Pox Britannica

Howard Jacobson’s concluding paragraph:

Given how hard it is to distinguish Jew from Israeli in all this, the mantra “It is not anti-Semitic to be critical of Israel” looks increasingly disingenuous. But there is no challenging it, not even with such eminently reasonable responses as, “That surely depends on the criticism,” or “Calling into question an entire nation’s right to exist is not exactly ‘criticism.'” Nor is the distinction between Israeli and Jew much respected where the graffitists and the baby bullies of the schoolyard do their work. But, in the end, it is frankly immaterial how much of this is Jewhating or not. The inordinacy of English Israel-loathing–ascribing to a country the same disproportionate responsibility for the world’s ills that was once ascribed to a people–is toxic enough in itself. The language of extremism has a malarious dynamic of its own, passing effortlessly from the mischievous to the unwary, and from there into the bloodstream of society. And that’s what one can smell here. Infection.

Find out how he comes to this conclusion, in The New Republic.

40 Responses to “Pox Britannica”

  1. Dave Rich Says:

    This is worth reading too, from Standpoint:

    http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/1075/full

    “But what’s clear now, in the questions that are raised all the time – will the Jews have a right to be there? Does Israel have a right to be there? Will it exist? Will it go? I see, more and more, almost declared now by a lot of people in this country, a longing for Israel not to be. This saying it might not exist, this danger of existence, is a way of saying, “we wish it not to be”. And some at least have got the nerve to come out and say, pretty well, “we wish it not to be”. “We wish it away”. It’s as close to saying, “we wish the Jews away”. In fact one of the things that Israel has enabled people to do, enabled anti-Semites to do – and there are lots of anti-Semites, even ones that don’t know it – is say that Israel and Jews are not the same thing. Forgetting that one bleeds into the other, they now don’t have to say “we wish the Jews away”, because they’ve got another final solution: wish Israel away.”

  2. Jacob Says:

    I added the following comment on the New Replic website:

    This is an excellent article on British antisemitism. What needs to be added is the effect that it is having on other parts of the Western world. In the US for example once can trace a rise in antisemitic/anti-Zionists rhetoric to British and Irish expatriates like Alexander Cockburn, Christopher Hitchens, Andrew Sullivan, and a number of others. Then there is the BBC which pushes an anti-Israel agenda in its news broadcasts daily and which is carried by many npr stations here.

  3. David Says:

    Excellent article!

  4. Absolute Observer Says:

    Oh, Howard, oh Howard!
    How wrong you are!

    If you were right, would the populist British left have sent round the following missive about the state of war in the world today?

    According to the SWP front Stop the War coalition – there are three wars – Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel.

    According to the SWP front Stop the War coalition – there are 5 reasons to go to an anti-war demo – two include Israel (3 if you include the myth that the Lobby made US go to war in Iraq).

    One of those reasons is that Britain sells arms to Israel. The other is Israel’s “continued” bombing of tunnels in Gaza.

    So, Howard, be happy!

    There are only three wars in the world!

    Israel is the only recipient of the British Arms Trade!

    I mean, why else, would the SWP/StWC not mention them??

    So, be happy!

  5. Brian Goldfarb Says:

    “But propaganda turns sinister when it pretends to be art.”

    How’s that for a bon mot and a half from Jocobson? I attempted to argue this view with a friend (actually, an actor who was in the Royal Court production) and partner, and they weren’t having it. Mind you, I’m not sure that’s fair to an actor earning their living and possibly stuck with it once a contract is signed, and it’s the playwright, director et al I’d want to hang out to dry, not the members of the cast.

    However, did you know that the director asked Jacqueline Rose and Avi Shlaim to come in and provide “background” to the play. The actor’s partner was less than polite about Shlaim (I didn’t need to be), but I was less than polite about Rose. There “wasn’t time” to invite someone like David H., and/or Nick Cohen, to “counter balance” these views.

    Speaking of Jacqueline Rose, there’s this nice line from Jacobson: “The premise of Seven Jewish Children is a fine piece of fashionable psychobabble that understands Zionism as the collective nervous breakdown of the Jewish people” – just about sums up her whole body of work on zionism, doesn’t it?

