Sunday, February 14, 2010

Identity, anti-Zionism and antisemitism

In the last communique I enclosed an initial draft of my attempt to use the Roth novel "Plot against America" as a springboard to examine identity, anti-Zionism and antisemitism in the public outcry against Israel and, more specifically, in some of the public Jewish contribution to this phenomenon.

In this final draft I have cleaned up most of the grammar, tightened the language, sharpened the logical progression, added some more references and introduced a few new points which seemed to me important. It follows below and will be posted to the site

Mike Berger

This article has arisen from a previous blog on the resonances between modern anti-Zionism and the antisemitism explored in Philip Roth’s novel, “The plot against America”. But it is also personal, especially at the two ends, where I briefly explore my own reactions to the complex predicament facing Israel and its diaspora. I make no apology for introducing the personal element since I have never pretended to the status of dispassionate expert. On the contrary, I identify completely with what I see as the core idea of Zionism – that Jews are entitled to a a national identity and homeland in which they can embody their own history and evolving national personality in the same way as the other peoples of this increasingly globalised planet. This makes me the implacable opponent of those, Jewish or non-Jewish, who wish to destroy that possibility.

I make no demands that others share this vision, though I know that it is widely shared, only that they desist from actively working for its demise. This ethnic identity must also share emotional and intellectual space with my other commitment to a universal humanity, not to mention my South African persona. Such sharing is not always comfortable since brothers may engage in murderous sibling rivalry and my universalist leanings at times must take temporary second place to my Zionist affiliations. But there are no simple formulae for such coexistance so I, and others in the same predicament, accommodate the conflicting demands as best we can in each situation.

A fair amount of print space over the past few years has been devoted to examining the treatment of Israel in much of the Western media and, by extension, the role of prejudice (antisemitism and irrational anti-Zionism)1 in the kind of coverage Israel receives. In essence, along with many other commentators, I have argued that the media coverage of Israel is seriously prejudiced and distorted and this continues in the face of rational argument and fact. The historical roots of antisemitism run deep but it is clear that its modern manifestation is the result both of deliberate propaganda as a component of a conscious paramilitary strategy and as the expression of more random forces within the global – especially Western - left.

Such developments have forced Jews who regard themselves as progressive, espousing universalist and humanist values, to confront their own relationship with Israel. Most, like myself, see no deep contradiction between their support for Israel and their broader ideological commitments, and any disquiet experienced with specific aspects of Israeli policy and society does not require a reorientation of their priorities. In fact, many find that their moral and political values impel them to support Israel especially strongly in the international arena in view of the manifestly unjust barrage of criticism it attracts and the retrograde and even fascist practices of the regimes and political groupings which confront Israel both in the Middle East and elsewhere. However, a significant and vociferous section of Jewry have taken up covert or openly antagonistic positions vis-à-vis Israel.

In the following paragraphs I look at some issues determining attitudes towards Israel and the implications these have for the majority of Jews, and many non-Jews, who support Israel. My position is predicated on the view that political choice is a multi-dimensional process determined by both universal and personal psychological processes, by ideological (political) orientations, by intellectual disposition and by situational and interactional factors operating at the material, cultural, political and social levels2. These are all mutually interactive. Although such an analysis can slip easily into a rigidly determinist paradigm, I take the view that all individuals have freedom of choice and, along with Isaiah Berlin, that such freedom is extended by knowledge and self-reflection.3

It is widely recognised that identification with an ethnic or religious group or with an ideological belief or some other collective ideal, plays an important role in determining political attitudes and choice – “Political identity emerges from a dynamic interplay between the psychological make-up of individuals, their embeddedness in particular political and social structures and institutions, and the major political experiences of their lives, which together influence their political ideologies and roles.”4 I can think of no better way of conveying the essence of identity, than through some quotes from Philip Roth’s extraordinary novel, “The plot against America”: “Their being Jews issued from being themselves…” “It was… as fundamental as having arteries and veins…” “(They) needed no profession of faith or doctrinal creed…”.5 He was referring to ordinary middle class Jews, mainly immigrants or the children of immigrants from the ghettoes of Eastern Europe, living in predominantly Jewish suburbs in mid-twentieth century USA. The quote captures the essence of deep identity in which the personal and the collective are indistinguishable and inseparable.

