Glenn writes:

It applies to virtually every political dispute: Some opponents of affirmative action are racist but not all are; therefore, to oppose affirmative action is not to be racist. Some opponents of tax cuts are socialists but not all are; therefore, to oppose tax cuts is not to be a socialist. Some opponents of the U.S. invasion of Iraq were Saddam supporters but not all were; therefore, to oppose the war on Iraq is not to be pro-Saddam.

This is third-grade logic. You haven't mastered it yet.

Look! Over there! An anti-semite against the war on Gaza. See! It's about anti-semitism!!!!!

Why you continue to fail to grasp it is because 0% and 100% are both extremes. You pick and choose your binaries in which two completely distinct language systems apply for you, and for your critics.

To boil it down to simple math, so you can follow it, your logical fallacy builds like so.

x = issue/event

y = legit motivation for the issue

z = illigitimate motivation for the issue (bigotry, bias, etc.)

1. One can believe X, but Y as the cause of X and not Z as the cause of X. If some believe Z as the cause of X, that is not my fault. If some use Y to cover for their real belief, Z, that does not excuse Y.

2. Critics of Y use the excuse of Z to try to drown out Y.

3. But I never said Z didn't exist!

This is a neverending shell game in which you can constantly shuffle your motivations for X under cover of Y and accuse your critics of using Z to try to drown out Y, while cursorly acknowledging that Z doesn't exist.

Anyone can do this with any argument. So f-ing what, Glenn? What do you think it proves? That you're objective? That you're a critical thinker because you pay lip service to Z existing, somewhere out there in the ethos (but certainly not on this board, as your fervent apologists so self-righteously proclaim)?

Total bullshit, Glenn.

There are underlying root and historical narratives that influence X, Y, and Z. This is not a parlor game of three equal cards, in which you can shuffle in one and proclaim a false equivalency to the others.

Israel hatred, Jew hatred, conspiracy theories, The Protocols of Zion, the Turner Diaries, Henry Ford, Charles Coughlin, Joe McCarthy through today's Bill O'Reillys, simply code their language to make Z seem like Y.

That is the card shuffle you refuse to acknowledge in your "third grade" logic understandings. Just as Bush refused to be held accountable for those who heard the dog-whistles on Saddam and 9/11.

You set up the bonfire built on 1000 years of historical narrative, but want the rest of us to only examine your arugments on the issues of the last three weeks. This is why you are disingenuous, and why your position on Israel is considered so fringe. You simply refuse to understand what Karl Marx (and more recently Foucault) made perfectly clear -- that a conversation with the past is actually a conversation with the present. And that arguments of the present are reworkings of power struggles of the past.

That is why this isn't just about how much we gave to Israel in 2008, or whether the Gaza bombings violate the Geneva conventions. It is why your threads explode into 700+ comments, much as you want to disingenuously limit discussion to "just the facts," as you accuse your opponents of "emotional bias."

This is what makes you a fraud on this issue, Glenn. Yes, you are right that just because some use Israel as an excuse for Jew hatred, all criticisms of Israel are not Jew hatred.

But you cannot disengage from broad cultural perspective, much as your lawerly and vacuous reductionisms hope to do. 1000 years of history speaks otherwise, Glenn. And deep down, you know it.

No sir, you missed the point.

Orwell's satire about The Two Minutes of Hate against Goldstein was pretending it was about "politics" or "issues" when it was about Goldstein's physical Jewishness as the proverbial "other."

Orwell understood that if you asked any of the people screaming at the picture of Goldstein, why they hated Goldstein, they'd explain it was because Goldstein's politics threatened Oceania's political system of power.

Orwell got what Goldstein (and by proxy, "the Jew") function as: The excuse by which politicians pretend "politics" but target inchoate rage at.

The Two Minutes of Hate against Israel, or Bill O'Reilly's Two Minutes of Hate against George Soros, all come from the same place. It is a rage that the hater him or herself cannot understand.

It is why so many on this board deny that any anti-Semitism exists on this board. Because the people shouting at Emmaneul Goldstein's image never understand why they do so.

This is Orwell's genius. Clearly you missed the point.

But I'm sure all the shouting at Goldstein in these threads is merely a political disagreement on the surface issues.