    Then we have Robert Fisk: musn’t forget him: “Scrupulously refusing the Holocaust-Gaza analogy, Robert Fisk, writing in The Independent a few weeks ago, nonetheless argued that “a Palestinian woman and her child are as worthy of life as a Jewish woman and her child on the back of a lorry in Auschwitz”–at a stroke reinstating the analogy while implying that Jews need to be reminded that not only Jewish lives are precious.”

    Jacobson even gets the lovely Tonge in, along with her classic use of the Livingstone Formulation, thus: “Was it anti-Semitic of the Liberal Democrat Baroness Tonge to refer to the “financial grips” that the pro-Israel lobby exerts on the world? Such allusions to a pro-Israel conspiracy of influence and wealth, usually accompanied by protestations of innocence in regard to Jews themselves–“I am sick of being accused of anti-Semitism,” Baroness Tonge has said, “when what I am doing is criticizing Israel”–have become the commonplaces of anti-Israel discourse”.

    It’s a great work of deconstruction of the pro-boycott, unwittingly (I sincerely hope) antisemitic trope stalking Britain today, and deserves a much wider distribution. Not that those who most need to understand it will (understand it, that is, let alone read it in the first place).

  6. Alex Says:

    If Tonge is genuinely sick of being accused of anti-Semitism, wouldn’t the easiest thing for her to do be to stop using anti-semitic allusion in her “criticism”?

  7. Mark Says:

    Without wanting to in any way detract from Howard Jacobson’s excellent article (which I have read in full) I don’t think one should discount the role of fear in all this.

    The media constantly put across the idea that all we need to do to ensure we don’t get blown up the next time we get opna train is not to upset the Islamic world. If you believe that, as incredibly many seem to do, wishing Israel would act differently or just cease to be is explicable as a kind of self interest – albeit cowardly and apallingly badly informed.

    • Harry Goldstein Says:

      Mark,

      I agree with your point about a cowardly form of self-interest. I think what it also shows is the lack of comprehension among ‘reasonable’ people when faced with an implacable totalitarian ideology.

      Last time, the scapegoat was Czechoslovakia and its alleged mistreatment of the Sudetan Germans. As a result of the then cowardly self-interest, Czechoslovakia did indeed ‘cease to be’. Of course it helped not at all. Its only consequence (apart from for the Czechs themselves) was to convince Hitler that the western democracies were pushovers.

  8. Susan Says:

    I’m American, but I notice the same trends in the American left. The question is what can do about it. Engage plays a role with its anti-academic boycott mission, but we seem to be talking to like-minded people most of the time. I like Engage. You bring to my attention important information. These people seem impervious to argument.

  9. Lynne T Says:

    What a welcome antidote to this morning’s coverage on CBC Radio of George Galloway’s podcast from the US to a Canadian audience of “anti-war and pro-Palestinian” types.

  10. Jacob Says:

    Have you seen this Lynne T:

    “In his contribution to the cacophony about L’affaire Galloway, Christopher Hitchens is not wrong in the substance of the opinions he expresses here. It is just that they are wholly immaterial to the matter at hand. Hitchens is wholly wrong in his assumptions. He didn’t do a lick of homework. He fails, and fails utterly.”

    Later on:

    “Something wholly new is emerging in Canada, in all the spaces where the Left used to be, in its activist constituencies, its traditional institutions, and its lexicon. Whatever name you want to give the thing, its noticeable features include a betrayal of progressive internationalism, a pathetic weakness for conspiracy theories, and a routine apologetics for antisemitism and terror. Its outlook is generally parochial, but its global engagements tend to align with fascism’s contemporary Islamist variants, even to the point of objective support for the Taliban.”

    Read the magnificent article here:

    http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/03/christopher-hitchens-is-wrong.html

  11. Absolute Observer Says:

    SWP/Stop the War Coalition stop press.

    Stop the War Coalition have included Dr Mahathir Mohamed, ex President of Malaysia as a principle speaker.

    People may remember this man for the following quotes,

    “The Jews for example are not merely hook-nosed, but understand money instinctively.”

    and,

    “We [Muslims] are actually very strong, 1.3 billion people cannot be simply wiped out. The Nazis killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million [during the Holocaust]. But today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them. They invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries. And they, this tiny community, have become a world power.”

    [Note that, “The Muslim Public Affairs Council condemned Mahathir’s remarks as “extremely offensive, anti-Semitic comments.”]

