I personally find it strange that comparisons to Hitler and/or Nazis should be per se off-limits. For example I think a number of meaningful comparisons can be made between GW Bush and Hitler, particularly in the use of propaganda to create phantom enemies, terrify people at home, and justify aggression abroad. I'm quite comfortable defending that comparison without suggesting that Bush is AS EVIL AS HITLER WAS. Of course, the right does not trade in nuanced comparisons; it trades in the cumulative impact over time of relentless, repetitive epithets.

Glenn is quite right that if Foxman et al. are going to act as the self-appointed guardians of the solemnity of the Holocaust and the sacred memory of Hitler's victims, they should do so without regard for partisanship or foreign policy views. If they do not, then they themselves are trivializing that which they claim to hold sacrosanct. I'll be interested to see if Glenn's inquiries receive any meaningful response.

Avulcan is quite right that the Israel lobby does not speak for Jews. But trust me, neither does Avulcan.

Years ago I read a book, I think it was called "Male Fantasies," that discussed (among other things) the sexual psychology underlying Nazism and other types of authoritarianism. It included a reproduction of a cartoon drawn by some early proto-Nazi type, depicting a man straddling the Earth. The man's huge cock was plunged deep into the Earth, literally fucking the planet. That's pretty much who these oh-so-manly neocon war lovers are, isn't it? (Oooooooh, I compared them to Nazis. Naughty Gator.)

I can't believe I'm donating to a gay anti-Semite, but OK. (I'm just kidding, everybody -- I don't really think Glenn's gay.)

Is it possible to express concern about the potential danger of Iranian nuclear weapons without necessarily advocating a U.S. military attack on Iran? Or is anyone who expresses such concern to be automatically deemed a warmonger?

The United Nations has expressed significant concern about the potential danger of Iranian nuclear weapons, to the point of sanctioning Iran in connection with its nuclear program. Is the UN working toward a U.S. military attack on Iran? Is the UN acting on behalf of Israel?

To the extent that a U.S. military attack on Iran is being contemplated by the powers that be, does anyone believe that the likelihood of such an attack will be even slightly reduced if Abe Foxman criticizes Bill O'Reilly for misusing the term "gestapo"? If so, how?

There is an unfortunate, toxic dynamic, much discussed these days, that tends to pervade discussions involving or touching on Israel. I truly sympathize with the many sincere critics of Israel and/or US policy regarding Israel who have had dialogues that went, in their minds, something like this:

Sincere Critic: Israel has treated the Palestinian people unjustly, and America's unqualified support of Israel has helped to perpetuate that injustice while failing to advance the cause of peace in the region.

Jewish (or gentile) neocon: ANTI-SEMIIIIIIIIIIITE!!!!! WHY DO YOU HATE JEWS!!!??!

On the other hand, I, as a sometime (hopefully not reflexive) defender of Israel, have had discussions that I perceived more or less this way:

Israel-Basher: The Zio-fascist thought police will no doubt accuse me of anti-Semitism just for saying this, but Israelis use the blood of Palestinian children to make sickeningly sweet kosher wine.

Me: No they don't. That's crazy.

Israel-Basher: NEOCON TROLL!! HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF ANTI-SEMITISM!!! I SAID ISRAELIS, NOT JEWS!! THIS IS SO TYPICAL OF HOW ANYONE WHO DARES CRITICIZE ISRAEL IS VICIOUSLY ATTACKED...

It is a problem, on both sides, on all sides. I don't know how to fix it. Wish I did.

Both examples were parody, and I'd hoped they would be recognized as such. I invented the updated blood libel. I acknowledge that no one has ever, as far as I know, accused Israelis of making wine with the blood of Palestinian children. Many people have made accusations against Israel that I have regarded as self-evidently insane. A real-life example would be the statement that Israel's policies re the Palestinians constitute "genocide."

I did not invent the term "Zio-fascist," which I have seen in a number of comments in the left blogosphere. It is commonplace for Israel-bashers to preface their remarks with predictions that they will be accused of anti-Semitism, as a way of preemptively defusing criticism and congratulating themselves for their self-perceived bravery.

It is, trust me, highly commonplace for Israel critics to imagine accusations of anti-Semitism where no such accusation has been made.

LOL. Surely you jest. I've got five blogbucks says no GG commenter has ever made a polite remark only to be answered with an all-caps howl of "anti-semiiiiite" followed by a demand to know why the commenter hated Jews. Get hyper-literal much?