Superb column! The Israeli connection is fortunately becoming less of a taboo subject. It is practically the dog that wags the US tail as regards Middle Eastern policy. Lieberman and the whole Zionist pack behind the neocon political scheme need to be unmasked for what they really and for what they really intend. And the US matters to them not one whit.

As regards, "Many, many Americans still rely on establishment media figures as their principal source for political analysis," of course, you're right. But you are understating the case, I think: I would venture to say that the immense majority relies principally on the establishment media for its information. After all, as a nation, we lead the world with over 8 hours per day per capita watching the idiot tube! As someone whose employment entails daily contact with mainstream Americans, I assure you that the average American is extraordinarily ignorant and passive, far more interested in shopping or watching "the game" than in informing themselves, let alone taking any kind of constructive action; yet not hesitating to voice loud and inept opinions, passionately held. True, a majority is against the war, but that is because "our boys" are viewed as being killed because those stupid Iraqis just don't appreciate "the job" our boys are doing over there. They are not against the war for any reasons that have anything to do with reality or with decency, except that, marginally, there seems to be some awareness that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. True again, they no longer "like" Bush--Cheney, still less--but that is just because at last it has sunk into their skulls that this pair might not be total truth-tellers in their speech. That the US is being governed by criminals, and that Americans are in real danger of losing their freedoms and dignity, and becoming denizens of a police state, escapes them.

You will have gathered that I am not too impressed by my co-citizens. But at least we have a marvelous minority of intelligent and courageous and learned individuals, thanks to whom we can learn--if we wish to--what is really going on.

Given that Jew-hatred is a prominent and distinct phenomenon in the Western mind (and the Islamic mind) it it sensible that it gets its own distinction. Muddying the linguistic waters does not serve intellectual honesty.

I think "Jew-hatred" would be a more precise and intellectually honest term, frankly -- but maybe that kind of precision is not wanted? "Anti-Semitism" actually does muddy the waters, by giving one Semitic group, the Hebrews, precedence over all other Semitic peoples, and by perhaps creating a euphemistic distance between the thoughts and the words. Like it's probably easier to label somebody an anti-Semite than to label them a "Jew-hater" -- there's wiggle room in the words. Sorry, I'm an editor, and I pay very close attention to words!

Just as the "barrier" the Israelis put up looks, well, like a wall (even though we're not permitted to call it that, and the media won't ever dare to call it that), so more precision in language might actually allow honest assessment of the situation in the region, and the condition of Israelis in the region.

But perhaps when "anti-Semitism" was created (1882, according to Webster's), I guess with the Muslim world under the monolithic Ottoman imperial bloc, there wasn't much consideration of Arabs in the West as anything other than "The Turk" or "The Hun" -- even more alien and mysterious!

The main point is that Israelis aren't being well-served by the American policy in the region, and that people in the Middle East, the folks who actually live there, have a stronger vested interest in peace with their Arab brethren than Americans do. The Israelis live there, the Arabs live there -- Americans aren't native to the region, and our interests have little to do with what is in the actual good of Israelis or Arabs.

Seems like the American advocacy officially on behalf of Israel (or else on behalf of people hoping to hasten Armageddon, it would seem) has made Israel more isolated, and less safe. I'm sympathetic to the plight of Israel -- I think the US is using them, and that kind of use is not serving their long-term interests as a nation, and as a people.

And I know that the tendency to brand as "anti-Semitic" any discussion of Israel in the States that isn't pinwheel-eyed zealotry (!) is similarly not serving either Israel's interests, or American interests. It certainly doesn't help the situation in the Middle East.

That gets back to what Mr. Greenwald said, how a loon like Clueless Joe Lieberman can be painted as mainstream, sensible, moderate, and serious is indicative of the need for not less talk of Israel and our policy, but more. And more honest talk.

Just as the "barrier" the Israelis put up looks, well, like a wall (even though we're not permitted to call it that, and the media won't ever dare to call it that), so more precision in language might actually allow honest assessment of the situation in the region, and the condition of Israelis in the region.

I wonder what it is you edit. Certainly not Associated Press copy, which "dares" to the wall as "the wall."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3977598/

As does the NY Times, the Washington Post ... five seconds on Google reveals your statement to be entirely untrue.

Would you care to revise your remarks?

On the topic of "anti-Semitism": As an editor, oughtn't you pay attention to what words actually mean as opposed to what you would prefer them to mean?

@Anonymous @2:27AM

Glenn is Jewish

So I don't think you can convincingly make the argument he is an anti-semite. Polemicists and propagandists do make those arguments about Jews (self-hating Jews) but I find them unconvincing nonsense. So Glenn is not a Zionist and has no bias in favoor of Israel or against Palestine. His only obvious bias is what is in his opinion best for his homeland, America.

--Anonymous

Look, Anonymous, I know what you mean here, and I respect the spirit in which you wrote it. But as a non-Jew, I do have to say a certain part of me takes offense to the notion that if I had registered the opinions Glenn had registered, it would somehow have been okay to at least level charges of anti-Semitism at me, and the burden would have been on me to disprove them.

That might not seem prejudiced or racist, but at its root it sort of is.

-- ondelette

Point taken. But it is important to note that some non-Jews are anti-semites. That is just a fact. Then we have to explore the question of which Jews, if any, are anti-semitic. The same people make the argument that some whites are anti-white. Race traitors. These are the same people who are usually quite anti-semitic. I'll bet you find them more on the right than the left.