Lawrence Summers, Part II
: The Globe is weighing in on the Lawrence Summers controversy
, asserting he went too far when he criticized the Israel divestment movement. Maybe he did. But the significant line in Summers’ screed was that he thought ''serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent.'' The words “effect” and “intent” are key. The “effect” might loosely apply to the majority of the divestment supporters who don't see themselves as anti-Semitic. The “intent” applies to the minority of divestment supporters who, in Hub Blog’s opinion, have a history of blatant anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist/anti-Israel rhetoric and logic stretching back years. The entire Middle East debate has anti-Semitism oozing from almost every crevice. OK, maybe Summers is guilty of tarring the divestment movement with too broad a brush. But it’s simply naive to say that anti-Semitism isn’t part of the overall equation. Anti-Semitism exists -- and it’s a motivating factor for some, albeit a minority, within the divestment and other anti-Israel movements. The question the majority has to ask themselves is this: Is the “effect” of pushing divestment playing into the hands of those with the clear anti-Semitic “intent” of economically crippling the world's only Jewish state as it faces an onslaught of anti-Semitism from across the world? Surely they see the big picture, right?