Anti-semitism should not be considered a thing of either party or end of the political spectrum, as it tends to be more of a cultural issue. The Nazis, contrary to the left's tendency (inherited from, or developed in parallel with, Stalin's penchant for labeling all his enemies, from Trotsky to the Pope as right wingers) to apply a conservative label to every concept on which there is a consensus about its evil, were at least as much of a left-wing development as right-wing. Fascism and Nazism were no more made right-wing by their attacks on communists & communism than Martin Luther and John Calvin were rendered anti-Christian or pagan by virtue of their attacks on Catholicism. Much of Hitler's & Mussolini's platforms were purely socialistic. The only arguments made for their conservatism are "because evil=conservative" dogma or else references to nationalism, which the left has frequently managed to conflate with patriotism. Hitler himself drew a distinction between the two concepts, while traditionalist & conservative GK Chesterton expressed frequent disgust with jingoistic nationalism, comparing the "My country, right or wrong" idea with saying "My mother, drunk or sober". Chesterton criticized Rudyard Kipling's militarism and nationalism by pointing out that while his views were driven by a love of his country, if his prescriptions were followed, it would no longer be the country Kipling loved. This has always been the view of the right. Patriotism is a loyalty to, and preference for, one's own country (if not necessarily the state itself) which does not preclude criticism or opposition. The line between disloyalty at the worst time, and loyal opposition has always been a complex question that does not easily place such behavior on a right-left spectrum. On the other hand, nationalism is pro-state, and of necessity, pro-militaristic and dangerous to civil liberties at best, hostile at worst. The natural mistrust of conservatism toward the most recent enemies of the West, Soviet Communism & Islamic terrorism, has made it easy to portray militarism and support for strong national defense as a conservative issue, and even confused many conservatives, but has little in common with conservative principles and thought. Hard-core conservatives have always been skeptical at best, and often opposed to American military adventures, including leaders like Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul. By contrast, John McCain's conservatism is barely regarded, he is infamous for breaking with the GOP on all sorts of issues, and criticizing the right, but the one issue on which he has been consistent in his support for the Republican party line has always been the militaristic issues. Prior to Iraq, every significant US military conflict of the 20th century was initiated by a left-wing Democratic president, and Bush 1, the most militarily active of Republican presidents, was among the most liberal GOP presidents as well (and indeed, faced an almost unheard-of primary challenge from the right in his re-election year).

The point, which I got a little away from, is that Hitler's jingoism has little or nothing to do with conservative principles, and his outright contempt for Christianity and Christian values (which put him at odds with the Vatican back when progressive Westerners were hailing him as the coming thing), along with his embrace of socialistic positions in economic and labor spheres make him far more plausible as a left-winger.

It never has been. University students and professors have hardly been a bastion of conservatism or traditionalism, but were among Hitler's most enthusiastic supporters, with student demonstrators who would be familiar to any observers of the "Occupy..." movements. Book burning was more often a past-time of such groups than the Nazi administration itself, and men like Heidegger not only embraced Nazism in purging their Jewish colleagues, but took pains to offer intellectual justifications for it, and give Hitler's ideology an illusion of academic & intellectual legitimacy.

Hahahaha! Welcome to the world of being an anti-liberal! That's not anti-Semitism, that's how they treat EVERYone with whom they disagree or of whom they disapprove. It was actually kind of funny watching Hilary Clinton get the GOP treatment in the 2008 primaries, subjected to the sort of contentious policy grilling traditionally reserved for Republican candidates, while the guy whose victory would make a better story got the softballs about his feelings and pride.
It seems like European Jews are their equivalent of American blacks. In both cases, the left doesn't really care about them, but finds them useful human shields to advance leftist policies, while denouncing right-wing opposition as bigotry.
I would contend that the left never learned any lessons about World War Two, they just realized that they could not get away with certain tactics, which horrified people when taken to their logical extreme.

Moreover, nationalism had stopped being useful to the left. Before & between the World Wars, it was a weapon against traditional mores and interests. Afterwards, with Soviet expansionism at its peak, and no longer something that could fly under the radar, anti-nationalism, globalism and international cooperation were now ways to derail opposition to the Soviet empire bloc.

Don't forget, nobody "learned" that ethnic cleansing and national self-determination was a bad thing in the aftermath of World War Two, as the de-Germanizing of Eastern Europe demonstrates, as well as the forced repatriation of Soviet emigres. Plainly, to the victors of the war, the principles were not nearly as important as to whom they were applying them.

