Conceptual James's latest effort to answer "The Jewish Question" reminds me of why I'm every bit as suspicious of philo-semites as anti-semites.

His claim is that the "woke Jews" are stirring anti-semitic responses that will be used to punish the good (not "woke") Jews. This act of parceling good from bad Jews and blaming the latter for crimes visited on both, is an old game and one common to people who "love the Jews."

The point here is that any analysis of anti-semitism that attempts to parcel good from bad Jews, responsible from irresponsible Jews, begins with the already racist assumption that Jews should be treated conceptually as a group rather than as individuals.

The actual content ascribed to either group (good or bad) is besides the point, since the basic structure of the argument is about justifying violence against both groups for the behavior of the "bad" ones.

And, as anyone who has spent time with a philo-semite knows, attacking the "bad" Jews (in vicious anti-semitic terms) is explained in the language of love and care for the "good" jews: "We need to discipline the 'bad' ones to protect the 'good' ones."

As someone who has "bad politics" according to many self-described "philo-semites," insofar as I am not a Zionist, I also know that "I love the Jews..." is often followed by the unstated "...when they're in Israel, so how about we find a way to send you there?"

Indeed, the whole philo-semitic line as it dovetails with Zionism quickly gets rewritten like this: since the Jews are great and Israel is Jewish, Israel is where the "good" Jews are, which means the ones around here must be the "bad" Jews.

This isn't so different from the effective policies of the most violently anti-Semitic people: expel the Jews from your nation and then use their racialized national identity--its protection and maintenance--as an instrument to attack other semitic persons in or near Israel.