    From the BBC,
    “With the onset of the Asian economic crisis in 1997, Dr Mahathir refused to accept that his grandiose schemes were partly to blame for Malaysia’s massive debt. Instead he blamed foreign currency traders, including the financier George Soros, for what he termed a worldwide Jewish conspiracy.”

    Under his regime, homosexuality remained not only a crime, but something so “evil” that he would use the allegation yo intimidate his political opponents by “alleging” they were “homosexuals”.

    What, then, is Bruce Kent and members of the Labour Party and Trade Unions doing sharing a platform with a racist, homophobic and an antisemite? Is this really all they have left?

  12. Mark Gardner Says:

    Howard Jacobson is one of the most important (if not the most important) commentators on this because as a brilliant novelist and critic he truly understands the meaning and the impact of words.

    He knows the corrosive impact of the words, discourse etc around Israel, Zionists and Jews; the manner in which supposed anti-Israel criticism meanders blithely into antisemitic topoi that reflect and reinforce prejudice.

  13. Mark Gardner Says:

    the manner in which supposed anti-Israel criticism meanders blithely into antisemitic topoi that reflect and reinforce prejudice –

    sorry, as I think David H has pointed out before, its not so much an accidental meandering, rather its one that seems to inexorably hone in on antisemitic modes of language thought and speech.

  14. An Stern Says:

    I’ve seen this play. I am not Ms Churchill’s mother but I am compelled to say that it seemed a fine piece of work, compelling, very clear and direct. It is not at all one dimensional, as is being portrayed here. A few more of you should perhaps see it before joining a torching mob.

    The title of your site, Engage, is promising. But I see that it might well be called Engage Fire. The topics here are not attracting people to engage in debate. Rather, it seems to be a forum for character assassination and ill mannered vilification.

    As you hunt for the merest sniff of someone who met someone once who’s brother’s friend used to married to the sister of someone once accused of anti-semitism, do you ever find time to look up and consider the idea that moslems, the victims of a relentless, overt and practical racism at the hands of the Israeli government, are also the most systematically racially abused members of British society generally, with far more cause for complaint about their representation today than your contributors could muster? Mark suggests that the media asks for appeasement through fear, but the truth is quite different. In fact the popular media is ferociously and fearlessly Islamophobic (I do appreciate the irony of the suffix ‘phobic’, no need for linguistic dissection, I did not choose that ill-fitting word).

    Consider the recent Cardiff school of journalism study which found that two thirds of newspapers’ ‘routine, everyday coverage of British Muslims’ portray them as either ‘a threat’ or ‘a problem’, and that in one week in May 2006, a content analysis study of Islam and Moslems in the British national press covered 352 articles, of which 91% were found to be negative, 5% neutral and 4% positive. Imagine if those articles were concerning Judaism.

    Yet some of you here are worried that you can detect a subtle undercurrent of anti-semitism in the British middle classes. I suggest you take Mr Jacobson’s advice and cease exaggerating. I would also suggest, as my Shropshire nanny used to say, that you don’t know you’re born.

  15. Inna Says:

    An Stern–

    I doubt many here would deny that Islamophobia is a problem. I certainly would not. I have not seen Ms Churchill’s play, it is true. I have however read the it.

    I wonder, if instead of Jews you saw “Muslims” or “Arabs” would you still consider the play unproblematic? Or would it come across to you as racist?

    If the latter, perhaps you need to reconsider your statement. You might also want to consider why it is that you are sensitive to other types of racism (e.g., Islamophobia) but to racism against Jews.

    Regards,

    Inna

  16. Jacob Says:

    “I’ve seen this play. I am not Ms Churchill’s mother but I am compelled to say that it seemed a fine piece of work, compelling, very clear and direct.”

    I have read the script and heard it performed and I don’t think we saw them same work, An Stern

    Try reading this also:

    “Caryl Churchill: Gaza’s Shakespeare, or Fetid Jew-Baiter?”

    http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/ari_roth.php

    “Yet some of you here are worried that you can detect a subtle undercurrent of anti-semitism in the British middle classes. ”

    You seem pretty confident that you know what it’s like to be visible Jew in say London.

    Maybe you should talk to someone who has been assaulted for wering a kippah. Someone who didn’t grow up with a Shropshire nanny.