In Roth’s fictionalised but eerily plausible account, the USA was stealthily led into pro-Nazi and insidiously antisemitic policies at the outbreak of World War 2 from which it was rescued only by the mysterious disappearance of Lindbergh, its shadowy and iconic President. What makes his book especially relevant to our time and theme is how closely current Western anti-Zionism mirrors the dynamics of the antisemitism of the mid-twentieth century as depicted by Roth.

A leitmotif throughout the novel is the question: where does paranoia, fear and parochialism end and true antisemitism begin? Do the bland, seemingly innocuous and apparently reasonable criticisms of Jewish cultural difference, exclusivity and failure to assimilate more thoroughly into the predominantly white, Protestant host population disguise a deeper and more sinister threat or are they to be taken at their face value, as some more “enlightened” members of the Jewish community would have their compatriots believe? In essence, according to the “enlightened” argument , the Jewish community should not be immune to rational criticism and serious self-reflection. To claim that such negative comment disguises antisemitic prejudice and evil intentions is precisely the reason why Jews are disliked by their host populations: by using self-serving victimhood as camouflage, so runs the accusation, Jews license themselves to remain an exclusive, self-seeking community free to manipulate the good intentions and tolerance of their non-Jewish neighbours for their own ends.

The resemblance of this line of argument to the debate around Israel is striking. Robert Fine characterises the currently fashionable Western discourse as follows, “…the accusation of antisemitism (by Israel’s defenders) is now used to trash anyone who is critical of the policies of the Israeli government. …(As a consequence) - The struggle against antisemitism, once seen as central to the construction of a new Europe after the war, is increasingly disavowed since the charge of antisemitism merely serves to deflect or devalue criticism of Israeli occupation, Israeli human rights abuses, Israeli racism toward Arabs, and Israeli military force in Lebanon and Gaza.”6

Fine goes on to demonstrate the hollowness of this argument and, while Roth’s answer is more indirect, it is also unequivocal. The ordinary American Jew, reacting with horror, confusion and indignation to Lindbergh’s plausibly rational and ambiguous pronouncements, is right on the money. They were largely accurate in their perception that the Jewish community was being singled out and stigmatised, and correctly perceived such unfair criticism would encourage antisemitism in the general population.

Thus, according to Roth, the Jews were not the only ones who understood the coded messages behind the plausible words; antisemites within the American population took full advantage of the licence afforded by the new discourse to take out their prejudices on their fellow citizens. The DNA of racial stereotyping and exclusion from moral concern is universal and any individual (whether predator or prey) is alert to cues of ostracism and exclusion. It is important to note that Roth does not descend into a simplistic Manichean universe of innocent Jews surrounded by evil predatory foes. On the contrary, he invests his characters with the full gamut of human good and evil regardless of their religious and ethnic affiliations.

Roth’s fictional narrative is acutely relevant to the issue of Israel. Just like the flawed Jews of America, Israel is imperfect despite its enormous successes. Corruption, especially within its political domain, is too frequent for comfort. Racism is prevalent amongst some sections of the population. Social and economic inequality has increased and education policy and funding, on which the future of Israel rests, is far from optimal. Fundamentalist religion exerts an unhealthy influence on Israel’s political and civil life and Israel needs to find ways of living more humanely and harmoniously with its unassimilated and often fractious minority populations. Above all, Israel hasn’t been able to disengage from its role as an occupying power, however reluctant and indirect, over an alien hostile population with all the consequences on its own social and moral fabric.

None of this should occasion any surprise given the history of Israel and the region in which it is embedded and the multiple antagonistic agendas it has to deal with, both within and outside its borders. Some of these are solvable by Israel alone and others depend on the cooperation of others. None are easy and some may be utterly intractable, but they all provide a challenge to those who wish to make tangible contributions to the Zionist project.

