> What was different, I think, was that anti-capitalism then was wholly identified with socialism, whether reformist or revolutionary. Today's anti-capitalist sentiments are a lot less programmatically inspired, and much more prone to conspiracy theory. The contemporary anti capitalist movement is a lot more tolerant of romantic nature worship, and ideals of indigeneity. Anti-globalisation themes in contemporary politics render cosmopolitanism as suspect.
>
> The question of war in the middle east was generally understood by leftists, back then, as a facet of imperialism. Israel was just a local militia of the imperialist west. Today the dynamic is seen the other way around. All of these different trends, it seems to me, do make the anti-Israel protests predisposed to do what is after all the obvious (if ultimately deluded) thing, and see the problem as a problem of Jews. It that were a sentiment at large among Palestinians, you might say, who could blame them? But to see such ideas find any foothold in Europe is pretty creepy.
>
You make a good point about the decline of left identification with cosmopolitanism as a potential source of antisemitism. But the change in the left's view of Israel and its relationship to the imperialist west is just a reflection of reality. Supporting Israel the way America does serves no imperial interest, conventionally defined. This conclusion is obvious to most people but strongly resisted by many on the left because it contradicts all the standard canons and paradigms (many of them taken from Noam Chomsky, actually).
Much of the American radical left's approach to analyzing US foreign policy seems to be based on the idea that some all-knowing master-imperialist once wrote up a Treatise on America's True Imperial Interests and then had it locked up in a safe in the bowels of the White House. The left's job is to divine the secret contents of the Treatise on the basis of the various zigs and zags of American policy. In fact, there is no treatise and there are no "true" interests of American imperialism. There are only different people with different opinions.
Many members of the foreign-policy establishment sincerely believe that supporting maximalist Israeli policies is a no-brainer for Washington. After all, just look at Israel's enemies - bearded, bomb-wielding fanatics who scream anti-American slogans. To give in to them obviously would betray America's interests. But there are other members of the foreign-policy establishment - far *more* numerous, I believe, at least in terms of raw numbers - who believe just the opposite: that whatever influence the bearded fanatics wield in the Middle East derives from the widespread popular anger at Washington's support for Israel. Change the policies and you reduce the influence of the fanatics. Both positions are sincerely held.
I am not an imperial strategist but I have to say the second argument seems much more persuasive to me (from the point of view of "imperial interests"). So why do presidents tend to appoint members of the first school to the policymaking jobs on the Middle East? Because to get elected they need the support of AIPAC & co, whereas they don't need the support of the powerful Palestinian lobby, which doesn't exist. It would not be considered antisemitic or conspiracist to say that *Israel's* leaders pursue pro-Zionist policies because they and their powerful supporters/constituents are ardent Zionists. Why should it be so to state the same fact about *America's* leaders?
SA