My question to you is: what criteria do you use to judge whether or not someone is anti-Semitic?

This is a great and complex question, and you seem to be asking it genuinely (unlike many who pooh-pooh the very notion that real anti-Semitism might be mixed in with Israeli criticism).

To understand anti-Semitism you have to go back and read the great anti-Semitic smears of history.

It starts about a thousand years ago with the notion that Jews were complicit in the death of Jesus and therefore responsible for "killing God." The notion of Jews as ethics-free persecutors who "kill the innocent" carried through many of the Crusades and in conspiracy theories like the Blood Libel (google it, too complex to get into here). Jews are historically accused of spreading plagues, shifty and duplicitious money practices, secret behind-closed-doors plotting against the "homeland," "tribalist" loyalties above and beyond love of country (as it sadly gets used on this board and by Glenn), and then with the rise of global media, global conspiracies.

The right believes Jews are Communists, the left believes Jews are Neo-Con facsists. The classic anti-Semite seeks to "reveal" Jews to prove this point (witness the Rahm Emannuel "outing" a few posts back). Jews must be more loyal to their "tribe" simply by virtue of being Jewish.

Never mind the most voracious critics of Israel are often Jews. For the anti-Semite, anecdote proves all.

Bernie Madoff proves Jews are on Wall Street funneling money through corrupt channels to an anti-Semite.

An anti-Semite on the left sees Joe Lieberman and Bill Kristol as proof that Jews are behind the Iraq war. An anti-Semite on the right sees George Soros and the Jews in Hollywood (and, of course, the Jewish Karl Marx) as proof that "liberal Jews" are out to destroy conservative Christian values.

Greenwald sees AIPAC and Abe Foxman working with conservatives to use Jewishness to silence critics of Israel and force monpolithic thought. Bill O'Reilly sees a "war on Christmas" in which "coastal elites" in the ACLU (aka Jews like Ruth Bader Ginsberg) are working to use Jewishness to silence Christianity and fracture national identity.

Jews to the left of me, Jews to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

Anti-Semites seek to find Jews to prove their predetermined conclusions. When Israel does anything, Israel becomes the national manifest of these same conclusions.

None of this means you can't criticize Israel. It just means you can't criticize Israel without being aware of the overlap with those who criticize Israel for the same reasons they shouted at Goldstein in 1984.

Palestinians are tragic pawns, caught in the middle. No one gives a shit about the Palestinians. Not the neighboring Arab countries, not the Israelis, and, frankly, not very many of people on this board, either.

Sure they claim to. But how many actually care? Egypt closed the border on Gaza. Bin Laden? His lip service to the plight of Palestine is laughable. The Saudis? Please.

No one cares about Palestinians, except in their ability to cover their hate for Israel. No one certainly cared about the Palestinians before 1948.

Tragically, real Palestinians are dying. But with so many countries consumed by anti-Semitism, the ridiculous United Nations that Glenn wants us to turn to as unbiaed arbiter, and the Jew haters ranting away in much of Europe, Israel is on its own, and so are the Palestinians.

What Glenn fails to consider in terms of the United States unanimous support for Israel exists in global context. American government officials realize America has to act as counter-balance to the anti-Israel rage of the rest of the world. As such, American officials are very reticent to criticize Israel not because Israel doesn't deserve criticism at times, but because of the very global context Glenn denies.

Well, for starters, not denying that those who raise the specter of anti-Semitism might have a point. All the screaming that anti-Semitism is simply a "tool of silencing" betrays deep ignorance and wilful denial.

Comments on this board have claimed Jews exploit "anti-Semitism" to profit from Gentile guilt.

I'm sure there are cases when this might be true. The Neo-Cons certainly abuse it for that reason. But the Neo-Cons abuse any and everything they can. They are liars and chickenhawks.

To dismiss anti-Semitism itself is like when a Neo-Con dismisses racism in America because Obama won. It's nonsensical and ignorant.

The reason most liberal sites, like Daily Kos and Huffington Post, choose words carefully when criticizing Israel is that they, unlike Glenn, realize the results of flamethrowing accusations leads to setting a brushfire in well prepped historical ground. You might not be an anti-Semite, but if you yell "Jewish global money conspiracy" in a crowded theater, you are responsible for the stampede, even if you happened to see a specific example that could arguably fit what you're trying to talk about.

There are a million ways to make critical points of Israel's handling of the Palestinians. However a responsibility to engage in the facts, and not engage in historically ignorant rants, is a first step.

Throwing around words like "tribalists," "Zionists" or some of the rants I've read just in the past few hours, are pretty obviously what they are.

If you'd like to see rabid anti-Semitism masquerading as political critique, just read a bit on this vile website:

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/