The GOP, seeing the opportunity to split liberals from progressives, is currently ignoring its own issues with antisemitism (remember the “good people” in Charlottesville?) and defining the term in a way that operates to its advantage. But what is its real meaning?
Let’s start with some relatively easy real world examples. Criticizing the Israeli government for specific kinds of behavior towards Palestinians is not antisemitism, because if it were, millions of Israelis would be considered antisemitic. On the other hand, making disparaging remarks about all Jews, regardless of context, clearly is antisemitic. That is the category into which right-wing antisemites fall.
The following actions are harder cases:
- Taking the position that the Jewish state should be replaced by a democratic state in which Jews and Palestinians have equal rights;
- Making unequivocal statements that Israel should be destroyed, but saying nothing about Jews elsewhere; and
- Making more equivocal statements that could be understood by reasonable listeners to call for the destruction of Israel.
To me, any statement that puts Jews and Arabs on equal footing is acceptable, so #1 is not antisemitism even if it contemplates a radical change to Israel, as it currently exists. #2 singles out Israeli Jews for ethnic cleansing and is thus antisemitic. #3 depends on context, but most people are entitled to the benefit of the doubt. If you don’t have a record of clearly calling for the destruction of Israel, it should be assumed that you only want a much better deal for the Palestinians.
As to the behavior of progressive students on Ivy League campuses, the distinction between harassment and pure speech is the bright line for me. Some right-wing commentators have argued that left-wing intimidation of reactionary students on issues pertaining to race and gender should be treated the same way. On this point, I agree with them. People with unpopular views, whether left or right, should be protected from intimidation, but not from criticism.