What follows may be seen as dealing with some unfinished business from this post.
In political argument people occasionally write and talk as if criticism of their standpoint by others is an attempt to silence them. In so open and unqualfied a form this argument is laughable; criticism is criticism, and silencing takes a bit more than that. So there are more guarded variants, in which by stating a point of view, you are alleged to be trying to inhibit others who hold an opposing point view from saying what they think. Both Michael Brull and Antony Lerman - with whom I took issue over whether or not invoking the Holocaust analogy in relation to Israel's conduct in Gaza was to be considered anti-Semitic - float a claim of this kind. Brull says that the accusation of anti-Semitism, 'by slandering the critic and shifting the debate, prevents honest discussion of the issues, and creates a chilling effect'. Lerman writes:
The effect of the complaints of antisemitism made by the American Jewish organisations is to attempt to protect Israel from legitimate, if deeply unpleasant, criticism. But the fact is that the accusation of antisemitism, which is being used so often now, doesn't seem to help. All it seems to be doing is devaluing the currency.
The two of them stop short of saying that those whom they are taking to task are silencing others. But 'chilling effect' (from Brull) and 'to protect Israel from legitimate... criticism' (from Lerman) both present a softened version of this charge. People who complain that some criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic want to block 'honest discussion'; they want to 'protect Israel' from such discussion. I have three observations.
(1) Just empirically, these blocking and protecting moves don't seem to work, as Lerman himself glancingly acknowledges. There is criticism of Israel aplenty and coming from virtually every part of the planet. Brull and Lerman may be worrying needlessly about the inhibiting effects of the anti-Semitism charge.
(2) Anyone who is inhibited should try to toughen up a bit, learn to look after themselves in debate and speak what they think. In any event, no one is bound, because of a worry that others might be made timid by what they say, not to say it - provided they themselves are speaking honestly and proportionately according as they see things.
(3) Crucially here, what is the implication of the chilling/protecting allegation as illustrated by Brull and Lerman's usages? Must people who judge some of the more hostile criticisms of Israel to be anti-Semitic just shut up? May they not call such criticism by what they conscientiously believe to be its proper name? Are they obliged simply, and quietly, to endure it? The game is turned, in fact. It is Messrs Brull and Lerman who would have anyone who diagnoses certain tropes and arguments as anti-Semitic ones stay silent.
Here it might be said in their defence that they do not disparage every charge of anti-Semitism as being misguided - as 'slandering' or 'devaluing of the currency' - but only unjustified charges of anti-Semitism. However, partisans of free and open discussion that they both are, they will not want to claim that only they know when a criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. They will want to allow that there may be honest disagreement on such matters - as, for example, with the Holocaust analogy applied to Israel in Gaza. Even if one criticism of Israel, or another, or another, is not anti-Semitic according to them, Brull and Lerman are bound to allow that some criticisms of Israel are anti-Semitic. And they're bound to allow, equally, that there might be borderline cases, where at least some people are not sure yea or nay. It's a simple choice: either there's free discussion, in which case complaints about anti-Semitism get to be made, or... Brull and Lerman are the arbiters of what should and should not be said, a conclusion falsifying their apparent sponsorship of free debate.