The bloody violence in Nilin showed me that Israel's security wall could be the final blow in the destruction of Palestine.
Time is not on the Palestinians' side. Just as Nilin appears in its death throes today, so too will another village tomorrow, then another, then another. As the life of the Palestinian nation ebbs away, the best treatment on offer is merely palliative; and even that is proving too weak to soothe their never-ending anguish.
Let's assume, for the purpose of the argument, that the description of the events at Nilin is scrupulously factual and fair. Even were that so, there is no factual connection between it and the over-arching conclusion; while there are oceans of proof that the Palestinians are alive, very much kicking, and nowhere remotely near ebbing away; nor is there any evidence whatsoever that there is an Israeli policy to make it ebb away. In other words, Friedman's article is fanciful, dishonest, and malicious.Is it antisemitic? There are a number of levels to a possible answer. One is that Friedman himself is not only Jewish, but he's had a rather tortured relationship with Israel, and his path to his present animosity was rather interesting. But this of course isn't relevant, since since there have always been Jewish Jew haters; having a Jewish mother doesn't create immunity.
Another is the fact of the prominence of the article on the Guardian's website: in a very unusual, though not unprecedented gesture, the editors have kept this post on the front page of the website since June 9th. Four days straight and counting. Tells you something about their frame of mind, doesn't it.
The antisemitism in many of the comments isn't even veiled.
Finally, am I advocating that such articles not get published? Of course not. It would be nice, but not realistic, to expect of the editors of the Guardian that they create a marketplace of ideas, so that the maliciousness of the anti-Zionist-sometimes-antisemitic ideas be clear to any reasonable observer, but even when they don't, the UK is a free society and the readers can find other ideas elsewhere. This is even more true about the rest of us, out here in cyberspace. The danger, As I've noted above, is when people live in a sealed echo chamber. What I am saying, however, is that in that marketplace of ideas, Friedman et.al. can spew antisemitism, and those of us who recognize it for what it is can say so. The freedom to speak goes in all directions. Why, in some cases (this isn't one of them) we should be free even to label people as antisemites even when they aren't.