And for the Soviets, hence the death-marching of German communities out of countries where they had existed, generally peacefully, since before Anglo-Saxons had lived in the New World.
Temporary in the sense that the Germans were the ones to end it. A number of German officials involved in hammering out the terms of, and executing their alliance found the Soviet officials to be kindred spirits, and their meetings to be more like internal party affairs, than political negotiations.

Why would they? Traditional mores including basic humanity and morality, as well as acknowledgment of a common humanity, were no longer in vogue, considered mere outdated sentiment that had to take a backseat to the primacy of the state. None of the actions of the warring powers gave much indication of any value on human life or individual rights. Even the USA conscripted its citizens, confiscated property, suppressed even peaceful opposition, demonized the enemy, interned groups based solely on suspicions or commonality with the enemy, and targeted the enemy's war-making capabilities regardless of the potential for civilian casualties. The Prime Minister of the UK had been the naval minister responsible for imposing a starvation blockade against a surrendered enemy nation at the end of the Great War
Don't they mean Marx & Engels? The messianic character of socialism and communism was undoubtedly one of the reasons why so many Jews gravitated towards those movements.
Against everyone, not just the Jews, starting with the Germans, and in continuation with policies against other minorities, such as the Holodomor. After the war, it was a little too much to get the Poles out of Poland or the Germans out of East Germany or the Romanians out of Romania, and so on, but the intellectual and social leadership of the nations behind the Iron Curtain were definitely targeted for elimination.

Wait, a government acted in the interests of its subjects? How awful! What foreign people did to the Jews was not the fault of the British government or people. They were under no moral obligation to alleviate ethnic tensions in Europe, by creating new sources of discord in the Levant. Can anyone say that the Arabs were wrong in anticipating problems for their people arising from a massive influx of Jews?

He wasn't wrong. More to the point, it was not in the interests of people who had certain beliefs to make exceptions for what certain others claimed was a special circumstance.
The record of Nazis' success against the Jews does not mean they are or were the only people to ever be in the position of being hated or targeted for suppression or elimination. All sorts of people are told the exact same thing by the left, who today enshrine feelings over objective facts for their own supporters who frequent tend to come from privileged positions. It was hard for well-to-do white people to keep claiming persecuted status in order to head off their opposition's arguments, so newer ways to parse down persecution and suffering were invented. If a member of an unfashionable group claims to have suffered discrimination or persecution, they leap to put it into perspective against the worse sufferings of others, but if you point out that in the grand scheme of things, a fashionable victim group has not had it all that bad, then all that matters is the FACT of oppression or marginalization, and how the victims feels about being singled out or having his or her feelings hurt. Having all the white people on the bus give you a long look when you board is not remotely in the category of what Rosa Parks endured, but you'd never know it, to hear a well-to-do black liberal complain nowadays. But by the same token, whites are not permitted to complain about any sort of racial victimization, because it doesn't compare to a couple centuries of slavery.

For the left's group identity policies, there is no consistent principle, it is and always has been a political weapon to preempt criticism and opposition, when not outright pandering for support.

Which has nothing to do with the Holocaust or Jews, and everything to do with the shortcomings of the left's embrace of moral relativism. The right has no need to grapple with where to place an issue on such a scale, because of traditional morality which states that killing people is wrong, and you are only responsible for your own actions. By contrast, the left depends on group identity to claim solidarity with, and by extension, support from, groups who hold a degree of perceived moral high ground due to their mistreatment, as well, as seeking to have that moral high ground rub off on themselves. When something doesn't easily or neatly fit into their flawed narrative, as in the Jews and Israel, for which the Holocaust was a crucial prologue, they don't have anywhere to turn, and may be uncomfortable if a concept that threatens their world view or at least operational handbook. Not all persecuted minorities fit into easily visualized categories, and thus retard their attempts to compose simplistic slogans and images to stir emotion. Not that the typical liberal believes in killing people, but on the whole, the short history of the modern, socialist-leaning left, as started in 1789, has an extensive history of broken eggs.

The idea that group which more closely fits the PC definition of privileged suffered mistreatment comparable to, or arguably worse than, almost any of the left's favored poster children, undermines their preferred battle lines of Them and Us. The subsequent "nationalistic" & "colonialist" behavior against more traditional "victims" is a dangerous example to anyone who gives serious thought to the left's claims of a happy outcome from empowering other victims. Israel is the only victim, of what the left admits or claims are group crimes, to make good, and their subsequent success does not fit the leftwing promise of harmony and happy endings, when the victims get recompense.

