Antisemitism Rears its ugly head again

And by that I don't actually mean theres been any incidence of antisemitism. What I mean to say is that after writing my first arguement against misuse of the term I was dissatisfied, I mean I'm almost always dissatisfied when I try to handle serious thoughts and rough them out here and normally I just move on.
But here I am dissatisfied in a 'What would Batman do?' sense, that being I don't think I did it objective logical case justice.
What I mean to say is go back to first principles...

What is the term 'anti-semitism' not specifically (it is specific) but what is its function? it is a label. People can be labelled as 'antisemites', why?
Well because this label means something, and let's go simpler.
Take for example an ant, 'ant' is a label a specific one, but we could also describe an ant in its relationship to say some kind of ant eating bird, 'prey' prey is a label that indicates ants relationship to another animal in this case a bird, and also its behaviour, it should hide in a nest or under detritus on the canopy floor to avoid being preyed upon.
The bird in turn can be labelled 'predetor' it predicts behaviour as a label, it will attack and consume ants.
So then when say a bigger falcon suddenly spots the bird, labelled a 'preditor' we can predict the smaller birds behaviour right? the smaller bird will attack the falcon?
Well no, because in this case the appropriate label for the bird isn't predator but prey, and the falcon is now preditor.
Now I don't mean to suggest in any way that I have beliefs about where jews belong on the food chain. What I wish to illustrate is that sometimes when the relationships get murky, the functionality of the label can get confused, or even misused.
Antisemitism is a specific form of the label 'racism' but it still is useful insofar as a predictor of behaviour.
As such to apply it to me would suggest as a predictor that if you and I are in a room and you are introduced to me as Ishmael Goldstein, then regardless of what you actually believe I will spit on your hand when you offer it to me.
It may acurately predict that I might be opposed to Isreali government policy and expansionist plans for the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but because the basis for my objections aren't rooted in anything to do with religious beliefs but in fact my beliefs of good governance, human rights and UN Conventions in this case aligning antisemitism and my behaviour is purely coincidental.
Because you can still come to my sons 12th birthday party and take yourself a lollybag, or come cycling with me or join a basketball match against me or on my team.
And here's where batman comes in, the first question batman asks is 'who benefits?' unless there's an obvious calling card of the constant reiterations of the rogues gallery, mr freeze freezes stuff, poison ivy plants things, scarecrow scares people.
But who benefits from the label 'antisemitism' presumably first and foremost is semites, who can take evasive action, or even proactively take countermeasures.
But what if the predictor of the behaviour isn't accurate? well then we're talking losers, firstly the person attracting the label loses, because it is an unpleasant thing, and with people modifying their behaviour, whether its voting patterns or just whether they smile at you when you order your coffee makes it just that little bit less pleasant to be you.
And then of course you in the broader sense lose, because you lose out on that persons opinion, censured or self censored you don't get to hear what they are saying any more. Debate is quashed and you accept the arguement and consequences of the contrary position which is now the only position.
This is probably more effective in the 'antiamerican' sense as not conveyed by this misattributed quote to Ceaser according to wikiquote:

Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.

So you march of to war or fund some project without actually looking at it, reevaluting it and suddenly what becomes a very human bit of policy becomes an unquestionable tabboo.
And like a circle there comes the obvious answer on the other half of the 'who benifits' position.
But in the end, if labelling is going to be a logical exercise and accuracy is of some little importance then at some point we would be better off using accurate labels.
For example with the controversial Archibald entry, one could accurately label it a 'obscure in intent' and possibly even so far as 'irresponsible' for me you could adopt 'pro-reason' as a label because this would predit my tendancy to attack irational positions and accept positions based on bodies of evidence, unless it is more humourous to indulge in irony.
And you could call an ant an ant, a bird a bird and a falcon a falcon.