Time for subtlety?

Bob from Brockley, one of the best out there on the intertubes, discusses the differences between different kinds of anti-Semites, shades of anti-Zionism etc. Atzmon is used as a "beacon" of a kind, to be compared with other samples of anti-Semitic spectrum.

Says Bob:

I'm not sure what to think about all this. One thing I am sure of is that there are lots of different antisemitisms, including lots of different left antisemitisms, and they are not all as bad as each other or equivalent to each other, and they are not all genocidal in their logic. We need a sense of proportion and more calmness in approaching them. We hurt only ourselves through hysteria and paranoia.

In another post Bob contends:

On the other hand, I think it is Hoffmanesquely counterproductive for the UJS to treat Norman Finkelstein as analogous to Gilad Atzmon and Nick Griffin, and to picket Finkelstein at Leeds University, as the UJS have done. Finkelstein has said some unpleasant things and has some unsavoury views, but there is quite a lot of clear blue water between him and the Atzmons and Griffins we should be no platforming. Telling the world we can’t tell the difference is to seriously undermine our case.

I am not sure we have the luxury of analyzing the nuances and subtle differences, where, to take one example, Norman Finkelstein, deranged in his own way, could be less of anti-Semite than our beacon.

Finkelstein visiting a Hezbollah "freedom fighters" cemetery

Yes, the difference is definitely there, for all to see. However, as far as the damage and aggravation caused by such characters are concerned, Atzmon should by rights be considered a lesser factor, simply due to being too obviously deranged beyond the acceptable*.

(*) Of course, we can start discussing what "acceptable" means. No, it's beyond my limited patience right now.