    Easy to dismiss antisemitism when you are not on the receiving end.

  17. Absolute Observer Says:

    Come on, you Jews, stiff upper lip and all that!
    Others have it far worse than you.
    Only enough sympathy to go around.
    Can’t be wasting it on your sort.
    Now, off you go, and just you jolly well remember how lucky you all are.

    Now, I won’t be telling you again. So, let’s hear no more of it.
    And, if I do hear another peep, I’ll give you something to know you were born!
    Now, off to bed all of you.

  18. Rumbled Says:

    Hi An,
    Good t see you. Been a while hasn’t it?
    I see your still sprouting the same old crap as always.
    (The nanny was a nice touch, I”ll give you that; it was also the bit that gave you away. The secret is never to try too hard).
    Good to know though that Engage is still getting under your skin.
    (You should have waited an extra day – it is now April 1st; now, that would have been class).

    Take care. We’ll see you soon.

  19. Rumbled Says:

    If it’s any consolation, I am sure Jacobson is flattered that you modeled yourself on Kalooki Night’s protganosist’s first mother in law.
    Trouble is, of course, he did it better.

  20. Mark Says:

    An Stern appears to cirticise my earlier post and suggests that the press is Islamophobic.

    It would be interesting to know what she means by that. I suspect that she is picking up on critiques, not of muslims as people or even of Islam as a religion, but of Islamist extremism, a political movement that like any other, is surely fair game for criticism in a free society. I have noted increasingly the refusal to recognise this distinction and it does no one any favours.

    Moreover while I don’t know if An Stern is among their number, I can’t help but notice too that many who refuse to accept such a distinction are among the first to assert that anti Zionism can not be anti semitic.

    I find this bafflingly inconsistent.

  21. Joshua Says:

    ‘moslems…are also the most systematically racially abused members of British society generally, with far more cause for complaint about their representation today than your contributors could muster’

    From an article in the Daily Telegraph:

    Jews far more likely to be victims of faith hatred than Muslims

    16 Dec 2006

    “Jewish people are four times more likely to be attacked because of their religion than Muslims, according to figures compiled by the police.”

    One in 400 Jews compared to one in 1,700 Muslims are likely to be victims of “faith hate” attacks every year. The figure is based on data collected over three months in police areas accounting for half the Muslim and Jewish populations of England and Wales. The crimes range from assault and verbal abuse to criminal damage at places of worship.”

    http://tinyurl.com/4qj9zw

  22. Joshua Says:

    “I suggest you take Mr Jacobson’s advice and cease exaggerating.”

    Exactly the position of the British Foreign Office even as the vast majority of the Jews of Europe were being murdered by the Nazis and their innumerable collaborators.

    “I think we weaken our case against the Germans by publicly giving credence to atrocity stories for which we have no evidence. These mass executions in gas chambers remind me of the story of the employment of human corpses during the last (1914-18) war for the manufacture of fat, which was a grotesque lie and led to the true stories of German enormities being brushed aside as being mere propaganda” — Victor Cavendish Bentinck, assistant under-secretary, 27 August 1944

    “It is true that there have been references to the use of gas chambers in other reports; but these references have usually, if not always, been equally vague, and since they have concerned the extermination of Jews, have usually emanated from Jewish sources.” — Roger Allen, Foreign Office official

    http://tinyurl.com/dzn5t9

  23. Absolute Observer Says:

    D’uh! Of course there is Islamophobia in the UK!
    D’uh! Of course it is more prevalent than antisemitsm!

    “do you ever find time to look up and consider the idea that moslems, the victims of a relentless, overt and practical racism at the hands of the Israeli government, are also the most systematically racially abused members of British society generally, with far more cause for complaint about their representation today than your contributors could muster?”

    So, apparently Israel is at war with Muslims. And, who does that make Muslims at war with? Jews?

    Ironic, isn’t it, that someone who claims to be concerned with Islamophobia ends by presenting us with an Islamophobic image of Muslims – as a religion “at war” with Jews, and who, in denying/downplaying antisemitism, ends up with an antisemitic picutre of Jews; a religion “at war” with Muslims.

    Eschatological, racist nonsense!

    What a nasty, nasty piece of work.

