Alvin Rosenfeld wrote the controversial essay, “‘Progressive’ Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism,” in which he argued that the much of the criticism of Israel by Jews on the far-left is excessive, and at times even anti-Semitic. His article sparked a worldwide debate after Patricia Cohen covered it in the New York Times, and that debate has include a range of opinions. I talked with him over the phone this week.

What inspired you to write your essay? When did you get the idea? Did you go to the AJC or did they come to you?
I went to them. Over the last few years I’ve been focusing a lot of my research on present day anti-Semitism. Most people are not aware of the magnitude of the hostility towards Jews and the Jewish state which exists around the world. Believe me, it’s serious. In the course of my research I began to notice that some of the people who were voicing some of the harshest hostility were themselves Jews, especially Jews on the radical Left. I wanted to document and try to explain their words, which struck me as often being extreme.
Were you expecting your essay to draw international attention? In general, what has been your impression of the response to your article?
It wasn’t until the New York Times story of January 31st that it really took off. Now it’s all over the world. It’s a mixed response, obviously. I’ve received a very large number of communications from people who have expressed gratitude for my writing and publishing the essay. At long last– they said– someone has had the knowledge and courage to step forward and say what’s needed to be said. On the other hand there are people who obviously don’t like what I said– many of them, I think, because they misread me– and much of that is owing to the way that the New York Times framed my argument. The headline of the New York Times article read, “Essay Linking Liberal Jews to anti-Semitism Sparks Furor”, and I never referred to liberal Jews, if you read my piece carefully you simply won’t find the phrase. By taking their cue from The New York Times article, a lot of people misread the essay as one more contribution, purportedly by a right winger, to the Culture Wars, and reduced my argument to a kind of Left-Right, Conservative-Liberal face off. That it’s not, although it’s been made out, erroneously, to appear to be the latest salvo in such a debate. For the most part, though, I’m gratified by the response.
At what point do you draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate criticism of Israel?
Criticism of Israel or any other country is normal, even necessary. It’s part of political reality itself. What I look at is not criticism of Israel, but the demonization of Israel. I have no problem with legitimate criticism of Israel, made by thoughtful, well-informed people; what I have a problem with are people who willfully and often maliciously condemn Israel as a Nazi state or an apartheid state.
What is your response to those who say that your article confounds anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism?
A lot of this in definitional, but many people who say they are anti-Zionists construe Zionism after their own fashion and are not looking at the reality of Zionism itself or the state it created.
A commenter on your online story for the New Republic said that the “silencing..[is coming from]…the left and the right”? Do you think the stifling of debate is coming from the right of the political spectrum as well?
Nobody’s being silenced… I think it’s a red herring to talk about silencing, this debate in fact is evidence of a robust and open discussion and anybody who cries that someone else is censoring them is talking nonsense.
What is your response to those who say that they are not singling out Israel because they are against all forms of nationalism?
People who are against all forms of nationalism aren’t living in the real world, because we are living in a world of nation states, Israel being just one among many of them. If, in fact, they level their criticism of Israel in the context of a criticism of all nation states, that’s fine. However, if they single out Israel alone as deserving condemnation because it’s a Jewish nation state, their criticism becomes suspect and cannot be taken seriously on these grounds.
What is your impression of how the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab conflicts are dealt with on campus? And in general, on most campuses?
I don’t know the campus scene well enough to answer with any special insights, although it’s my sense that most people at IU are supportive of Israel. Most people want to see peace in that part of the world, and support a two-state solution. Indeed, most people in America, and in Israel itself, are supportive of that idea. Achieving it, however, is not easy, and we may have to live for still many years with irresolution of this protracted conflict. That’s not a desirable state, obviously, but improving upon it is a challenge that so far goes unmet.
Any final things you’d like to add?
Debate on the issues I focus on in my AJC essay is healthy. Let it continue.