But that's only true because the left insists on treating the one experience as relevant to the other behavior. The right would say "your father was wrong to rape you." They would also say "You are wrong to hit your kid (if in fact she was)". The left are the ones who would take the rape into consideration when addressing the child abuse. The only way a traditionalist would take that into account would be to note a correlation with the behavior of a victim once in a position of power. And that, as I alluded above, is not something the left wants to spread around. Not content with simply pitying or excusing misbehaving victims on account of their past victimization, the left is interested in political power, for which they needs must call for the empowerment of said victims. A beaten dog should be pitied for the treatment that brought about its tendency to viciousness, but no sane person would leave such a dog alone with a child. If victimization is the cause of misbehavior, it stands to reason that victims MUST be disenfranchised to break the cycle.

That analogy regarding criticism of Israel makes perfect sense, but is only a condemnation of the left, because of the left's own illogical insanity.

Rightly, because those are not a real thing. A "stateless people" has no more "national rights" than a fictional character has civil rights.
But that is a logical extrapolation of the politics of compassion, and the lack of a mechanism to compel adherence is another problem with the end-game vision promised by the left. They demand groups surrender certain advantages or advantageous positions by positing a zero sum equation, and can only offer the promise that other groups will not take undue advantage. A white person might logically ask why he should put himself and his group at the mercy of a group which has good reason, if not moral justification to resent or hate them, but the only answer offered (when offered at all; such a question is much more likely to be begged with demonization and accusations of bigotry or whatever PC-sins are convenient to apply), is that other groups won't do that. No means of ensuring such compliance is offered, nor any proof that they will not behave in such fashion. For example, affirmative action is only giving preference and advantages to blacks, until their group achieves parity with white people. How we are to determine the point at which such parity is achieved, and thus know to halt the practice of preferring blacks, is never explained, nor is any answer given to the question of why blacks would surrender an advantage, or how they will be made to. Traditional morality suggests all human beings, black or white, will be inclined to act in accordance with their material well-being or emotional satisfaction, neither of which suggests the wisdom of giving out undue advantages or privileges. Experience also shows that giving such advantages to victims, whose material well-being has become inextricably linked to preventing a recurrence of victimization, and whose emotional well-being is served in payback, is imprudent.

The left, however, rejects tradition in both morality, and acceptance of past experience as a guiding factor or predictor of future outcomes. The left's vision is centered on a superior future outcome not previously experienced, and their actions are, in the most charitable interpretation, the means they believe will take us through uncharted territory to their hypothesized destination.

The demand that Israel pay forward the compassion and sympathy for minority/victim groups that allowed its existence in the first place, springs entirely from the leftist vision, and is completely counter-indicated by human experience. Expecting Israel to assume the Palestinians will stop at a degree Israel can live with, without being stopped, is akin to asking a rape victim to expect a man entering her personal space will not move on to physical contact, that a hand on her knee will not slide upward, or that uninvited physical advances will simply cease when so demanded. It's insane.

But liberals want to, metaphorically speaking, hand such women a gun, pointed at people who share characteristics with the rapists.

Nothing Stalin ever did had anything to do with communist ideology. It was a useful means for a thug to seize power, and his entire history of wielding power was one of turning one group of his supporters or subordinates against another, to prevent any concentration of power that could be used against him.
He called them that, because it was a useful excuse to squash them. Jews were pretty far down the list of concentrations of power in the USSR, but once those more prominent were whittled down, it would inevitably be their turn.
See?

"Gratitude is a disease of dogs."
This was not unique treatment. Many other groups, real or artificially defined by Stalin himself, had been subjected to the exact same treatment. This is like noticing that a serial killer's 23rd victim is black, and claiming as a result that he is a racist. Not that such claims are atypical of the left, rather, they are highly likely to use such an occasion to demand special measures be taken to ensure the black community never again be subjected to such treatment...

Because at the time, Jews were an extremely useful group of allies, whether in Soviet Russia, where they were so prominent among the Bolshevik leadership that the best substitute Stalin could find to replace his Jewish foreign minister for negotiations with Nazi Germany, as Molotov, who had a Jewish wife, or in the west, where they were disproportionate participants in the socialist movements, unions and parties. In 1931, the USSR was a pariah nation, who desperately needed all the good will and ideologically-based sympathy it could muster.
Again, this is nothing new in the Soviet playbook.