Israel’s imperfections and transgressions, however, cannot objectively explain the flood of obsessive and unbalanced criticism levelled at it. David Hirsh in his speech to the Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism - Jerusalem, 25 Feb 08 – puts it this way, “Jews are involved in a real conflict in the Middle East ...When Jews are involved in conflicts there is a danger that the ways people think about those conflicts get mystified in the language of antisemitism. Anti-Zionism is not a reasonable response to the actual situation; it is a response to a narrative of the actual situation which has become mystified by antisemitism....Real human rights abuses are mystified as being genocidal like Nazism; institutional racism is mystified as being worse than apartheid; the occupation is mystified as being unique and as being a manifestation of a Zionist essence; Jewish power is mystified as an ‘Israel lobby’ capable of perverting the policy of the only super power on the planet against its own interest....contemporary antisemitism is not explicitly or obviously antisemitic. ... Antisemitism of this sort is not explicit, is not obvious, and is not self-aware. It is necessary to analyze and interpret a text to know whether it is antisemitic.”7

A vivid example is provided by a recent correspondence in the SA Jewish Report. Daniel Mackintosh8 claims that racism is prevalent amongst Israelis (specifically, in this context, Jewish Israelis) and contrasts this with the implied tolerance, except for a few extremists, displayed by Palestinians9. Yet Pew surveys (( show an extremely high level (97%) of anti-Jewish sentiment amongst Palestinians, a finding repeated in many other largely Muslim communities and one that comes as no surprise to anyone with knowledge of the political structure, culture and educational practices in many such communities. Of course, surveys also show that anti-Arab and anti-Muslim feelings are significant amongst Israelis (see Chris McGreal at, at the 40 to 50 percent level within the population. Without nitpicking over methodology and precise percntages it is clear that racism is high in both societies, but the ideological, anti-Zionist bias of the writer leads him to imply that racial prejudice is largely confined to Israelis.

Besides the objective inaccuracy of Mackintosh’s claim it ignores the fact that Israeli society as a whole is legally and informally committed to non-racism, further reinforced by the proliferation of vociferous human rights groups and judicial institutions committed to combatting racist practices by individual Israelis or civil society10. Surprisingly, given the severity of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the provocations often faced by Israelis in their interactions with Palestinians11, serious racist actions by Israelis are relatively infrequent and examples of productive coexistence common12. It is legitimate to ask whether such restraint would be shown by many other Western societies with a similar history and on-going predicament?

The problem encountered in analysis is that antisemitism can be used in two related but distinct ways. One refers to objectively irrational and selective criticism of - or behaviour towards - Jews as a whole or a significant and core sector of Jewish society, Israel for example. The other usage refers to the emotion, conscious or unconscious, of hostility towards Jews or Israel/Israelis specifically. It is widely assumed that the former implies the latter, but need that be the case? Is it possible that a dominantly biased discourse (perhaps itself derived from conventionally antisemitic sources) compounded by simple ignorance, other ideological loyalties, identification with the perceived underdog, conformity impulses or more serious situational pressures, can produce an objectively biased (antisemitic) belief and action pattern while free of conventional antisemitic prejudice? And is this important? Does it really matter, in practical terms, whether biased behaviour is caused by faulty information processing and situational factors or by internal disposition?

In my view the short answer is that one cannot easily generalise about the sources of irrational anti-Zionism in individual cases and, secondly, it probably doesn’t much matter. Given the multi-dimensional processes whereby political choices are made, the individual pathway can vary from one individual to another. In many cases the mechanism may be obvious: some are clearly motivated by old-fashioned antisemitism revealed by the virulent tone and abusive content. This can infect Jews and non-Jews alike and is marked by the significant presence of the following cues: fixity of belief and resistance to contrary evidence, obsessiveness, a low trigger threshold to expression of hostility, excessively emotive language and choice of metaphor, stereotyping and essentialising, a tendency to select, exaggerate and misrepresent and, of course, unambiguous statements of hatred and threats of destruction. All these gradations are apparent in considerable portions of the Western media and on the Internet.

In other cases the cause may include a mix, in varying proportions, of the other personal and social factors mentioned above. While of great interest to various academic disciplines, the individual motivations underlying irrational anti-Zionism is, arguably, of less importance than its prevalence (and hence potential for social spread) and its political and military impact. It must be remembered that the diplomatic and media campaigns are significantly driven by a deliberate strategy to use “public opinion” as an offensive weapon to undermine, psychologically, economically and diplomatically, the capacity of Israel to resist13. The provocations of Hamas and its approach to its military action are components of this strategic agenda. A prime example on the diplomatic-public opinion front is the Goldstone Report14 which, on a host of objective criteria15, is a plainly prejudicial and politicized document intended to stigmatise Israel.

