Jonathan Freedland makes three criticisms of "the liberal left" concerning protests against Israel, especially in connection with operation Cast Lead, the recent military operation in Gaza. First, while "liberal voices" speak out against Israel's war, they are silent about the attacks on British Jews that have occurred in the wake of that war. Second, the liberal left either uses or tolerates rhetoric that equates Israel with Nazi Germany, the effect of which is to stoke the fire of anti-Jewish prejudice. Third, liberals make an "implicit demand" on Jews to disassociate themselves from Israel.

These are serious allegations; and coming from someone – himself a liberal British Jew – who has been outspoken in condemning Cast Lead, they deserve to be taken seriously. I have no doubt, moreover, that there is some truth in each of the criticisms he makes. And anyone who cares about human rights and social justice, whether in the Middle East or on the streets of Golders Green, should stop to evaluate these criticisms carefully. But this is difficult to do, partly because the brushstroke – "the liberal left" (or similar phrases) – is so broad, and partly because he presents these criticisms as though they go hand in hand. I think they need to be considered one by one. In at least two cases, it transpires that matters are complicated. The first claim might be the exception. I am not sure how to assess the extent to which "progressive voices" have protested against the recent spate of attacks on Jews. But I completely share Freedland's insistence that such protest must be made, loudly and publicly, time and again. It is totally unacceptable to scapegoat individual Jews – or Jewish institutions such as synagogues – on account of the actions of the State of Israel. It is as simple as that. Yet even here there is a small complication. There has been "a curious silence" not on the liberal left but in the mainstream Jewish world about another source from which Jews are under attack. I wrote about this recently when describing the abuse hurled at those of us who took part in a demonstration in Trafalgar Square on 11 January opposing a rally in support of Israel. "The contempt and hatred for us, as Jews, was palpable. But it did not come from fanatical jihadists or from fascists in the British National party; it came from fellow Jews." Where are the Jewish community leaders, whether lay or religious, who condemn such behaviour, rather than repeatedly speaking and acting in ways that tend to reinforce it?

In making the second claim, Freedland refers to "a commonplace image: the Jewish Star of David equated with the swastika". This is a mite misleading. The equation is with the flag of the State of Israel, not with a Jewish symbol per se. It is Israel, not the protesters, who have used a Jewish symbol to identify the state.

However, I share Freedland's concern up to a point. When Israel is equated, on the one hand, with Nazi Germany and, on the other hand, with the Jewish people, inevitably it suggests – whether or not this is intended – the equation of Jews with Nazis. Since the genocide of the Jews was at the heart of the Nazi project, this is a particularly vicious equation to make. I dare say it is mostly unintended by the groups that use or tolerate this image. But, as the Jewish socialist Steve Cohen wrote in his study of antisemitism on the left: "Any group which claims to be against antisemitism should be ultra-vigilant in the imagery it evokes."

That said, it is perfectly legitimate to make careful, measured comparisons. Many Jews themselves do so. In fact, it is precisely the fact of the Nazi Holocaust that has sensitised many of us to the horrors of ethnic nationalism, in Israel and elsewhere. Freedland cannot mean that we should not draw upon this collective experience in order to keep us on our moral toes when others, such as Palestinians, suffer as a group from the power of a state. Furthermore, not only do Israeli politicians often represent their state as acting on behalf of Jews everywhere, but also this false impression is reinforced by bodies around the world that claim to represent Jews collectively. Thus, the 11 January rally in support of Israel was organised not by the Israeli embassy or the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland but by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which calls itself "the voice of British Jewry".

To adapt a sentence from Freedland: "Now what, do you imagine, is the effect of repeating, again and again, that Israel is the state of the Jews?" Finally, Freedland refers to the long history of "distinguishing between good and bad Jews". He says, in making the third of his criticisms, "Now the dividing line is affinity for Israel". I know just what he means. I dare say that this has some application today. But mostly, it applies within the Jewish mainstream rather than in the liberal left; and it works the opposite way. "Good Jews" are those who "love Israel", "bad Jews" are ones who feel no affinity with the state or whose criticism fails a loyalty test.

Freedland should know: he has been regarded as a "bad Jew" himself – on account of his criticism of Israel.