Chait writes that I am not an anti-semite - thanks! - but criticizes my coverage of the Middle East:
[O]n the Middle East, Andrew falls prey to a habitual tendency to see the world divided between children of darkness and children of light. This is not a problem for a writer who is describing conflicts between Democrats and Republicans. When the parties involve happen to correspond with ethnic groups, then it's going to be impossible to avoid language that appears racialistic. I don't think that Andrew's transformation from overwrought hawk to overwrought dove is driven by, or has brought about, a different view of Jews. It seems instead to be the shattering of a brittle worldview and its replacement by a new worldview, equally brittle.
I have no different view of "Jews" than I have ever had.
Having any view of "Jews" is silly. I do think Israel has become more intransigent over the last few years, and because the dangers of this in the current climate are global, I am more than a little impatient with the lack of much movement in Washington on understanding this. And I think the Gaza war was horrifying not just for the suffering it created and compounded but by the fact that large majorities in Israel supported it and would do it again. Across the world, opinion of Obama, for example, is pretty high. In Israel? It has been as low as 6 percent. Does Chait think this is the same old Israel? Just because Obama wanted to reach out to the Muslim world in Cairo and wanted a freeze on settlements?
Why is Israel such an outlier? I think my assessment is not a function of my own sudden change but a reflection of the world as it has changed. Reihan adds his two cents. So does James Joyner.