Well, yes. They were after Jews in this trial, so it makes sense they'd be more overtly anti-Semitic. This sort of thing is why the antipathy between philo-Semites and liberal is so amusing to outsiders - they use the same tactics, and are outraged when the same principles are used to target themselves. Somehow, the evil of an act comes into focus when done to the Jews.
Wait, is the author claiming that somehow, people were subjected to spurious and false accusations under Stalin's justice system? I suppose every wrecker and saboteur arrested, tried and shot as such in the 30s was actually guilty, and this level of guilt by association was only invented when it was the Jews' turn in the hole.

It is actually consistent with how broadly and conveniently liberals apply and interpret that label.

So now the left is on record as agreeing that the left wing in the West was strongly influenced by the Soviet party line, and took direction from the USSR? Because that's pretty much the exact opposite of their position whenever conservative or merely security conscious Westerners objected to membership in left-wing organizations or affiliations with such groups. According to Jamie Palmer, the USSR was responsible for turning Western liberals anti-Semitic, so why was Joseph McCarthy wrong to object to subscribers of such periodicals and members of far-left organizations, having access to critical or classified information. Contrary to leftist mythology, McCarthy was not trying to round up communists or even punish them in any way. He was simply trying to address the issue that people with such suspect connections, were allowed to occupy highly sensitive positions in government, and especially the national security apparatus. It's also worth mentioning that quite a bit of bigotry was involved in opposition to him. Annie Moss fell back on disgusting stereotypical expectations of blacks to evade his questioning of her communist associations, and it was liberals who accepted her "ignorant n****r" defense, heaping scorn on the idea that she was smart enough to read the Communist periodicals she got in the mail. Smearing McCarthy for his association with the gay Jewish lawyer(s) on his staff was another liberal tactic elided from the historical record.

Say, now who's conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism? This article started out complaining about anti-Semitism, but the substance seems to be opposition to Zionism at this point. Is Palmer saying that any opposition to the actions of the state of Israel is automatically anti-Semitic? Earlier Soviet support for it was referred to as philosemitism, so it would seem to be the case. That, BTW, is another favorite task of the left, to offer a false choice of two extremes. Pro-Israel or Pro-Holocaust! One or the other! The ballot or the bullet! If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem!

That's a whole lot of unexamined assumptions or at least oversimplifications. There are lots of flourishing UN member states that the world would be better off without, so the implication that there is something wrong with hostility toward any state which meets that criteria is flawed right off the bat, but they also have to throw in the gross oversimplification that Soviet Union is the root of anti-Semitism, based solely on a pattern of behavior more consistent with Soviet treatment of anyone who was not a slavishly obedient puppet of Joseph Stalin than it is an indicator of anything more than pragmatic hostility to a potential threat to unity.
The example of Slansky does not disprove the claims of Livingstone. This article would appear to be confirming those claims. Just because someone was made to make a false confession does not mean the crime never happened. The fact that the Soviets forced Slansky to make that statement shows that the concept, at least, was not alien to them. Perhaps they found it plausible, because it was a tactic they had trained the Western left to use in advancing all sort of social agendas, with blacks or women, instead of Jews.
"We have always been at war with Eatasia."
It was merely the shape the anti-Western movement of the left happened to take because it was convenient. In the Cold War, the Third World was no threat to the USSR & its satellites, so idealizing it at the expense of the West served the aims of the Left for victims on whose behalf they could demonize the West, which was superior to the Soviet bloc by any objective or traditional standard. Likewise, it served to retard and constrict any Western activity involving such states, which gave the Soviets an advantage in spreading their own influence. It's not that the Third World possessed qualities that made it appealing to the left, it's that the same leftist sensibilities, so manipulated by the USSR in the case of anti-Semitism, as the author claims above, found excuses to idolize the Third World to the strategic benefit of their Soviet masters. Anti-colonialism served to weaken the major Western powers, and with a significant portion of Western academics and journalists ready to accept the Soviet narrative at face value, colonialism on the part of the USSR could easily be labeled something else, and ignored by anti-colonialists. Had a different ideological movement better fit Soviet interests, the Third World would not have been nearly so romanticized.
Soviet strategic needs, exerted the only significant influence on radical thought during the post-war era And Palestine was really about the USSR. It's not a coincidence that all sorts of anti-Western terrorist groups, including various Western European factions, obtained arms and funding from the Soviets and their puppets, as well as training from Soviet instructors in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley.
I would call the much more successful Communist takeovers in such places as Indochina, much more significant, and the beneficiaries of those events were the Communist world, in their prevention of another significant portion of the Pacific Rim from modernizing and Westernizing. There is no reason why Vietnam could not have followed the path of recovery and industrial success of South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, and thus further contribute to the encirclement and isolation of the Communist East.

