It may be true that not all people who support “genital integrity,” whatever that means, are not anti-semitic, but any law which strikes at an integral part of Jewish identity and self awareness without taking into consideration the feelings and religious sentiment of the Jewish people may be. If those who oppose circumcision of infants wish to educate others about their views, that is one thing, but forcing a ban on the practice against the will of those who see the practice as a religious sign of a convenental relationship with God, is something else. If anti-semitism is not the core reason for the enactment of the law, shouldn’t dialogue and understanding be the way forward in this conflict?
Sure, and that’s precisely what I’m doing on here now, attempting to educate, establish a reasonable dialogue, and raise awareness so that the already rapidly declining rate of non-therapeutic, medically unnecessary foreskin amoutation surgery continues to plummet in the U.S. My interests are in protecting the rights of children, one of which is the basic, inherent human right to integrity in their bodies and personhood. I don’t enjoy being bashed on the Internet, and believe me, there are ALOT of other things I’d rather be doing! My wife has made it WELL KNOWN to me she’d prefer I was not bothering with this as well, as it’s time consuming in the extreme. I’m here to educate, to make people think.
And if you don’t like the term “genital integrity” then we’ll go with “bodily integrity” instead. It’s pretty basic…as a matter of normative Western values, I submit that we readily agree that human beings have in inherent right to autonomy and integrity in their physical bodies. No one has the right to invade another’s physical personhood against their express will and consent, absent express exception situations such as, perhaps, execution as a criminal punishment, or self-defense in the context of the other being physically attacked first.
Children, as especially vulnerable human beings, are if anything entitled to MORE protection of their physical well-being and securing of their rights and best interests. Their inherent rights as human beings are no less than those of an adult, and among those basic rights is the same right to respect for their physical autonomy and bodily integrity. Parents are stewards and guardians who are charged to act in the child’s best interests to secure and guard these same rights. They do not have some inherent right by virtue of being parents to violate these rights. I cannot break my daughter’s arm, for instance, as a disciplinary measure. Nor can I opt for an amputation of a healthy finger of hers because I don’t like the way it looks, or have a nose job for her because I think her nose is ugly the way it is…do you see?
The problem with circumcision in the routine, medically unnecessary, “social” or “parental choice” context is that it is a glaring exception to these otherwise generally agreed upon moral and ethical precepts. It does not comport with these otherwise fairly uncontroversial values.
I used to teach Holy Days of Obligation as the 3 - Cs and the 3 - As. (Circumcision, Immaculate Conception, Christmas ---- Assension, Assumption, All Saints) 
