Здесь -- довольно обширный и на удивление весьма пристойный материал (в том смысле, что он не требует немедленно отправить инакомыслящих в тюрьму), обосновывающий эту концепцию: D. G. Myers, Jews Without Memory: Sophie’s Choice and the Ideology of Liberal Anti-Judaism.
Осторожно, много букав (и еще больше евреев)!
Вот цитата для затравки:
The hostility to Jewish exclusivism is a hostility to Jewishness as such, because the Jews are defined by the exclusivist conviction that they are an autonomous and chosen people.(19) Liberalism is disturbed by the chauvinism or even racism implicit in the very concept. And what it proposes instead is the ideal of impartial morality. Perhaps the best contemporary example -- certainly among the most influential -- is John Rawls’s Theory of Justice, which argues that deliberative morality must occur behind a "veil of ignorance" (136-42). On Rawls’s argument, justice demands that people behave as if they did not know their real circumstances, whether they are rich or poor, powerful or weak, well-connected or isolated -- or Gentile or Jewish. The demand of modern secular liberalism, in other words, is that people divest themselves of their historical identity as a prerequisite to justice. And if the Jews wish to belong to a just society, then -- if they wish to be moral -- they must give up the chauvinistic or even racist conception of themselves as a chosen people. In political terms they are expected to abandon the idea of themselves as a distinct and autonomous people, and assimilate into the majority. In theological terms they are asked to opt out of their covenant with the Jewish God, which is the basis of their election, and to embrace an impartial morality that excludes any preference for their own kind ("to the Jews as a people, nothing"). In short, they are to stop being Jews -- except on the understanding that religious affiliation is an individual concern, a matter of private worship, which is not the Jewish understanding. Even to worship as Jews, they must adopt the Christian majority’s conception of themselves. They must not consecrate their own history in their own way, but must acknowledge that they are racists if they do. And it is never thought that these demands might be conversion and annihilation under different names.