It would be perverse to believe that the flood of anti-Zionist comment, irrespective of motivation, pervading much of the Western media does not result in secondary antisemitism of the conventional variety. It would imply a compartmentalization of rational thought and emotion for which no evidence exists and which is contradicted by the very content and volume of the critical comment, by the mass meetings and inflammatory placards and slogans, by the spike in antisemitic acts in many Western countries and by the abusive and clearly antisemitic tone of large number of contributions to Internet threads. The reality is captured in the following quote “It has often been asserted by left authors (for example, Noam Chomsky) that the link between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is a tenuous one. Chomsky asserts that the linkage is a device used by Zionists to squash dissent. Yet the linkage would not be possible—or at least would be much more difficult—if there was no past or current demonstration of anti-Semitism among Israel’s opponents. Simply stated, while it is absolutely true that all anti-Zionists are not Jew hating bigots, anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic in intent.”4 And, I would add, as an outcome.

As shown in numerous studies, pervasive social prejudice is internalised by the exposed population and by the targets (specifically here, Jews and Israelis) themselves. The overt response to such an assault on self-image varies between individuals and according to situational factors. Not surprisingly, it has driven many Jews into an ultra-nationalist stance in which Israel figures as a paragon of virtue in a sea of evil and hostility. Many others have been impelled into a more moderate, but equally obdurate, resistance to the programme of stigmatisation and delegitimisation. At the very least, few Jews for whom the Zionist project represents something positive and admirable, are eager to add their tuppence worth of criticism to the malevolent chorus and thus keep their counsel when otherwise they may have been willing to publicly chastise their brethren.

But for a significant minority the ideological assault on Israel has had a different effect. Simple observation attests to the fact that the individual may may succumb to such stereotyping. In this case we expect, and see, a spectrum of graduated responses ranging from disengagement to the role of actively hostile internal critic. Underlying much of the critical comment directed at Israel from within idealistic segments of Jewry, especially the younger generation, is the intrusion of middle class guilt, historically naïve and unrealistic ideals and decontextualised analysis into the historically and politically fraught territory of the Middle East.

But personal psychology and temperament can also contribute. In Roth’s novel the character of Rabbi Bengelsdorf, Lindbergh’s tame Jewish apologist, is depicted in distinctly unflattering terms. Specifically, he and others like him have taken on board the antisemitic prejudices they encounter in popular society or in groups to which they wish to belong, and thus seek to distinguish themselves from the Jewish common man. Laura Miller, in a review of Roth’s novel, put it this way16 “Bengelsdorf is a marvelous creation, part object lesson in the perils of collaboration and part meticulous parody of self-important men everywhere…”. In extreme cases, we encounter Jews who strenuously compete with the most bitter antisemites in the unrestrained expression of hostility towards Zionism and Israel17.

What lessons can be drawn? Public antisemitism and anti-Zionism constitute an existential threat to Israel through their multi-dimensional impact on Jews and non-Jews alike. This is now widely recognised, as is the importance of countering other paramilitary challenges of various kinds. The response cannot be predicated simply on answering prejudice with counter prejudice. Israel cannot afford the same retrogressive politics and racist stereotyping practiced by many of its enemies. It must appeal to its own highest ideals and those of the democratic world, not solely as.a public relations exercise or for some abstract ethical imperative, but also because its democratic and open culture provides Israel and Jewry with the creative edge and strategic flexibility to counter their numerically superior enemies.

The challenge is to reconcile democratic freedoms with the immediacy of existential threats. Such tensions are unavoidable in a conflict-ridden world. It is through the resolution of these difficult dilemmas that democracies derive their competitive edge, and all of us will have our own idea on where lines should be drawn. As a broad principle such lines must not curtail criticsm, especially uncomfortable criticism. But where this strays systematically into betrayal and incitement constitutes a grey but important junction where democracies under threat need to erect barriers. More important is the constant ideological repair and maintenance of the Zionist project so that it retains its potential for renewal and sturdy growth. It is only in this way that Jewish youth will remain committed to Israel and to the idea of a Jewish people living as respected members of a globalised world. Our ability to adroitly navigate these stormy waters may the be key to the survival of Israel as a Jewish state for all its peoples.