But I supposed if you are a completely blinkered Jewish partisan possessed of left-wing habits of thought, the sympathy of effete Western academics, celebrities, journalists and self-appointed intellectuals IS a bigger win.

"Ho ho ho Chi Minh is gonna win!"
Like the publicizing of the South Vietnamese execution photo, or the burning of Thich Quang Duc, or the emphasis on the My Lai incident...
"Dig it! First they killed those pigs and then they put a fork in pig Tate's belly. Wild!" - Bernardine Dohrn, leftwing radical, Communist sympathizer, Obama supporter, born Bernardine Ohrnstein.
That's not an inaccurate comparison, though the author seems to be implying that Guevara holds some sort of moral superiority or legitimacy that Arafat does not deserve, when in fact, there is little to no distinction between the two men, save in superficial cultural differences.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, especially when we are both catspaws of our enemy's arch foe!
Except the right was asking them, and being sneered at, in terms often suggesting uncritical acceptance of ideas, and lack of receptiveness to challenging notions was a significant and exclusive feature of the right.

First they applied their invented condemnations to the right wingers. I was not a right winger, so I said nothing. Then they applied them to Asian governments targeted by communists. I was not an Asian nation targeted by communists, so I said nothing. Then they applied them to Western attempts to keep third world tribes from machete-killing one another. I was not a third world tribe looking to machete-kill my neighbors so I said nothing. Now they are coming for us Jews, and there is no one to speak for us...
Aaaaaand? As with the Soviet Jewish purge, this is simply how they operate! This is exactly how the left behaves toward other groups around the world. The alleged crimes, corruption and democratic short-comings of every anti-communist regime of the 20th century are constantly harped on, from Franco, to Chiang, to Batista, to Diem, while the communist propaganda about agrarian reformers is accepted at face value, and promulgated by whatever NY Times reporter happens to be on the scene, whether Walter Duranty, Herbert Mathews or David Halberstam. They even do the same thing domestically, with blacks in the US, for example.

This is exactly the way the media reports on EVERYTHING. A made-up crisis takes place, if one of the parties involved is of a PC-protected class, and the incident can be construed, however sketchily as a manifestation of hate or prejudice, that's how the story is written. The other parties are presumed guilty and subjected to vicious criticism, and their every action and minute datum about their pasts subjected to scrutiny, celebrities chime in expressing solidarity, and anything that reflects poorly on the celebrated victims is ignored, suppressed or used as proof of bigotry on the part of anyone who brings it up. Whatever wrong-doing is falsely attributed to Israel at a given moment, it probably doesn't compare on a relative scale to the experiences of the Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of assaulting a stripper with a criminal past and future, or the fraternity falsely accused of hosting a party in which a student was raped, or the prosecutor falsely accused of kidnapping Tawana Brawley, or the various police officers who confronted violent criminals like Michael Brown or Rodney King, in the commission of crimes, with overwhelming probable cause, and who lost their jobs and were subject to criminal prosecution, for successfully resisting said criminal's attempt to attack them. Israel is still a going concern after all, and has brighter future prospects than the cop whose gun Michael Brown tried to grab.
Who on the left spoke for an end to the riots in response to deaths of violent criminals, who happened to have a particular skin color?

You have an extra "m" in there.
At least it wasn't the sort of outrage directed at people who dared to point out that Freguson police officers were issued a BOLO for a man of Michael Brown's description, who had robbed and assaulted a cashier shortly before (who was, in fact, Brown).

The only difficulty the Western Left has, after decades of isolating themselves in an echo chamber of leftist media and academia and left-slanted entertainment, is in grasping that the world in any way differs from their self-aggrandizing narrative. It's not that they don't understand that bad guys behave "irrationally" (actually, terrorist behave in a highly rational fashion, and this very article demonstrates that by showing how effectively said terrorists obtain and retain foreign sympathies), it's that they refuse to see anything other than "Two legs, bad; four legs, good!"
Actually, for many, it was the only explanation that might avert the tendency of people to support their group/country in a time of crisis, so they spun that narrative to prevent their base from changing loyalties toward the Republicans who happened to be in power at the moment. A narrative that was easily accepted due to the aforementioned echo-chamber conditioning.

