Dear SirI know it's a biy clunky but I think it read better than what they actually published:
I am mostly in agreement with David Clark's charge that accusations of anti-semitism are a form of intellectual dishonesty and intimidation. As a Jewish anti-zionist I am often accused of being a self-hater or even a kapo. However I do think he is being a little naive in suggesting that early leftist support for zionism and Israel was based on support for the underdog. Leaving aside that there was much leftist disquiet over what was and still is, manifestly, a colonial settler project, leftist support for zionism seems to have been based on a eurocentric disregard for the natives of Palestine. The 1944 UK Labour Party conference voted for the wholesale "transfer" of the Arabs from Palestine. How could any leftist (or anyone else) perceive the victims of this proposal, upon which Israel's existence depends, to be the top dogs in that situation?
As a Jewish anti-zionist I am often accused of being a self-hater. But while I support David Clark, he is naive in suggesting that early leftist support for Israel was based on support for the underdog; it seems to have been based on a eurocentric disregard for the Palestinians. The 1944 Labour party conference voted for the "transfer" of the Arabs from Palestine.Still look what they did to Roland Rance back in December.