From The Guardian, a profile on historian Tony Judt:
Anti-Zionism has, like Zionism itself, a long and complicated
history. 'The thing that we tend to forget,' Judt explains, 'is that
until the Second World War, Zionism was a minority taste even within
Jewish political organisations. The main body of European Jews was
either apolitical or integrated, and voting within the existing
countries they lived in. So to be anti-Zionist, at least until the late
1930s, was to be lined up with most Jews. It would make no sense to
think of it as anti-Semitic.
'After the Second World War, for a
fairly brief period - from let's say 1945 to about 1953 - the
overwhelming majority of Jews who were politically thinking were
Zionists, either actively or sympathetically, for the rather obvious
reason that Israel was the only hope for Jewish survivors. But then
many of them, like Hannah Arendt or Arthur Koestler, both of whom were
Zionists at various points, took their distance, on the grounds that it
was already clear to them that Israel was going to become the kind of
state that as a cosmopolitan Jew they couldn't identify with.
'Ever
since then, there has been an unbroken tradition of non-Israeli Jews
who regard Israel as either unrelated to their own identity or
something of which they sometimes approve, sometimes disapprove,
sometimes totally dislike. This range of opinion is not new,' Judt
concludes. 'The only thing that's new - and it's a product of the
post-Sixties - is the insistence that it's anti-Semitic.'
Judt
tells a story about an Israeli journalist who was in Washington in the
1960s. 'The Israeli ambassador was retiring, and the journalist asked
him what he thought was his biggest achievement. The ambassador said:
"I've succeeded in beginning to convince Americans that anti-Zionism is
anti-Semitism." There has been a progressive emergence of a
conflation,' Judt explains. 'It didn't just happen naturally. And it
was pushed quite actively in the Seventies and Eighties, to the point
at which it became so normal in this country that it was for a while
the default assumption. It's really only in the last five to eight
years that it's started to be questioned.'
The actions of very
pro-Israel Jewish organisations - for instance, making carefully placed
phone calls relating to certain public speakers - are, Judt believes,
now born of panic rather than confidence.
'They've lost control
of the debate,' he says. 'For a long time all they had to deal with
were people like Norman Finkelstein or Noam Chomsky, who they could
dismiss as loonies of the left. Now they're having to face, for want of
a better cliché, the mainstream: people like me who have a fairly long
established record of being Social Democrats (in the European sense)
and certainly not on the crazy left on most issues, saying very
critical things about Israel. They're not used to that, so their
initial response has been to silence people if they could, and their
second response has been to ratchet up the anti-Semitic charge.' Judt
thinks it's telling that the New York Times 'is willing to report these
issues and let reporters quote both sides. In the past, you would have
had silence.'