He both-sides Russian pogroms, too. His insight is that it was bad for Russians to exterminate the Jews, but it is also bad for Jews to control everything and not work like good Russians. You can't let this sort of framing pass for argument, because it can be placed around everything.
The fact that you're using "both-sides" as a verb makes it hard to take you seriously. That is a neologism that exists to prevent people from thinking. As if there are always two sides and one of them is always absolutely right.
I highly doubt Solzhenitsyn was an antisemite based on what I've read of him (there are plenty of Jewish characters). I could be wrong (I haven't read everything) but I strongly suspect that this is one more example of unhinged culture warriors connecting dots based on their preconceived ideas of what is and isn't acceptable to say and think.
> That is a neologism that exists to prevent people from thinking.
No, it's a neologism that intentionally points out that there is a bias towards moderation that assumes that the more central a position is, the more right it is. People prone to this bias are more easily manipulated by changing the framing of a question, and trust people more who scrupulously avoid consistent positions.
e.g. If Jewish Russians are trying to conquer and run Russia for their own pleasure and to avoid work at the expense of non-Jewish Russian death and suffering, attacking them is self-defense. However, if attacking Jews is wrong, then they can't be trying to take over Russia to oppress non-Jewish Russians. Maybe we should just have a little pogrom, or a special tax.
Consistent positions are held by people who don't think. The world isn't consistent and if your positions are, that shows fealty to some silly ideological framework. This doesn't necessarily lead to moderacy...it leads to inconsistency.
I highly doubt you've read the book you're criticizing and I grant roughly zero chance that you've fairly summarized Solzhenitsyn's argument ("the Jews kind of had it coming because they tried to rule the Russians" or whatever nonsense). Your framing is exactly what I'd expect from someone with the mind virus infecting the people who use "both-sides" as a verb.
This is where he got his history lessons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Dikiy