Excusing hostility to Israel’s right to exist - “Left” anti-semitism...

... is no myth"

The charge of “anti-semitism” is thrown at critics of Israel by the crassest of the uncritical, and sometimes paranoid, apologists for Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians?
This is true.

And therefore? Therefore, there is no anti-semitism; where just and valid criticisms are made of Israel, there can be no anti-semitism, even if the conclusion from the criticism is that the Israeli Jewish nation should be destroyed; and therefore, there is no anti-semitism in the stark root-and-branch antagonism to Israel which dominates the hard left, and is now spreading rapidly through the rest of the left.

That is what David Clark argued in the Guardian (6 March), under the headline: “Accusations of anti-semitic chic are poisonous intellectual thuggery”. He is a former Blair government adviser — and what did he do in that capacity to help the Palestinians? But he is hot and strong now against Israel.

His core argument is that what is denounced as left-wing anti-semitism is not anti-semitism, because it is thoroughly justified. It is not a self-betrayal by the left, but the result of a proper application of its good, basic, traditional instincts.

more...

the critisim is always one-sided. The first clue is that it is always Israel's fault, never a balanced view to look at both sides of the issue

People will say it is not anti-Semitism because it's just "anti-Israeli" policy. I am OK with that, because I am very anti-American (and anti-Israeli) policy on certain things. However, the difference lies in those that are against Israeli policy, but then turn and declare that a "Jewish" state is wrong, but say nothing of the 22 Arab/Muslim nations! They will say "Israel should do "such-and-such," but never declare what the 'other side' "should do." "Collective punishment" by Israel is WRONG, but suicide bombings are "understandable" because they, the PA, have no real army and have to fight any way they can. Israel can pound government officials and buildings, but that is wrong. However, it is OK for Israelis to die in a mall or pizza parlor, though the killed and wounded are not officials and the buildings not governmental. They are the ones that declare the PA should be able to make her own decisions in Gaza, but then declare Israel should have no right to close her borders. These are the sames one that find fault with everything that Israel does, yet find no fault with what the PA does or doesn't do. They are the same ones that praised the election of Hamas (because it was a free election), then decry the elections in Israel and claim it was rigged. They are the same ones that fail to see one government, albeit reluctant, is willing to negotiate, and another government still charters the death of its enemy. They are the ones that screech that Israel is in violation of international law, then "forget" that the "other side" is just as guilty! They are the ones that say Israel should do "this or that," but have no suggestions for what the PA should do.

There is no balance when it comes to Israel. If Israel were to withdraw to the "magical" '67 borders, this would not end this forum. No. It would change from the I/P forum to the I/S forum. The "S" being "Syria." In 1967, Israel also took the Golan Heights. Because that would remained unresolved, Israel would continue to be the "evil Empire" it has been made out to be. Of course, it would not stop the posts of Israel controlling US policy in the ME. It would not stop the posts that Israel is to blame for the occupation of the Golan Heights. It would not stop the rhetoric of Israel controlling Muslim/Arab land. No. The only thing that will stop this is a complete peace accord with the Arab/Muslim world (not just the bordering states) or the destruction of Israel, and that destruction also includes a "single nation state."

Guess which most would favor?

Yours" The only thing that will stop this is a complete peace accord with the Arab/Muslim world..."

(maybe that'll happen in 3010 AD or thereabouts?)

I can make any arguement seem valid by stringing together a few facts. The question should always be whether the facts are relevant and what point is the author trying to make.
If I want to kill all Asian people, I can string together enough information to demonize them. Totally ignoring pertainent facts that would shed light on just how assanine my opinion would be.
Valid criticisms being made with a particular agenda are common. Valid claims based on wanting the deaths of another culture or race should be recognized for what they are -- Bile, strewn crap.

Sometimes things actually are what they appear to be.

I must conclude that the author, with his penchant for unnecessarily complex thought organization, is as guilty of obfuscation and unbending ideological perversion as he is accusing his mythical "hard left anti-semites" of being.
As an invitation to nuanced, balanced discussion of Israel, its government's policies, and its provincial attitudes toward its neighbors, his thinly cloaked diatribe does little to encourage real understanding.

As a long standing defender of the nation of Israel, I find myself increasingly likely to condemn their policies and actions. This is, indeed, a sad state of affairs, brought on partly by knee-jerk charges of anti-semitism, calculated, it seems, to distract attention from their own rogue state indecencies.