  24. Absolute Observer Says:

    Joshua,

    I find your pasts comparing and hierarchialisng antisemitism and Islamophobia quite disgusting and a mirror of the reactionary, racist line pushed by An Stern.

    I don’t give a toss if it is one Muslim “as a Muslim” attacked and a hundred Jews (as Jews or ZIonists”) or vice versa.

    All forms of racial abuse and violence is to be abhored rather than compared.

    It is true that some of the left have seemed to have forgotten that principle.

    I see no reason for you or anyone else to follow suit

  25. benw Says:

    AO — I completely agree with you about abhorring all forms of racial abuse and not making some forms “more equal than others”. But I don’t see Joshua doing that as clearly as you do. I can understand your objection to “One in 400 Jews compared to one in 1,700 Muslims” but it could be argued that Joshua was simply trying to prove the falsehood of An Stern’s nasty assertion by quoting a newspaper article to the contrary.

    I guess the question is, how do you rebut a statement like “moslems…are also the most systematically racially abused members of British society generally, with far more cause for complaint about their representation today than your contributors could muster”? Someone who believes that could argue that “I treat all racial abuse equally but as a practical matter we need to focus on the most oppressed groups”.

  26. Joshua Says:

    Oh well, if I am racist, then I am in excellent company for in 2004 Norman Geras made exactly the same point about attacks on Jews and Muslims in France (the newspaper link he provided is no longer live):

    “Using the comparative figures for attacks and threats respectively (135 as against 95, 375 as against 161), on a rough calculation Jews in France are over 14 times more likely to be attacked than Muslims and over 23 times more likely to be threatened. I was advised of this conclusion by a reader and friend some weeks ago. Now it is reported here.”

    http://tinyurl.com/dlugrm

  27. Joshua Says:

    Incidentally, I was really ticked off by Absolute Observer’s post – not by his silly charge of racism but by his suggestion that I am a member of the left.

  28. Absolutely Observer Says:

    Joshua,
    It is more than evident that you are not of the left.
    I apologise if I paid you the compliment of believing otherwise.

  29. Jacob Says:

    Absolutely Observer Says:
    “Joshua,
    It is more than evident that you are not of the left.”

    Well, AO I am not of the left either, neither am I of the right. These distinctions only further obscure the analysis of antisemitism which is emanating from both the right and the left.

  30. Bill Says:

    Now now… let’s remember that if we all took the UCU Activist List Test of Political Purity, not only would all of us (except for the very worst of the trolls) not be Lefties, Progressives or even just Liberals, half of us would be flaming zionazi neocons, and worse still the other half would be… “Management.”

  31. Antonia Stern Says:

    Mr Jacobsen does warn us that it would be wrong to exaggerate, and then does just that. We must surely be watchful over anti-semitism, but an equal peril here is that conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism ‘as a given’ itself becomes an infection. Where would free speech be in that environment? As usual, balance is all, and on both sides of this discussion it is a lack of balance which raises the temperature.

    • Gil Says:

      Antonia, please stop with this ‘straw man’ argument. The overwhelming majority of thoughtful people do not conflate criticism of Israel as such with antisemitism. Most moderate and thoughtful Muslims don’t conflate criticism of Islamism with hatred of Islam.

    • Bill Says:

      Lemme turn that around, Antonia:

      “Where would free speech be in that environment? “

      Where would free speech be when we can’t call a spade a spade (or just a rusty old shovel)?

      I agree with the idea that “The fastest way to create an antisemite is to call someone one,” but what DO you do when someone on a moderated activist list links to DavidDuke.Com and then the moderator retaliates against whistleblowers? What do you do when someone says “You’re not a European, You’re a Jew” simply for not criticizing Israel hard enough? What do you do when someone suspiciously asks another who, once again, doesn’t demonize Israel to their satisfaction as to the origins of their surname. What do you do when someone offers to have a gracious academic boycott that lets in Israeli Arabs but Israeli Jews must jump through hoops, that violate the core principles of academic freedom? What do you do when someone does a play called “Seven Jewish Children” when they wouldn’t in a million years approve of, let alone name, a the parallel production called “Seven Muslim Children?” What do you do when a plea to the BMJ to boycott Jews-and-only-Jews cites the reason for boycotting Jews-and-only-Jews and not the PRC Chinese (as one example Tom Hickey listed among others) as being “Jews have a tradition of scholarship” (and presumably the Chinese with their rich culture don’t, go fig!). What do you do when a shop goes on a tear about Israel and says “Jews are welcome here, by-the-way” when the owner would never screed on about blood diamonds or Mugabe and then make a “mighty-white-of-you” gesture to welcome blacks? And so on.