For over a hundred years, adherents of traditional values and morals have repeatedly questioned this belief, and been dismissed as absolutely as a religious fanatic dismissing a rational thinker in every turgid liberal fantasy (and very few historical instances).

Wanna bet? It was a similarly disillusioned liberal writer who gave us the term "memory hole" after all.

Stipulating their inability to grasp such an elementary distinction, I would question either grounds on which they could be called intelligent, or the practical value of intelligence itself. I would also point out that the same sliding scale of appropriate behavior for police officers confronting likely criminals in high-risk locations, versus the average citizen encountering a neighbor of a different skin tone on the street is another distinction that escapes these same people.
Another false comparison by the author. The flight of European Jews from European threats does not vindicate Israel of bad behavior in the Middle East. For one, the flight could be inspired by guilt, or it could be guided by sympathies that preclude the fugitives from recognizing that their destinations' misbehavior is responsible for their predicament. Exacerbating tensions against their own group to strengthen group solidarity, and thus increase their own power, is a classic tactic of unscrupulous leaders, regardless of whether or not it is in the group's best interest. Note that I am not remotely claiming Israel is guilty of such tactics one way or the other, I am just saying that the author's contention that the one phenomenon disproves the other accusation, does not hold water.
Actually, throughout the world, we are seeing cases of multiethnic and multicultural states experiencing characteristic early 20th century strife.
The way Palmer confuses common liberal bullshit for a unique form of attack on the Jews?

Not all that unique, though. I don't see how it's much different than expecting Arabs to suddenly live within a state under the rule of a group of trigger-happy Jews, conscious of the worst possible outcome of any expression of hostility toward themselves, and not inclined to give anyone else the slightest chance at repeating history.
Why should "Jewish rights, interests, and security" be a concern of anyone but the Jews? The left's interest is, and always has been, their own glorification and power, and excuses to give themselves the power to rework the world to fit their visions, or else a reason to congratulate themselves on their moral and intellectual superiority. They thrive off resistance to their ideas, because it fuels their persecution fantasies, so the more decent people their ideas would inconvenience or endanger, the better, as decent people tend to object mildly, rather than respond with hair-trigger violence. The left much prefers to complain about their dark nights of oppression, when a handful of them were unable to sell subversive screenplays under their own names, to, say, what happened to Charlie Hebdo. Thus, it makes more sense to bash Arab terrorists' targets than the terrorists themselves.
It was never supposed to be. It is a means to glorify the left as champions of the oppressed. It is the enemy of anyone who succeeds or accomplishes anything of significant worth outside leftwing channels, because such people do not serve the leftist agenda or fit their narrative.

Where were your objections when they took it upon themselves to define ANYone else, which you tacitly acknowledge them doing, with these words?!

The author's only objection here is that it happens to be Jamie Palmer's ox being gored.

It's always amazing how perceptive liberals become regarding flaws in liberal methods, when those methods are turned on them. That's why all the Trotskyites became neo-conservatives.

Remember a ways up when the author was bragging about how the Jews kicked ass and proved they don't need anyone's help? I'd say that categorizing them among the powerful is not inaccurate.

But that's only a problem if you subscribe to notions that equate morality with degrees of power. I.e., a liberal.

But according to liberal doublethink, as explained one paragraph up, anti-racism does not include condemnation of anti-Semitism, because Jews are perps, not vics. At least liberals are being consistent in this.
Are they beating up any Hasidics they spot, or targeting yarmulke-wearers, or does a rise of anti-Semitism on campus only refer to demonstrations protesting Israel?

