Hey, Judt

Tony Judt has a very disappointing piece in The Nation on anti-Semitism. While he makes a few decent points, overall he can't get around the issue of Israel.

He states that most analysts can agree "that there is a link between hostility to Jews and events in the Middle East." Okay. He then fails to take the next logical and moral step, but instead starts making excuses for anti-Semites. He actually think the solution is to allow more criticism of Israel, both to blow off steam and to make it clear where the real problem is (that Israel does not speak for the Jews); and the reason there's not enough open discussion of the problem is because so many unfairly equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.

This is obscene nonsense. Let's work backwards. First, no one claims that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, so Judt has a strawman here. What is true, however, is when you look at the astounding amount of criticism Israel receives (more than all other countries put together, perhaps), the sort of criticism it receives (it's condemned for activities other countries casually do) and the absurdity of so much of the criticism (there's hardly a problem in the world--and quite a few non-existent problems--that Zionism isn't blamed for), it becomes obvious much of Israel's opposition is based in something beyond reason that might as well be called anti-Semitism.

As far as the need to openly criticize Israel, there is not the slightest shortage. Yet Judt wants more, it would seem. No, we need less, and far more measured criticism. Lack of open criticism is not a problem making some lash out--rather, too much criticism is a symptom of the sickness already out there. We need to attack the anti-Semitism of the critics, no matter how much it hurts their feelings, and not ease their way so that somehow, magically, in the future, there'll be less anti-Semitism.

But let's assume the vicious hatred of Israel has a basis in truth. So what? And let's throw in that Israel purports to speak for the Jews and even that most Jews agree. Once again, so what? The main point is this in no way excuses the thuggish and/or hateful actions against Jews in Europe and elsewhere (not even in Israel as Jews qua Jews). This should have been the beginning and end of Judt's analysis.

Here's an interesting quote from the piece:

And there is good evidence that Europeans have considerably more balanced views than Americans on the Israel-Palestine conflict in general. Thus, although Europeans are more likely to sympathize with the Palestinians than with Israel, they do so only by a ratio of 24:15, according to the ADL. Americans, by contrast, sympathize more with Israel than with the Palestinians, by a ratio of 55:18 (Gallup).

Okay, class, who can see the elementary error in logic here?