When is antizionism not antisemitism?

Daled Amos observes that the State Department recognizes that Anti-Zionism may indeed be antisemitism.

The report is thematic in nature and, using illustrative examples of contemporary forms of anti-Semitism, provides a broad overview of anti-Semitic incidents, discourse and trends. The report documents traditional forms of anti-Semitism such as those associated with Nazism, but also discusses new manifestations of anti-Semitism, including instances when criticism of Israel and Zionism crosses the line into anti-Semitism. The report covers anti-Semitism in both government and private media, and within the United Nations system. It concludes with a review of governmental and nongovernmental efforts to combat the problem.

Daled Amos is correct that this is a step in the right direction. But did Secretary Rice read the report?

Recently Mahmoud Abbas said that he wouldn’t rule out a return to “armed struggle.” It was a statement so egregious that Nita Lowey threatened to hold up US funding to the PA over it. It was so notable that even the New York Times mentioned it, albeit a week or two late. And how did Secretary Rice treat the comments?

“We have all had the experience of perhaps saying things that we wish we hadn’t said, and I can just tell you that this is somebody who for many, many years now has rejected violence as a means to statehood,” Rice said, noting that Abbas had later said the comments were taken out of context. “I can’t account for his comments. I think they were extremely unfortunate. We made that very clear to him.”

(h/t LGF)

Well did Abbas apologize when apprised of the State Department’s concerns? And what happened say when Arafat launched the “aqsa intifada” in 2000? Did Abbas resign in protest? Did he insist that Arafat accept PM Barak’s offer at Camp David? Has he ever categorically condemned a terror attack on Israelis?

On the basis of what evidence does Secretary Rice know that Abbas has “for many, many years now has rejected violence?” I’ve seen nothing in his record to conclude that is true. He’s mostly said the right things in English. But his actions surely haven’t been the actions of a moderate. Nor have many of his statements. Why can’t Secretary Rice acknowledge the anti-Zionism of the “moderate” leader of Fatah?

It’s a positive step that the State Department recognized the problem. It would be a hugely positive step if the State Department would act on its conclusion.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.