Question

Good afternoon!
The Rabbi wrote in his article that the “betrayal of academia” does not stem from antisemitism, but only from a postmodern outlook (the Rabbi did not mention it, but mainly neo-Marxist ideas).
At the beginning of my reading, I thought that even if the Rabbi is correct in the philosophical analysis of their outlook, it still cannot be denied that they themselves also have a great deal of antisemitism, for there is no reason they should prefer the Arabs over the Israeli occupier, since the Arabs are no better when it comes to the exclusion of women and LGBT people, etc. And one should also take into account that those who argue against the Israeli occupation are, alarmingly, biased even in the facts themselves, and seemingly it is clear that there is a distinctly antisemitic dimension here.
However, afterward I saw that at the end of the article the Rabbi made an additional claim: that the left has a reason to prefer the Palestinians over Israel, even though they themselves oppress women, because this is a group defined in terms of the right to a narrative, whereas Israel is the most essentialist people of all, and therefore they side with them!
However, regarding this I would like to argue that this itself is antisemitism, because in the end we too have the right to define a narrative of our own. And so it seems to me that the reason they fight Jewish essentialism is itself an expression of the concept of “antisemitism” — that is, a people that reflects an essence beyond mere reality, and therefore the antisemite is a person who is unwilling / afraid to recognize (based on “intuition”) a transcendent essence. And so throughout history this was expressed in classic antisemitism, and now in the erasure of the Jew’s essential narrative.
In other words, postmodernism feeds off the denial of essence, while antisemitism denies the essence that transcends every essence, and therefore here the left prefers the Arab occupation over the Jewish narrative דווקא because that is the height of antisemitism.
I hope I managed to simplify my argument.
Thank you very much!