Rosenberg writes:

But Glenn is arguing precisely the opposite, instead of treating Jewish-American politics differently than Cuban-American politics, Mexican-American politics, etc., he's saying that we should treat it the same way, and openly discuss the various aspects involved. If we don't do that, then driving that discussion underground is precisely what feeds into real, actual anti-Semitism.

Excellently argued Paul, and this would be correct if it were true.

But Glenn has done just the opposite. He's arguing that Jewish agenda is at work behind the scenes as one of the driving forces of American foreign policy. He explicitly stated that Jewish Americans work against the USA and in favor of Israel, a statement as paranoid and offensive as much as it ties directly into age old libel myths (which no one here seems to want to acknowledge exited or still exit).

Glenn is not simply criticizing specific incidents. He is tying them together as part of a grand narrative, refusing to consider the strucuralist history of this narrative in both American history and world history) in the interest of his "just the facts, ma'am" disingenuousness, and then claiming anyone who questions this narrative is simply part of the conspiracy.

It's tautological paranoia.

Claim a historical stereotype used as perhaps the preeminent tool of numerous propaganda driven massacres of the 11th-20th Centuries is really true. Claim anyone who questions this is simply "stifling debate" or "part of the agenda."

Since I argue some attacks on Lieberman are anti-Semitic in nature, I must be a Neo-Con myself. I'm really part of the conspiracy to stifle the truth tellers. I couldn't possibly be a liberal myself.

Or I'm an asshole, or feeble minded, or whatever other of the 20 or so names I've been called.

Not once have the merits of the argument been engaged. Time and again the notion that there is real anti-Semitism at work driving some criticisms of Lieberman or Israel or any Jewish lobby effort (conservative or liberal) is dismissed in favor of the "it's simply a cover story to protect yourself."

There are legit criticisms all over the place.

Where Glenn fails is in privileging the ADL as proof positive of some deep hidden right wing cabal of Jewish interest groups working to wage war.

The AIPAC conspiracy theories fly every day on Daily Kos. Thankfully much of the Kos community sees this for what it is -- the Protocols Myth, the driving myth of the Ku Klux Klan and its descendants like David Duke, reborn anew.

Just as it will be 50 years from now. 100 years from now.

There's always a hidden force working to destroy the Nation from within. And it's always the Jews.

Given Glenn's crucial work exposing the real power structures and breakdowns that led to this war, it's not only a horribly intellectually lazy trap to fall into, but it takes away from the real work we have to do.

The idiots who invaded Iraq would have invaded Iraq if Israel didn't exist, if AIPAC didn't exist, if American Jews didn't exist.

To fail to see what drives the republican movement, to want to "out" Jews or Jewish influence where you can find them in this movement, is to commit unforgiveable intelletual laziness and ignore historical precedent that motivates this lame, age old tale that always revives itself under "just the facts, ma'am" self justifications and inverted "it's the Jews themselves who keep bringing up anti-Semitism" nonsense.

It's not the Jews bringing up false anti-Semitism charges. There is real anti-Semitism at work within all these narratives.

You can do the work to see it, or you can shrilly react, call me a shithead, and fall right into the well worn path of intellectual laziness that always leads to the same mythic fairytale of hidden Jewish power destroying the state.

If Glenn is Jewish, he's never mentioned it or addressed it, so neither shall I. It clearly is not something he identifies with in any way, and he seems quite intent on proving it has no involvement in his ideological or intellectual arguments.

His words, however, betray not only a damaging intellectual incuriousness to historical narrative, but distract from the real root causes of what led us to invade Iraq.

The notion that "Jewish money" was behind it is farcical, paranoid and factually incorrect.

We didn't invade Iraq because of AIPAC. This should be obvious to anyone looking at the raving hysterics that drive Bush's base. They get whipped into a frenzy by media campaigns led by pretend patriots and chickenhawk cowards.

But we invaded Iraq to help Israel?

I can't even type that statement without snorting with laughter.

Should the ADL do more to combat right wing misuse and abuse of Nazi comparisons? Absolutely.

Does this deny legit criticisms the ADL noted about some of the attacks on Lieberman and/or Israel from the left? Absolutely not.

And one question for Kitt, before I hear more about how she cried over Anne Frank. Kitt, do you believe people can think and act along racist/anti-Semitic lines by following narratives they're not even conscious of?

Put another way, does David Duke think he's racist or simply stating facts?

Denning, come visit Los Angeles and have a talk with the half a million Persian Jews expelled in the revolution of 1979. Ask them how good they had it back in Iran.

If these were Palestinians, we'd be hearing all about their "right of return" back to Iran and how they're owed reparations from the Iranian government. And this was the late 1970s, not the 1940s when Palestinians were being expelled from Israel.

But we never hear about how the Iran government owes the expelled Persian Jews anything. Gee.

Obviously some of the rhetoric against Iran is being used to sell BushCo's next disastrous war.

But that doesn't mean legit criticisms of Iran by Jewish advocacy groups are, de facto, part of a Bush NeoCon propaganda war effort.