This cartoon has been doing the rounds. For example, here. Norman Finkelstein posts on his site here.
The new commonsense is that Jews cry "Antisemitism!" in order to silence criticism of Israel. When you hear the term "antisemitism" look for a "Zionist" trying to cover or excuse or legitimise Israeli crimes.
Except, of course, it isn't true. Nobody argues that criticizing Israel is antisemitic - that would be silly. So why the persistence of the idea that "antisemitism" is a tool that "Zionist" liars employ in their own interest?
David Duke, former leader of the Klu Klux Klan, says the following:
It is perfectly acceptable to criticize any nation on the earth for its errors and wrongs, but lo and behold, don't you dare criticize Israel; for if you do that, you will be accused of the most abominable sin in the modern world, the unforgivable sin of anti-Semitism!
Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, says much the same thing:
For far too long the accusation of anti-semitism has been used against anyone who is critical of the policies of the Israeli government, as I have been.
Tam Dalyell agrees:
The trouble is that anyone who dares criticise the Zionist operation is immediately labelled anti-Semitic
"Criticism of Israel is not anti-semitism" insists Michael Neumann, philosophy professor at Trent university in Canada, while Norman Finkelstein, teacher of political theory at de Paul University, Chicago, writes that one central purpose of his new book is to expose the way that the charge of anti-semitism is misused to "delegitimise criticism" of the occupation.
Gilad Atzmon, saxophonist and anti-Zionist says:
Zionist lobbies present all critical views of Israel as a form of anti-semitism.
Why are all these different individuals from entirely different political traditions raising precisely the same straw-man argument?
The effect of this straw-man argument is to muddy the distinction between legitimate criticism of Israeli policy - which nobody serious, no Jewish communal organisation and no mainstream Israeli politician says is illegitimate - and the kind of demonisation, conspiracy theorising, blood libels, and misrepresentations that some argue do run the risk of building the ideological and emotional foundations for the emergence of an anti-semitic movement.
To go back over the examples above.
David Duke's interest in pretending that there is no difference between legitimate criticism and anti-semitism needs no explanation.
Ken Livingstone, who seems to have acquired a habit of employing low-level racist abuse against Jews, certainly has a record of doing more than criticise Israeli policy. He condemns bus bombing in his own city but "understands" it and refuses to condemn it when it happens in Israel. He welcomes the anti-semitic Yusef al Qaradawi to City Hall as an honoured guest. Some may accuse Livingstone of anti-semitism, but it is not because he "criticises the policies of Israeli governments". It may be that the charge of anti-semitism against Livingstone is not proven. But it is clear that the charge is not levelled against him because of straightforward policy disagreements.
Tam Dalyell accused the Blair government of being unduly influenced by a Jewish cabal that tricks the Blair government into following Jewish rather than British interest (whatever he might have thought "Jewish interest" was). Again, some may accuse Dalyell of anti-semitism as a result, but this is not because he has made measured and reasonable criticism of Israeli policy.
Michael Neumann says the following, in the ever-so-radical Counterpunch:
The progress of Arab antisemitism fits nicely with the progress of Jewish encroachment and Jewish atrocities. This is not to excuse genuine antisemitism; it is to trivialize it. It came to the Middle East with Zionism and it will abate when Zionism ceases to be an expansionist threat.
This again, is something other than "criticism of Israeli policy".
However we may judge Norman Finkelstein's work, the people who accuse him of anti-semitism are not doing so because he "criticises" the occupation. They do so because they think that his analysis that there is a "Holocaust industry" that is exploited by some to hide Israeli human rights abuses behind the smoke of Auschwitz and Treblinka is dangerous and offensive.
Gilad Atzmon, the saxophonist - who has written "I would suggest that perhaps we should face it once and for all: the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus" - risks muddying the distinction between criticism of Israeli policy on the one hand and the demoniation of Jews on the other.
I am not arguing that all of the above are anti-semites. I am arguing that the fact that they raise the straw-man argument - "the Zionists call me an anti-semite because I criticise Israeli policy" - should ring an alarm bell for anyone that hears them do it.
Mainstream Israeli politicians and Jewish communal leaders may be "Zionists" (whatever that term may mean); some (but certainly not all) may be right wing nationalists; some (but not all) may be tainted by anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia. But they are not idiots. They do not claim that "any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic".
David Hirsh