I still think they have a right to exist, but I can no longer defend them.

on edit: "I still think they have a right to exist, but I can no longer defend them."

You have done this where?

since, to me, missing the point is a pretty big sin. Can you enlighten me, please?

As to where, if I am clear as to your question, my defense of Israel, the nation, began as my political naiveté thinned a bit and my thinking re: world history coalesced. In the sixties, I became the high school debate team president(1965.) Many of those debates included M.E. history, with some emphasis on jewish nationalism and the holocaust. Of course, there was a tremendous, poignant interest in LBJ and US foreign policy (read VietNam,) as well.
Following high school and college, there was my sometimes participation in local politics and numerous discussion groups and my letters to editors were generally favorable toward Israel and, perhaps, unnecessarily harsh toward Palestine. I don't mean to be prickish nor sarcastic, but my bona fides should be sufficient for a DU discussion forum.
My attitudes have changed over time, as events have unfolded, and I must admit to an automatic negative response toward anything which el Chimperor is in favor of, more pity, me.

"Essentially, he (the person the author of the OP is discussing) justifies “left” anti-semitism while denying that there is such a thing and while himself displaying it in all its dumb, albeit smart-ass, incomprehension. If there is “left” anti-semitism, he says, it is amply justified. It is rooted in the best values of the left, properly applied; and because it is justified, it is not anti-semitism."

The reason I asked about your support of Israel was because it seemed as if you were talking about discussions you had held here. I didn't realize you were talking about the "off-line" world. But I will ask this...you say...

"Following high school and college, there was my sometimes participation in local politics and numerous discussion groups and my letters to editors were generally favorable toward Israel and, perhaps, unnecessarily harsh toward Palestine."

...has it now, perhaps, morphed into "...generally favorable toward Palestine and, perhaps, unnecessarily harsh toward Israel."?"

Do you not think that anti-Semites exist on the "left?"

I have doggedly thrashed through your post (no offense intended) :D and I'm not sure you understood the points the author was trying to make.

It doesn't sound, to me, that you have been a long-standing defender of Israel since you don't mention anything specific and speak in abstract generalities, for example: it's (Israel's) government policies, its provincial attitudes towards its neighbors, etc. What exactly do you mean?

Next, I thought the author was very clear and his/her statements were not thinly cloaked at all. He/she said that leftists are usually for the underdog and jump to the wrong conclusions for the right reasons.

Their hearts are in the right place but sometimes they blur the distinctions between a country's right to defend itself from terrorism and killing just for killing's sake.

have the right to self-defense.

to discredit Israel and to equate ("=" is the math operator for "identically equal") "Jew = Zionist = AIPAC =Likudnik = PNAC = Bushie" has been the exact opposite.

It has led some of us to dig way beneath the surface of such academicians as Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke ("America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order") and John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt ("The Jewish Lobby") and Norman Finkelstein ("Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict," "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering" and "Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History.") to read their various books and articles - both in the popular press and in the learned journals.

(my interpretation on Halper, Clarke, Mearsheimer, and Walt is that but for their opinions on AIPAC they are somewhat to the right - as in Cold Warrior and Paleo-Con - of what most DUers would follow.)

It has also led some of us to check the previous positions of some of the vanity web sites cited regularly, like Allison Weir's "If Americans Knew" with its contributors such former Congressman Paul Findley (also of anti-choice and anti-affirmative action fame) and James Ennes (also of "Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth" fame), and its financial backers such as the Coors Foundation, the Olin Foundation, the Scaife Foundation (generally referred to by Senator Hillary Clinton as "The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" - the same people who funded the Arkansas Project, and Santorum's defeat of Wofford, etc.)

These are academicians and polemicists who would never be seen or heard of on a Progressive site - because of their otherwise fairly consistent antipathy and hostility to Progressive positions. But, because they sharply criticize Israel - and Israelis, and Jews, in a "guilt by association" manner of linking "Jew = Zionist = AIPAC =Likudnik = PNAC = Bushie" these Paleo-Cons and/or members of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" have suddenly gained some new credibility among some Progressives.

Well, the effect of citing these academicians and polemicists and the Progressives who cite them have made some of us even more certain in our positions.

"but millions of non-Jews outside of Israel seem to strongly dislike Arabs mainly because of Israel."

now theres a new claim.....I'm always surprised at the latest versions of how israel is "causing the world pain".....the way the jews still do for some, but for others...the israelis have replaced "the jew"...its far more politically correct.