"These documents that they call 'anti-semitic' were drawn up by both members of the United Church and members of the Jewish Community and rely largely on sources and quotes from Jewish academics and activists in Canada, The United States and Israel."

Which in itself proves exactly nothing. There is a long history of antisemitism coming from the mouths of Jews, and an equally long history of antisemites seeking cover for their own antisemitism by seeking alliance with such Jews.

It's entirely possible to support a two-state solution (as I do) and the withdrawal of Israeli military presence from the West Bank (as I do), while at the same time opposing the blatantly antisemitic attacks on Israel and Israelis that are embodied in such crusades as these boycotts (as I do).

The only way to assess whether the arguments being made in favor of this boycott and the policies being recommended to implement it are antisemitic is to know what the arguments are and evaluate them accordingly. Whether the arguments and recommendations are being made by Jews or not is irrelevant.

As it happens: there really exists such a thing as antisemitism, and (unsurprisingly) it is present among those most fervently committed to seeing Israel and Israelis punished for their troubled relationship with Palestinians. The inability/unwillingness of the supporters of the Palestinians to recognize this reality plays a large role in raising the suspicions of Jews who, like me, are concerned with the realities you implicitly pooh-pooh with your snarky little scare quotes.

Thanks for your comment David, though I would suggest that the only “pooh-poohing” being done here is your assessment of the validity of political criticisms.

While you are absolutely right in that the mere fact that Jewish voices critical of the State of Israel are not enough to prove the absence of anti-Semitism in their critiques (and that’s not what I intended to imply though I can certainly see how it was read that way) surely you would admit that labeling all such critiques as anti-Semitic regardless of their validity is just as paper thin. About as paper thin as calling Obama’s staff members “self-hating Jews” simply because their boss challenged the Israeli state over the settlement issue.

I am concerned by what I see in your comment where you say that “The only way to assess whether the arguments being made in favor of this boycott and the policies being recommended to implement it are anti-Semitic is to know what the arguments are and evaluate them accordingly”. I say this because in the paragraph above you suggest that any such boycott is a priori anti-Semitic. Why would one bother to find out if arguments in support of something are anti-Semitic when that thing it supports is anti-Semitic regardless?

I would love for the United Church to have a reasoned debate on the merits of the boycott, divestment and sanctions issue much like the Methodists have done here. My suggestion is that if someone calls such a debate anti-Semitic before it even takes place then the debate gets shut down to the benefit of no one but those who prefer the status quo in Israel and Palestine.

Lastly, I agree with you that serious cases of anti-Semitism coming out of the Middle East and elsewhere are too often overlooked and that such anti-Semitism plays a “large role in raising the suspicions of Jews” as you suggest. I’ll give you an example: I’ve been to bookstores in Amman and seen copies of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” prominently displayed and my concern, as I write in the end of the post, is that this sort serious undercurrent in places like Amman (or New York for that matter) get occluded by the faulty claim that comparing the Israeli Occupation to apartheid South Africa is anti-Semitic.

In all sincerity, I would love to get your opinion on how one can be a “supporter of the Palestinians” as you put it, without being anti-Semitic. I do appreciate your comment. Thanks again.

"I am concerned by what I see in your comment where you say that 'The only way to assess whether the arguments being made in favor of this boycott and the policies being recommended to implement it are anti-Semitic is to know what the arguments are and evaluate them accordingly'. I say this because in the paragraph above you suggest that any such boycott is a priori anti-Semitic. Why would one bother to find out if arguments in support of something are anti-Semitic when that thing it supports is anti-Semitic regardless?"

That's a fair point. Two things: 1. I stake my argument on the a priori antisemitic nature of these boycott movements based on the exclusivity of their moral focus. Are similar boycotts against, say, the Chinese being organized to protest their treatment of the Uigher community? The notion that Israel's treatment of Palestinians is so uniquely evil on the world stage that it and only it merits treatment as in international pariah state is antisemitic on its face. 2. In fairness, it was you who called attention to the content of the boycott's supporting documents and the question of whether they themselves conveyed antisemitism. My argument addressed your claim about these supporting documents quite explicitly -- and I'm sorry, TWB, but I see no other way to read your fifth paragraph than as an attempt to inoculate their arguments against charges of antisemitism purely by virtue of their partially Jewish authorship -- an interpretation I still think valid, especially given your claim that the "pro-Israel lobby" would prefer this detail not come to light, as though it would undermine interpretation of the arguments as antisemitic.

"[T]his sort serious undercurrent [of antisemitism] in places like Amman (or New York for that matter) get occluded by the faulty claim that comparing the Israeli Occupation to apartheid South Africa is anti-Semitic."

I suppose I would say occlusion is in the eye of the beholder, no? To my mind, the moral seriousness of comparisons between Israel and South Africa (continuous shelling of Johannesburg from shanty towns? really?) is occluded by the violently faulty, all-too-common equation of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians with Nazism. That the proponents of the "milder" analogy never fail to give their fellow travelers a free pass on this certainly does not go unnoticed by Jews who have heard the "drive them into the sea" rhetoric a few times too many.

"In all sincerity, I would love to get your opinion on how one can be a 'supporter of the Palestinians' as you put it, without being anti-Semitic."

If you take the completely zero-sum perspective that the only possible resolution is all-or-nothing, then it is, in fact, not possible to support the Palestinians without being antisemitic. If your position is that the moral failings in this relationship have been entirely on the side of the Israelis, then it is, again, not possible to support the Palestinians without being antisemitic. If your position is that there is no ethical problem with the several states in the region officially identified as "the Arab Republic of" this or "the Islamic Republic of" that, etc., but that the very notion of a Jewish state is anathema, then it is not possible to support the Palestinians without being antisemitic.

If you take the position that the Palestinians' moral right to self-determination is not inconsistent with the Jews' moral right to self-determination, and that a resolution needs to be identified that will respect both of these moral rights, then I think it's entirely possible to support the Palestinians without being antisemitic.

most semites are not jews. most israelis are european, not semites. ethnicity is not the problem.

this struggle is between zionists and palestinians, invaders and natives. the zionists are without any moral base, and claim 'anti-semitism' to divert attention from the invasion and occupation of palestine. it is not going to be effective for much longer, and shouting "anti-semitism!" louder does not improve the argument.

israel may survive, justice submits to power. but the struggle will go on as long as one palestinian says 'get out of my home.'

"most semites are not jews"

Judaeophobe, then. As you probably know, the term "antisemitismus" entered the modern vocabulary through the work of the 19th century German pamphleteer Wilhelm Marr, who was looking for a term that would make hatred of Jews more palatable by making it appear more scientific, to those of his countrymen who were put-off by the too-crass-because-too-accurate "Judenhass."

"most israelis are european, not semites."

Irrelevant, and also untrue. Recent genetic studies of Jewish populations, including the Ashkenazim, have shown that they have ancestry indigenous to the region.

"it is not going to be effective for much longer, and shouting 'anti-semitism!' louder does not improve the argument."

I've never really thought it was effective, if by effective you mean changing the mind of anybody who isn't immediately affected by the problem of antisemitism -- sorry -- judaeophobia. That calling a judaeophobe a judaeophobe is unlikely to have much impact on the judaeophobe's thinking or behavior isn't in itself, however, an argument for refraining from speaking the truth.

"israel may survive, justice submits to power. but the struggle will go on as long as one palestinian says 'get out of my home.'"

Perhaps. I suspect it will also go on as long as people such as yourself keep saying to Jews, "You may not have a home."

By the way, how many Jews live in Hebron these days? How many used to?

the enabling of Israel's unfairness must end