Unreliable source: Gilbert Achcar

Summaries of Critiques of Gilbert Achcar

### 1. *The dangerous idiots of academia* (2015)

David Collier argues that Achcar represents a trend within parts of academia that, in Collier’s view, excuses or minimizes Islamist extremism and antisemitism when framed through anti-imperialist or anti-Zionist politics. The article criticizes Achcar for supporting positions hostile to Israel while overlooking authoritarian or extremist elements within Hamas and related movements.

### 2. Signature on the 2009 boycott letter

Critics highlighted Achcar’s support for a boycott letter during the Gaza conflict that argued Israel “must lose” against Hamas. Evidence that Achcar prioritized ideological hostility toward Israel over concerns about [genocidal] Hamas’s ideology, violence, or governance.

### 3. *Politics gets in the way* (Jerusalem Post, 2010)

Seth J. Frantzman criticizes Achcar’s *The Arabs and the Holocaust* for downplaying Arab and Islamist antisemitism. Frantzman points out that Achcar frames antisemitism primarily as a European import while minimizing independent ideological currents within Arab political movements.

### 4. *Gilbert Achcar – another bogus scholar* (2010)

The blog post by Elder of Ziyon accuses Achcar of selective scholarship and ideological bias. It points out  that Achcar distorts historical evidence concerning Arab attitudes toward Jews and Israel in order to support an anti-Zionist political framework.

### 5. *Not in Moderation* (The New Republic, 2010)

Jeffrey Herf points out that Achcar attempts to sanitize or relativize antisemitic rhetoric in Arab political discourse. Herf contends that Achcar underestimates the ideological significance of Nazi influence and Holocaust denial in parts of Middle Eastern political culture.

### 6. *F. Meiton: The Arabs and the Holocaust.* (Dissent Magazine, 2010)

F. Meiton’s criticism of Gilbert Achcar centers on the claim that Achcar systematically minimizes or explains away Arab anti-Semitism, especially among secular Arab movements and leaders.

Main criticisms:

* **Achcar over-contextualizes anti-Semitism:**

  Meiton argues Achcar treats anti-Jewish attitudes as products of ignorance, colonial frustration, or political opportunism rather than acknowledging them as genuine anti-Semitism. The reviewer says Achcar is so determined to reject the stereotype that “all Arabs are anti-Semitic” that he swings too far in the opposite direction.

* **Ignorance becomes an excuse:**

  According to Meiton, Achcar repeatedly explains anti-Semitic behavior as “stupidity,” poor education, or ideological confusion. Meiton objects that anti-Semitism itself is inherently irrational, so ignorance does not make it any less anti-Semitic.

* **Selective use of evidence:**

  Meiton accuses Achcar of downplaying evidence of widespread Arab pro-Nazi sentiment. He notes that Achcar questions reports showing strong Palestinian sympathy for Nazism while omitting other evidence that supported those findings.

* **Minimizing violent anti-Semitism:**

  In discussing events like the Farhud, Achcar emphasizes looting, opportunism, and the existence of Arabs who protected Jews. Meiton argues this misses the point: many historical pogroms also involved mixed motives, yet are still correctly understood as anti-Semitic.

* **Too narrow a definition of anti-Semitism:**

  Meiton argues Achcar only seems willing to call something anti-Semitic if it reflects a fully coherent ideological hatred of Jews. The reviewer says this definition is unrealistic and ignores how prejudice often works in practice through inconsistency, slogans, myths, and mob behavior.

* **Speculative defenses of Arab leaders:**

  Meiton criticizes Achcar for speculating that figures like Gamal Abdel Nasser repeated anti-Semitic claims merely because they were misinformed. He argues Achcar treats repeated anti-Jewish rhetoric as accidental ignorance rather than evidence of a broader pattern.

* **Double standard toward Islamists vs secularists:**

  One of Meiton’s strongest criticisms is that Achcar harshly condemns Islamists for anti-Semitism while offering mitigating explanations for secular Arab actors. Meiton says Achcar applies moral and analytical leniency unevenly.

* **Anti-Zionism distorts the analysis:**

  Meiton believes Achcar’s strong anti-Zionist perspective interferes with objective analysis. He argues the book becomes more concerned with defending Arab political causes and criticizing Zionism than with confronting anti-Semitism consistently.

* **Failure to clarify anti-Zionism vs anti-Semitism:**

  Although Achcar insists the two are distinct, Meiton argues he does not adequately explain how anti-Zionist rhetoric in the Arab world can blur into classic anti-Semitic ideas and conspiracy theories.

Overall, Meiton sees Achcar as an important but deeply flawed scholar whose desire to counter simplistic narratives leads him to underestimate or rationalize genuine anti-Semitism in Arab political culture.

### 7. *Seth Frantzman dissects Gilbert Achcar* (2011)

This article summarizes Frantzman’s broader critique that Achcar employs a politically motivated reading of history. The criticism focuses on Achcar’s treatment of Arab antisemitism and his alleged tendency to redirect responsibility toward Zionism or Western colonialism.

### 8. *A Remorseless Apology* (Azure, 2011)

Boaz Neumann points out that Achcar’s work functions as an apology for Arab political failures regarding antisemitism and Holocaust denial. Neumann states Achcar attempts to preserve anti-Zionist narratives by minimizing ideological hostility toward Jews in Arab politics.

### 9. *Gilbert Achcar and Shlomo Sand: Peas in a pod* (2011)

This blog entry recounts an incident in which Achcar allegedly threatened to call security on a critic attending a lecture by Shlomo Sand. The post shows Achcar as intolerant of dissent and hostile toward critics of his political views.

### 10. *In the Straightjacket of Anti-Zionism* (2011)

Matthias Küntzel and Colin Meade point out that Achcar’s anti-Zionist framework constrains his historical analysis. They contend that he systematically downplays antisemitism within Arab politics and interprets events primarily through anti-colonial ideology.

### 11. *Unity and Diversity in Contemporary Antisemitism* (2019)

This academic work criticizes Achcar for a “racism of low expectations,” l that his approach infantilizes Arabs by treating antisemitism in the Middle East differently from antisemitism elsewhere. The authors points out he minimizes Hamas antisemitism in order to delegitimize Israel.

### 12. *Universities in Crisis* (2023)

Derek Spitz criticizes Achcar’s reaction to the October 7 Hamas attacks, especially Achcar’s description of the assault as “amazing and highly daring.” Achcar framed the attacks strategically rather than morally, and failed to sufficiently condemn atrocities against civilians.

### 13. *‘Progressives’ and the Hamas Pogrom: An A–Z Guide* (2023)

Alan Johnson criticizes Achcar for comparing Hamas’s October 7 attack to the anti-Nazi Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Johnson reminds that Achcar romanticized or legitimized mass violence against Israeli civilians by embedding it within anti-colonial rhetoric.

### 14. *Book Review | Israel’s War on Gaza* (2024)

Barry Finger critiques Achcar’s interpretation of the Gaza war and related regional politics. The review points out that Achcar’s framework remains heavily shaped by anti-Zionist assumptions and insufficiently attentive to [genocidal] Hamas’s authoritarianism and antisemitic ideology.