The problem is that the author is unable to distinguish between racism, religous conflict, and political opposition. For non-Jews, these are three rather different things.
Some are anti-Semitic on racial grounds, and indeed, this seems to me to be the primary basis for past genocide against Jews. However, I think it is pretty rare, both in Europe and in the US.
Christians and Muslims may see Judaism as a religion that is somewhere between mis-guided and heretical. The former Christian view that Jews were guilty of murdering Christ has fallen out of favor. Muslims now have the more negative view of Judaism, partly because of their inability to separate religion from politics. Hindus, Buhdists, Confucianists, Shinto, agnostics and atheists don't much care one way or the other.
The political category has two dimensions. Some oppose Israel as a state on the grounds that it is racist (giving preferences to matrilineal descendents of Jews) and a theocracy (giving preferences to adherents of Judaism, particularly the Orthodox). Others oppose politically active Jews within their country (US, France, wherever), who strive to use the mechanisms of democracy to muster the foreign policy and defense resources of their country to the aid of Israel.
Of these three, racism is reprehensible, religious conflict is just silly, and political opposition to Israel and its local fan club is a legitimate topic for democratic debate.