To be more specific: it is universally acknowledged that Marx was a virulent anti - semite. You are engaged in quibbles over whether a particular text can be construed (deconstructed?) so as to show that it could be read in a way that is not anti - semitic. This is reminiscent of the holocaust deniers and revisionist historians. If you are interested strictly in textual hermeneutics, fine. But this thread is supposedly about the question of whether the Nazis were of the left or of the right. In that context, the question of Marx's anti - semitism came up as showing a connection between him and Hitler. Why don't you want to address the larger question?
... To be more specific: it is universally acknowledged that Marx was a virulent anti - semite ...
Universally acknowledged, is it? A bold claim, don't you think?
Psychologists refer to this as "social proof." Everyone believes it, so it must be so. Not terribly rational. You can read all about it in Aaronson's Social Animal or Cialdini's Influence, Science and Practice. Logicians simply call it appealing to the mob (argumentum ad baculum).
Please remind me. Which one of us is supposed to be ideologically purblind?