an anti-Semite). Freedman wrote that on the part of AJC the Rosenfeld affair is a "self-inflicted wound". Stanley Kutler, writing for the Globe, stated that AJC's "present political leadership? Now have bankrolled vigorous support for the Bush administration's Middle Eastern policies." Can there be a greater sin than that? (See my previous article Bush the divider)

9. There's a very interesting allegation in John Judis' TNR article: "They [Rosenfeld, David Harris of AJC, AIPAC and comp.] want to demand of American Jewish intellectuals a certain loyalty to Israel, Israeli policies, and to Zionism as part of their being Jewish. They make dual loyalty an inescapable part of being Jewish in a world in which a Jewish state exists," he writes and touches one of the most disturbing trends one can detect among some of the more liberal Jews of America: the tendency (and I'm not saying Judis himself has this tendency) to feel burdened by the need to care for their not-as-liberal-not-as-sophisticated brothers in other parts of the world.

10. And my reaction to this complaint will be annoyingly straight forward: Yes, Jewish intellectuals, and all other Jews, should show some special loyalty to the plight of the Jews of Israel (but not to Israel's policies), because caring for Jews is an important part of being Jewish. That is, if they want to be the good Jews most of them claim to be.