Before I get everyone going back, finding every comment I've ever made, and troll-rating me into oblivion, let me emphasize this - the left is not anti-Semitic per se. The left is anti-war, the left is anti-oppression, the left is anti-poverty - all of which are positive attributes, and all of which are, unfortunately, easily transferable to "anti-Israeli." Too often, anti-Israeli is painted as anti-Semitic. I have been guilty of it myself.
Having seen a few comments that suggest a certain amount of anti-Sharon feeling has translated itself into anti-Israeli or even (God forbid) anti-Semitic feeling, I wanted to discuss this myth of leftist anti-Semitism.
Click for the discussion.
Israel is a religiously identified state, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran. Israel, as the world representative of Jewry, must face the high moral standard that Jews expect of themselves and others. However, as a state surrounded by fellow states and permeated by non-state political actors, Israel faces hard policy choices that do not have a satisfactory resolution within the moral framework that they are nevertheless expected to operate under as the Jewish representative to the world.
To set the matter to rest, legally, Israel has a right to exist. Legally, Israel has a right to defend its border. Legally, Israel has a right to defend its population. The problems arise when asking what techniques Israel may morally use when executing those legal rights.
Strictly speaking, a state is defined as an apparatus that possesses a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a defined amount of territory. Because only the state may legitimately use force, any non-state actors using force within the state's territory are subject to the state's response.
Israel has no Posse Comitatus Act, so the military can be used in law enforcement, and is. A problem that arises is, of course, the use of "reasonable and necessary" force, a problem the military has never fully figured out - which is part of the reason FOR the Posse Comitatus Act. However, Israel is remarkably capable of employing its military in a way that allows for as much humanity as possible in its policy. That is not to suggest that Israel's policy is of necessity humane - merely that it could be much, much worse.
So, why does the left have issues with Israel? Because of the territories. Many on the left think Israel has no business in the occupied territories at all. Most object to some or all of Israeli policies in managing the territories. This does not equate with anti-Semitism. When these objections become objections to legitimate responses, then the left descends into anti-Semitism. For example, after a Red Crescent ambulance was used in a suicide bombing, IDF troops began searching ambulances for explosives - a not unreasonable precaution that was carried out as quickly and unobtrusively as possible; but the left saw only the few isolated cases where the ambulances, bearing a patient, were delayed enough that the patient died. They never saw the dozens of cases where the ambulance was carrying arms or explosives for use in terrorist activity.
Also, the distinction between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is an important one. A freedom fighter limits her activity to attacking military targets in her struggle. A terrorist does not hesitate to target civilians in order to achieve her purposes. While the left may argue that some civilian targets in the territories are so well armed they constitute military targets (specifically settlements), the fallacy is that if terrorists did not target civilians, there would be no need to arm civilians. The Palestinian cause could be far better served if organizations like Hamas were simply eliminated.
Which brings me to my next point. While organizations exist who call for the destruction of Israel and "throwing the Jews back into the sea" (Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Palestinian Islamic Jihad), Israel is justified in answering their violence in any way they see fit. While violence may not be the best response, it is legitimate as a response to violence, and it is inappropriate to suggest otherwise. You can suggest that it is impractical, that it is inappropriate, that it is counterproductive. Arguing that it is illegitimate suggests that you apply a double standard - that violence by Palestinians is somehow legitimate, while Israeli violence is not.
Criticize the Israeli government. Criticize Israeli policy. Do not criticize Israel's legitimacy. Do not suggest that Israel is somehow wrong to take steps which parallel policy choices you benefit from here in America (specifically, our Indian policy). If you believe that the policy will fail, say so. But the morality of Israeli policy is not yours to judge.
I am conflicted. On the one hand, I deplore the occupation. I believe that peace can only come if Israel forces the Palestinians to own their problem and solve it themselves. I think the settlements were incredibly irresponsible. But, I also think that without Israeli action, Israelis will die, because the Palestinians cannot or will not take action to protect even Israeli children. I believe that the settlers have a right to live where they choose. I question the viability of Palestinian self-government - not that they aren't "ready" for self-government, but whether they want it.
To sum up, it is easy for the center and the right to mistake objections to Israeli policy for anti-Semitism. But, we make it easy for them to do so, because we often engage in intemperate rhetoric that brushes aside our legitimate objections to Israeli policy in favor of anti-Israel screeds, which are easily painted as anti-Semitism.