[Gengis Khan]

I have read the entire article and haven't found anything that can even remotely be construed as "antisemitism". Merely stating the obvious that the figures are disputed by many (especially by western historian themselves) is hardly antisemitic. Perhaps you should read the entire article. The author isn't even making a point about the Jewish holocaust, he's training his guns on the British who have painted themselves heros over the war against Nazism when they have actually committed crimes similar to (or perhaps far greater then) what the Nazis have done.

[snarks_when_bored]

I have read the entire article and haven't found anything that can even remotely be construed as "antisemitism".

There is a difference between the expression "Jew historians", which the author chooses to use, and the expression "Jewish historians", which the author chooses not to use (note that he was perfectly willing to speak of "British historians"). The former expression contains a hint of the disdain that invariably accompanies anti-Semitism, the latter expression does not. If you can't hear the difference, I urge you to listen more closely. In addition, by remarking that Holocaust figures are "disputed by many", the author suggests that he's not entirely certain about those figures, either; otherwise, why bring it up? He doesn't outright deny the Holocaust, but he subtly calls at least its scope into question. That's enough for me to see what he's doing.

These unfortunate choices render Anil Chawla's judgment suspect, in my view.