Mr. Deal Hudson has taken exception to my blog post yesterday which focused on an article of his that questioned why Israel insists on being designated as "a Jewish state." He now writes, "Winters is obviously unaware that I have and do unequivocally support a Jewish state." Alas, Mr. Hudson is arguing with himself. Let me know who wins.
Hudson’s real concern is that he thinks I have implied he is an anti-Semite. I made no such implication. I did point out that there is an unlovely history of anti-Semitism among conservative Catholics and traced some of that history, within the brief limits imposed by the nature of a blog post. The history is longer and uglier than I outlined. Anti-Semitism manifests itself in many different ways, but one of those ways is through darts thrown at Israel. Certainly, not everyone who questions Israel’s policies is an anti-Semite and Mr. Hudson is free to question any of those policies with which he disagrees. In the event, his characterization of the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians was so one-sided that the adjective "fair-minded" did not leap to mind. Still, one can be unfair and not yet an anti-Semite.
My article counseled those of us who care about Israel (and those of us who feel duty bound by the ugly history of anti-Semitism) to be watchful. That’s all. Watchfulness against anti-Semitism is something I have counseled in my posts previously. Whatever Mr. Hudson’s intentions, I am sure that there are anti-Semites who will put his article to their own nefarious purposes. That is not his fault, of course. But, his article could have included at least one sentence distinguishing his biased anti-Israel views from the anti-Semitism of others and warned that the one not spill into the other. I supplied the warning his original article lacked. No more and no less. His shrill response leads me to conclude that I hit a nerve and I will leave it to Mr. Hudson to figure out why that is so.