      All of the above were, to the claims of their apologists, not antisemetic but anti-zionist. And once again, these were patterns of behaviour that the same people would never have even thought to apply to any other demographic yet gladly and openly do so to not only Israelis, but Jews outside of Israel and people in general who may criticise Israel, but not need to smoke a cigarette afterwards.

      That’s the crux of David Hirsh’s Livingston Formulation. If you can’t call antisemetic rhetoric and behaviour antisemitic in the name of “good manners”, fear of McCarthyism (while your adversaries are quite happy to blacklist contrarians), or out of fear of crying wolf when Grandma really does have large teeth today, then the “chilling environment” on Free Speech has indeed been set — not by the more polite angels among us, but by the “we-better-not-call-them-antisemites.”

      Sometimes, you gotta call the baby ugly even when the parents insist on naming it Tiffany!

  32. Joshua Says:

    Re Antonia Stern, go to post “4 of 20” here:

    http://tinyurl.com/c9w4sc

    • Bill Says:

      It’s no crime to post the same thing twice, or thrice, or in foursies…. I do that a lot just here.. and people who insist The Lobby is the dark reason Chas “I’d use the army to run over peaceful protesters in Washington DC” Freeman didn’t get the post still don’t get it. The difference is that if I did that on the UCU activist if I were a dues-paying member, I’d likely be tossed from it for saying that I was calling Chas Boosters “antisemites” when I don’t think I’ve never said that (anti-posse comitatus & tank-happy maybe… but never an antisemite).

  33. Absolute Observer Says:

    David Hirsh,

    “Was it anti-Semitic of the Labour politician Tam Dalyell to talk of Jewish advisers excessively influencing Tony Blair’s foreign policy? Was it anti-Semitic of the Liberal Democrat Baroness Tonge to refer to the “financial grips” that the pro-Israel lobby exerts on the world? Such allusions to a pro-Israel conspiracy of influence and wealth, usually accompanied by protestations of innocence in regard to Jews themselves–“I am sick of being accused of anti-Semitism,” Baroness Tonge has said, “when what I am doing is criticizing Israel”–have become the commonplaces of anti-Israel discourse in the years since Philip Roth wrote The Counterlife.”

    Stern writes,
    “We must surely be watchful over anti-semitism, but an equal peril here is that conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism ‘as a given’ [sic] itself becomes an infection” (love the analogy with virus and disease!)

    Can I, therefore, add “Antonia Stern’s” latest post to your search for the Livingstone Formulation.

  34. Absolutely Observer Says:

    “As usual, balance is all, and on both sides of this discussion it is a lack of balance which raises the temperature.”

    In your nasty little dreams!

    It is the perpetration of antisemitic myths that raise the temperature – i.e. your own comments. So, don’t be surprised that people respond accordingly.

    Whilst antisemitic rhetoric must be a perfectly decent subject of conversation in your own narrow-minded, ignorant, circle, do not assume that others will not treat the garbage that you spout with the utter contempt it deserves.

    To continue with your dinner party analogy.

    If you serve up reheated shit, do not expect people not to comment or be angry about that fact.

    The fact that you could not tell the difference between food prior to being eaten (criticism of Israel) and its appearance after it has been digested (antisemitism) says far more about your own ignorance than I think you realise.

  35. Jacob Says:

    “We must surely be watchful over anti-semitism, but an equal peril here is that conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism ‘as a given’ itself becomes an infection. Where would free speech be in that environment? As usual, balance is all, and on both sides of this discussion it is a lack of balance which raises the temperature.” An Stern

    I don’t know what you mean by balance, An Stern

    Mr. Jacobson’s articles on antisemitism are fairly balanced. He knows the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel and antisemitism. Both are a fact and saying so doesn’t make his articles “unbalanced.” From what I have seen the imbalance is mostly on the part of the intemperate critics of Israel whether motivated by antisemitism or not.

    I’d be curious to know what in his article you consider exaggerated?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: