Most particularly disturbed have been Jews, some of whom went to the extent of calling the ex-president an anti-Semite.

Similarly an essay written by a Jewish academic at the University of Indiana has triggered some bitter reactions from Jews and non-Jews who felt that his allegations and charges against a few Jews critical of Israel are unjustifiable.

Personally, I believe the debate is largely due to the critical nature of the Middle East conflict, the growing question about America’s ability to get things done and the implications of American failure in the future defense of U.S. policy in the area, particularly in connection with the future of Israel.

But in order for us to dissect the intricate nature of the crisis and the relevance and irrelevance of the charges of anti-Semitism against certain Jews and non-Jews, let us remind ourselves of the fact that any equation of Israel and Jews worldwide is the result of the fascism that developed in Europe.

The Holocaust plays a critical role in this war of words and it will continue to define the relationship between Israelis and their Zionist supporters on the one hand, and the people who make a distinction between Israel and worldwide Jewry on the other.

To be critical of Israel should not make you an anti-Semite; rather, what makes you anti-Semitic is to demonstrate any detectable sign of prejudice towards Jews locally or internationally.

The state of Israel is on the same moral ground as the United States of America and other smaller countries. As a political entity, Israel does not have any moral superiority among the nations of the world. What Israel has and others lack is the undeniable right to protect and make secure the life of any Jew who fled from the betrayal of a European nation or any other land where any person of Jewish identity could become an objective of genocidal violence.

This state of affairs could be traced back to Theodore Hertzel and the founding of the Zionist movement in Europe. That came after the shameful persecution of a French Jewish soldier whose trial provoked mass anti-Semitism in France. Hertzel and his supporters found in Zionism a Jewish response to this nationalist outrage.

It was against this background that W.E.B. Dubois, a prominent African-American, wrote many years before the creation of Israel that Pan-Africanism is for blacks what Zionism is for Jews. This parallelism would later muddy the waters when black nationalists in South Africa and the Palestinians saw in settler colonialism a common thread linking their struggles.

We must not forget that it was during that time that Zionism was labeled racism because of Arab success in equating this political philosophy with racism in general and apartheid in particular. After many years of trouble for Israel, this global turn against the state of Israel was reversed by Israel with a great deal of assistance from the U.S. and the Western allies.

One of the main reasons why President Carter ran into difficulties with some of the pro-Israeli supporters within the Zionist movement rests on the parallelism with South African apartheid. Scarred or scared by the memories of the old fight against such parallelism in the 1970s and 1980s, many supporters of Israel in the West would be allergic to such terminologies.

But if we are going to address the issues in the Middle East and help Israelis and their Arab opponents to travel on the path of peace, then it makes sense for us to agree on common ground.

The question of who is an anti-Semite and who is not cannot be made synonymous with anti-Israel.

Israel is a nation and like all nations it pursues policies that can make and unmake friends. The individual Jew, like any other religious or ethnic person, can be a citizen of any country. For this and other related reasons, it is dangerous and unwise to equate Israel with world Jewry. Such a characterization may not be acceptable to many Jews.

World Jewry consists of human beings who belong to many nations and the common thread that united them across time and space is the reality of history and legacies of their ancient and modern contributions to human thought and culture.

Over the years, I have made the argument that in interfaith dialogue, I would not dialogue with any Jew who denies the existence of Israel or show any lack of support for Israelis in their efforts to maintain a piece of real estate in the Middle East.

My argument is based on two things.

The first is the reality of Israel. It is one of the countries of the world that cannot be wished away by Arabs, Muslims or any other group of human beings. It is here to stay and her leaders must not only assert their right to be against the aftermath of the Holocaust, but they must also speak the language of tolerance and diplomacy because of their own history of victim hood at the hands of the Nazis and others in history.

Secondly, since Zionism believes that Israel is the freedom home of all Jews even though most Jews are likely to live abroad, it is important for us to recognize the tension between this claim of the Zionists and the claim of others opposed to this worldview. However, because of the Holocaust one must remember that for many of this people Israel and world Jewry are synonymous.

Israel is a state and her policies could be opposed by Israelis and others in the world. What cannot be acceptable after the Holocaust is any legitimization of anti-Semitism and prejudicial remarks against Jews. This principle applies to all groups.

Those who hid their anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments in the name of Islamophobia or any other kind of bigotry must know that the world is watching. Prejudice can no longer be hidden socially or politically.

Leaders and the led have a right to criticize any government if their policies are believed to be anti-human and destructive.