Mike Berger

1. I use the words antisemitism and anti-Zionism in this article in different ways. Anti-Zionism is hostility towards Israel that goes beyond criticism of one or more specific acts, social features or policy decisions, but is a systematic and encompassing critique of the philosophy, the country and society. In some instances, this may arise from a variably rational view which sees the Zionist project as misguided or even partaking of colonial and imperialist characteristics. At some ill-defined point such anti-Zionism passes over into what I term, in places, “irrational anti-Zionism” in which Zionism is essentialised as an evil movement fascist in spirit and intent and comparable to other widely condemned movements like apartheid or Naziism. Antisemitism, as pointed out in this article may have, at least, two meanings. One is the conventional antisemitism expressed by significant sectors of Christian Europe and much of the Muslim world in which Jews as a people are depicted as inherently evil, treacherous, devious, cruel, cowardly, greedy and aesthetically repugnant. Clearly the intensity and virulence of such feelings vary. Antisemitism may also be applied to the excessive and selective criticism of Jews or prominent aspects of of the Jewish world, eg. Israel, which is relatively unaccompanied by pan-Jewish prejudice but derives from other sources, like ideology, conformity, ignorance and so forth. Much antisemitism, both conventional and unconventional, is expressed in the form of anti-Zionism, especially irrational anti-Zionism – but the two terms are not identical in meaning. Nevertheless, irrational anti-Zionism, irrespective of its origins, can be defined as objectively antisemitic even where its motivation does not arise from conventional antisemitic prejudice. Also see, for example, “England’s not so pleasant aspect” by Anthony Julius in The Jewish Chronicle, 4 Feb 2010 at

2. See for example: The new synthesis in moral psychology. Jonathan Haidt, et al.Science 316, 998 (2007); Collective psychological processes in anti-semitism. Avner Falk Jewish Political Studies Review 18:1-2 (Spring 2006); Spontaneous Inferences, Implicit Impressions, and Implicit Theories. James S. Uleman, S. Adil Saribay, and Celia M. Gonzalez In Annual Review of Psychology Vol. 59: 329-360 (2008); Political Psychology: Situations, Individuals, and Cases, by David P. Houghton. Publ. Routledge, December 2008, (ISBN: 978-0-415-99013-4).

3. From hope and fear set free. Isaiah Berlin in The Proper Study of Mankind: an anthology of essays. Eds. Henry Hardy and Roger Hausheer, Publ. Farar, Straus and Giroux, NY, 2000.

4. Leaving the Radical Left: Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism, and Jewish Response (Part Three, Draft 1). From the New Centrist Blog at
5. The plot against Ameica: a novel. Philip Roth, Publ. by Vintage International, Sept 2005.

6. Re-membering the Holocaust. Robert Fine at .

7. Speech at Global Forum for Combating Anti-semitism, Jerusalem 8 Feb 2008. David Hirsh see ENGAGE

8. SA Jewish Report, 22 Jan 2010: “I have met young Jewish people who are not proud of the racism that is so prevalent in Israel...”

9. SA Jewish Report 4 Dec 2009: “South African Jewish youth have started to meet Palestinians, and although there are those violent, anti-Semitic extremists, many.... have found that the majority of Palestinians want to live in coexistence with their Jewish neighbours under a just peace.”

10. Arab citizens of Israel. Wikipedia at; Coexistence between Arabs and Jews in Israel. The Israel Project. See; Israel at 61. The Israel Project. See

11. “Hello Police? Scew your sister!”. In The Jerusalem Post byYaacov Lappin, 12 Feb 2010. See

12. The surprise of it all. In The Jerusalem Post by Daniel Doron, 10 Feb 2010. See at

13. See launch of International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN) at; Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies; NGO Monitor, 13 Oct 2008 at; Manipulating the marketplace of ideas, Gerald M. Steinberg at Haaretz, 29 Nov. 2009; Viewpoint by Gerald Steinberg, Jerusalem Report, 17 Aug 2009.

14. HUMAN RIGHTS IN PALESTINE AND OTHER OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES. Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict at

15. Memorandum to the Human Rights Council re the Goldstone Report at; Open letter to Goldstone by Trevor Norwitz, see; The Goldstone Illusion, Moshe Halbertal in The New Republic 6 Nov 2009.

