"Can you be anti-Zionist and not be an anti-Semite? Almost never. Unless you can prove to me you're against nationalism. If you're one of those unique individuals in this world that's opposed to American nationalism, French nationalism, Palestinian nationalism, then you can be opposed to Jewish nationalism. Is it racist? You bet it is. Every nationalism is racist. It sets its laws of citizenship, it sets its own capital... It sets its songs, it sets its values. It is, if you will, exclusive, and you can even call it racist. But if the only nationalism in the world that is racist is Jewish nationalism, then you're an anti-Semite. I don't want to make any apologies for it."
After the Second World War, the extreme right needed to redefine itself. In particular, it needed to distance itself from the effects of the fascism in Europe. The plan was to focus on the shared values of a community and to turn the liberal attack on the extreme right back on itself by claiming that liberals were denying 'nationalists' their 'human right' to associate with those they felt close to, their 'own kind'. The common refrain now, whether it be from the new Euro-racists (sometimes championed by commentators to this site) or white American racists from the South and Midwest, is that they don't hate anybody, they just prefer the company of people of their own race. It is discriminatory to deny them that right.
This perversion of liberal values highlights a failure in liberal thinking, its inability to distinguish between appropriate and wildly inappropriate uses of its own concepts. In fact, telling someone that they are misusing the concepts results in a charge of racism for denying a particular group the right to define its own identity or political philosophy. Taken to its illogical conclusion, it is racist to deny a group the right to be racist as long as it claims that group exclusionary policies are integral to the identity of that particular group (an easy argument if you are preoccupied with assimilation, aka, 'race-mixing').
Similar problems have led to some amusing situations, e. g., a liberal program against discrimination may call for affirmative action to increase the number of 'lesbians of color' employed in a certain field, but liberal values prohibit defining who is a lesbian (that would be colonialist or patriarchal, or something), leaving individuals the right to define themselves as lesbians of color, meaning that straight white males can obtain preferential hiring as long as they are willing to redefine themselves for the purposes of the liberal definitions!
This kind of fuzzy thinking had given a particular group, the Jews, Israelis and Zionists, the JIZ, the ability to misuse anti-racist terminology to further its ultra-racist supremacist eliminationism, and wreck havoc on the Palestinians and others. American 'progressives' aid and abet the extremism by slurring anybody who complains about either what the JIZ are doing, or their collective misuse of liberal/'progressive' terminology to advance their extremely anti-liberal program.
Foxman has finally been reduced to parroting the arguments of the extremist right, claiming that it is discriminatory to deny Israelis the right to be to be racists. It is not just Foxman: you can see a similar slide in the writings of Judea Pearl, asking whether the Jews are a 'nation', in order to be able to fit into the established canon of 'rights'. The JIZ have no other arguments left, and are reduced to justifying the unjustifiable with the arguments borrowed from the Euro-trash and the white trash.