Here’s A Shock For You

Typical lefty. This isn't the least surprising, or any remarkable news.

I read the entire Haaretz article, and I don't find anything anti-Semitic about what Naomi Klein did or said. She opposes Israel's political and military policies toward the Palestinians; she doesn't oppose the people of Israel. She even said, boycott the state, not the people. She also said that "never again" can mean "never again for the Jews," or "never again for anyone." That struck a chord with me, because my father (who survived the Holocaust, but whose mother did not) often remarked on that division among Jews, between those for whom "never again" referred only to the Jewish people, and those for whom "never again" referred to all people. "Never again" what? Never again the extermination of an entire people (or the attempted extermination of an entire people), full stop. Not, never again the extermination of the Jewish people, full stop. He subscribed to the "never again any people" interpretation.

"Boycott the state, not the people" is almost entirely incoherent, as I and others have noted. The portion of Klein's interview in which I said she was an apologist for anti-Semitism was not where she talked about the meaning of the Holocaust (although as the above "other" link notes, there is something quite risible about alleging that any significant quantity of Jews "even think we get one get-away-with-genocide-free card.”). The portion is where she blames the victims of admitted anti-Semitic activity at the UN for having the temerity to protest it. According to her, this is even worse than the anti-Semitism itself, and an act of "sabotage". That's acting as an accomplice to anti-Semitic oppression, no doubt about it.

The portion is where she blames the victims of admitted anti-Semitic activity at the UN for having the temerity to protest it. According to her, this is even worse than the anti-Semitism itself, and an act of "sabotage"

I looked at the Haaretz article again, and although I did read the entire article before, I took another look at that specific section you mention. Here is the relevant paragraph:

"The most disturbing feeling," she explains, "was the Jewish students' lack of respect for the representatives from Africa and Asia who came to speak about issues like compensation for slavery and the rise of racism around the world. In their midst, Jewish students from France ran around in clown costumes and plastic noses to say 'Durban is a joke.' This was pure sabotage, which contributes to the tensions between Jews and blacks."

I honestly don't know how you get, out of the above paragraph, the meaning, "she blames the victims of admitted anti-Semitic activity at the UN for having the temerity to protest it. According to her, this is even worse than the anti-Semitism itself, and an act of 'sabotage.' "

Okay, let's walk through it. Klein admits Ahmadinejad's speech is "truly awful" (along with the Jewish students -- they are both "truly awful"). The Jewish students running around in clown outfits are protesting the speech and the conference that hosted it, calling it a "joke" (an assessment that I think is quite valid). This, she said, is "the most disturbing" thing she witnessed -- not the anti-Semitism of Ahmadinejad, not the willingness of the forum to accommodate him and his fellow travelers, but the protest of it.

She is angry that the Jewish students were protesting -- this is "disrespectful" to the other conference-goers, who presumably should be able to enjoy themselves without having to come face-to-face with the anti-Semitism in their midst, come out strongly against it or grapple with their complicity in it. That's clear and unambiguous victim-blaming.