16. Review of “The plot against America: a novel” (Philip Roth) by Laura Miller, 8 Oct 2004 at

17. Jewish Anti-Zionism Unravelled: The Morality of Vanity (Part 1) by Anthony Julius in Z-word (blog), March 2008 at; Jewish Anti-Zionism Unravelled, Part Two: Questioning Antisemitism by Anthony Julius in Z-word (blog) at questioning-antisemitism-%2528part-2%2529.html.


Lawrence said...

If anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism in intent and effect (which it is) then it is anti-Semitism in totality. Political anti-Zionism especially is indisputably not merely anti-Semitic, but pathologically and viciously so. It is anti-Semitism of the worst kind.

Your interesting informative essay does overlook basic points, if I may say so. Namely the motives of leftwing anti-Zionists - that is what motivates leftwing anti-Semitism and why the need to disguise or pretend they are not anti-Semitic by hiding behind the mask of anti-Zionism? (these two points I do not even address below and yet this is central to what Jacques Givet called back in the 1970s, the anti-Zionist complex).

The attempt to hide Jew-hatred from themselves as much as any other, behind anti-Zionism only reveals it. Whenever one tries to hide something one reveals it inadvertently and unintentionally. The paradox of the mask.
It is revealed since anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism by definition. It is an anti-Zionism they share with neo-Nazis and Muslim radicals and Baathists from Hamas to Hezbollah to Al Qu'eda to the Syrian regime to the Taliban, all without exception. This is too obvious, so it hardly occurs to anybody to point it out.

Chomsky is the proof in the pudding, that anti-Zionism is the most vicious kind of anti-Semitism. Chomsky's criticism of Israel is beyond the bounds of reason and fairness, it is vicious and deceitful, littered through and through with falsehoods ie it is anti-Semitic criticism. Chomsky had a friendly correspondence with Holocaust Deniers in France over thirty years ago, the notorious Robert Faurisson among them. Chomsky wrote a foreword to a book by Faurisson in which Faurisson called the Holocaust a myth concocted by Zionists to extort money from Germany and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a genuine document and more guff along those lines. Chomsky called Faurisson "a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort" in this foreword.

Chomsky defended his association with Faurisson by saying "I see no anti—Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust. Nor would there be anti—Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti—Semitic implications in Faurisson's work..."

This is well-known and always pointed out and rightly so by Chomsky's critics. There is much more on that front, see Werner Cohn's comprehensive piece here "Partners in Hate - Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers". Plenty others who have exposed Chomsky for the anti-Semite and liar that he is. Chomsky recently gave support to Hezbollah's rearming.

Lawrence said...

Here is Chomsky on American Jews, from an interview in a leftwing Jewish Journal in '88:

“The Jewish community here is deeply totalitarian. They do not want democracy, they do not want freedom.”

How about this from Chomsky in 2002
“Jews in the US are the most privileged and influential part of the population... privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control. That’s why antisemitism is becoming an issue.”

There is so so much more on Chomsky's mendacity and out and out fascism (not only with Israel) -see for example on this front Rachel Neuwirth's 'The Chomsky File' but I can only point out so much in a comment to a blog. Point of fact - Chomsky is a vicious liar and anti-Semite. The fact that he is taken seriously by the Left near to thirty years after the Faurisson affair broke, this alone reveals a moral and intellectual bankruptcy among his supporters.

Taking a discredited anti-Semite (the Faurisson Affair is all the evidence one needs, although there is plenty more) like Chomsky seriously on Israel alone is itself anti-Semitic and is a major exhibit for the prosecution, for the case that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Incidentally Osama bin Laden is a fan of the man and has recommended his writings in one of his speeches, that should not surprise us, Osama along with the neo-Nazis who admire Chomsky so much is likewise an anti-Zionist. A coincidence? I think not.

Lastly, you write that anti-Zionism does lead to secondary anti-Semitism in effect. Well since anti-Zionism is motivated by anti-Semitism not the other way around, since it is anti-Semitism, you are effectively saying that anti-Semitism in intent leads to anti-Semitism in effect. It would, since anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism. It is simply that the mask of anti-Zionism slips over time and the cat is let out the bag, the disguise drops and naked honest anti-Semitism is revealed, the truth outs. That is the Jew-hatred which doesn't bother with the niceties of disguise behind anti-Zionist and anti-Israel rhetoric, is revealed. This naked anti-Semitism is what you mean by secondary anti-Semitism.