And in the liberal mentality, an unsourced, unsupported comment by a single alleged student, identifying with a group frequently perceived to be hypersensitive toward perceived discrimination, is the first step off the ledge of a plunge toward the next Holocaust.
I'm sure Josef Stalin's willingness to send Russian soldiers to die in human waves against the soldiers of an anti-Semitic regime or to string along and then abandon Polish freedom fighters was also valuable to his Jewish fellow travelers, as was his liquidation of various elements in Eastern Europe who historically had few interests aligned with Jewish radicals. But how did that work out of Soviet Jewry down the road? The tactics of cultural iconoclasm and social leveling always seem appealing to those not at the pinnacle, but eventually, any group will end up in their sights, if they have any characteristics that stick out. For an article about the recent history of recurring threats, the author demonstrates an amazing inability to learn from the past.
No, that's another arbitrary preference! Democracy replacing dictatorship hasn't exactly drowned out the anti-Israel voices in their neighborhood, has it?
Two legs bad...
...four legs good.
As the author misunderstands the insatiable nature of the left's appetite for heroes and villains to congratulate themselves for supporting and demonizing, respectively.
Maybe you should dispense with the liberal need to vilify opponents by calling them bigots, and content yourself with answering arguments on their merits, instead of wondering whose points you can dismiss unanswered as the ravings of a bigot.
Just offhand, I'd say, because it does not serve their purposes to support a country founded on some rather regressive notions of self-defense and self-interest, when the general agenda of the left is transnational, globalist and internationalist. Israel is all about the very borders they are trying to eliminate.
Yeah, but it was both, depending on with whose eyes you're looking at it. The Jews sought their own state as an expression of their self-determination, but the Europeans allowed it, out of that paternalistic impulse of expiation, not because they recognized the Jewish perspective.
Physician, heal thyself.
How about accepting that for the vast majority of non-Jews, that's not a concept worth spending our blood treasure or political capital for, and that Jewish security and identity are solely a Jewish interest. Suck it up and take to heart the oft-spoken complaint that Israel is on it's own, and stop asking for anything.
Yeah, that's not what anti-racism is for.
But moral relativism is essential to the liberal mindset. Indeed, it is the sole basis of their claim to the title of "liberal" given that in every other aspect, they support and call for the loss of individual liberty in favor of state control. The only grounds on which the left is liberal, is in their moral permissiveness.

And liberals do hold Arabs & Palestinians to the same standards they expect of themselves - that they will adopt whatever tactic is in their best interests, portray themselves as the underdogs, regardless of the circumstances, while at the same time, claiming to speak for a disenfranchised or marginalized democratic majority. The only thing that matters for liberals is how they get their way. A president whose administration began with the dishing out of punishments for sexual harassment and workplace adultery, working out their issues from their failure to sabotage Clarence Thomas' nomination, ends up with credible accusations of the exact same sorts of misconduct and impropriety and when liberals are not shamelessly denying the results of DNA evidence, they are saying things like "I'd give Clinton a blowjob to thank him for keeping abortion legal." Liberals are not opposed to racial discrimination - stipulating the literal definition of the word "discrimination", that is the basis of their politics. No one would have voted for Barack Obama if we truly did not care about the color of a person's skin, nor Hilary Clinton if we did not care about her gender.

As opposed to extremely long articles that fail to make any clear distinction between legitimate opposition to the state of Israel or to the extent to which one's home nation supports Israel, and anti-Semitism, much less degrees of anti-Semitism, ranging from distaste for observed or experienced typical group behaviors, to genocidal agendas?
Until the Arabs starting getting uppity, we could pretty much count on the Jews like Bernardine Orhnstein, Kathy Boudin, Lev Bronstein, Karl Marx and Maxim Litvinoff to be on the side of those threats.

The phrase "even as" generally implies some discrepancy or inconsistency in the concepts it is used to conjoin. These two actions would seem to me to be rather consistent with one another, no?
The fact that they only caught on in the last wave of Stalin's homicidal activity says nothing good about them. That it took a threat to their fellow Jews to change their minds would be a point of condemnation if any other white group had supported such a monster up until he turned his usual antics against their own kind.

First they came for the Mensheviks...then they came for the kulaks...then they came for the Trotskyites...then they came for the wreckers...then they came for the Poles and Finns...then they came for the soldiers...now they are coming for the Jews, and there's no one left, etc, etc, etc....

I love the way the author just sticks that little bit in there, despite the whole article failing to provide any examples of hostility toward Jewish capital, but tarring anti-Zionism with the brush of the old pogroms.
Duh.
Don't hold your breath. You don't have enough money or control enough votes to get them to reassess like that.

Is it? It seems kind of suspect to claim that because bad things happened in one historically aberrant state, Jews are not safe anywhere, not even in the states that shed blood to bring it down.

We had that up until 1947, called "everywhere in the world." There might have been varying levels of discrimination, but that's just human nature, and most peoples endure it at one time or other. Why is it outrageous to suggest that the Jews give up essential aspects of their identity which expose them to hostility, in order to assimilate in their society, but perfectly acceptable to suggest the same about practicing Christians?