In the May 12 issue of the New York Review of Books, Alvin Rosenfeld responds to George Soros’ criticism of Rosenfeld’s essay, “‘Progressive’ Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism.” Rosenfeld writes that:
“Mr. Soros singles out my essay as an instrument of a ‘pro-Israel lobby’ that aims to ‘suppress criticism’ of the Jewish state by denouncing the proponents of such criticism as anti-Semites. In fact, as any careful reader of my work will see, I never call anyone an anti-Semite and never once level a ‘primitive accusation of self-hatred’ against those whose words I quote.
Most of these people are passionate anti-Zionists who, by no stretch of the imagination, can fairly be seen as ‘constructive critics of
.’ They include figures who denigrate the Jewish state as ‘infantile,’ ‘anachronistic,’ and ‘bad for the Jews,’ routinely compare it to Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa, accuse Israelis of carrying on campaigns of ethnic cleansing and wholesale genocide, and urge that Israel alone among the world’s nations be boycotted, reduced to pariah status, ‘dissolved,’ or even ‘annihilated.’ Israel
Defamatory rhetoric of this sort is increasingly heard these days and does not represent anything remotely like ‘progressive criticism of
‘s policies.’ Rather, such inflammatory language feeds a discourse of demonization which, if it continues unchecked, will end up delegitimizing both the Jewish state and its supporters. Israel
To expose this danger for what it is and not to ‘suppress’ divergent views on Israeli policies is the sole aim of my work. To see such an effort, as George Soros does, as an "insidious" means of stifling debate is itself a deterrent to open and honest debate.”
Soros’s one-sentence reply reflects either an unwillingness or an inability to respond to Rosenfeld on the merits:
“Alvin Rosenfeld’s letter reinforces the point that he continues to vilify those who disagree with him without providing a single instance where I misquoted or misrepresented him.”
Like Jimmy Carter before him, George Soros calls for a “debate” and then refuses to participate in one. Even worse, like Carter, he makes no attempt to disassociate himself from those who charge