The refusal of the ADL to condemn specious comparisons Liberals with Hitler by Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Jonah Goldberg and other right-wing conservatives can fairly be called anti-semitic.

The ADL are ALWAYS against ANYONE using the Hitler Stick EXCEPT when it serves to further the ends of Israel. Then the ADL turns a convenient blind eye.

Selective morality. Usally distateful. In this case, repugnant, as you pointed out.

And hiding behind holocaust survivorship is one of the most disgusting things I've seen in a long time. I trawl the right wing sites, so that's saying something. The rabbi should be ashamed of himself.

And if it turns out that Rupert Murdoch is a large financial supporter of the ADL, well... it would seem that selective morality can be bought, and that's is something beyond repugnance.

One thing you can be sure of Glenn, this will never make its way into the media. Cries of anti-semitism would ring loud and clear.

Your lucky you didn't get whacked with the anti-semite stick, Glenn. I'm sure you have been in private emails, but I'm a little shocked the good rabbi didn't take a few subtle swats.

If this little dust up goes on, you can be sure you will be accused of anti-zionism, etc.

Merely reading Mr. Foxman's letter reveals to the most casual observer that he is a mouthpiece of the right first, Zionist second, and American last.

The rhetorical style is the giveaway. Throw the biggest club you have, (in this case survivor cred.) declare the very mention of the topic Despicable, dismiss your accuser's motives as "political," and you've won, without addressing, much less denying the lie/crime/dirty trick at which you've just been caught red-handed.

What's most amazing is that they've cultivated a base so rock stupid that this works, again and again. And the Village marvels.

Let's all hope Mr. Foxman's Typearrhea doesn't subside too soon. Like Bush, his honesty is unintentional, yet fun for all of us.

Part of the problem here is that senile old paranoids like Norman Podheretz who are essentially promoting their own "final solution" in the war with "islamofascism" really want to feel justified in their aggressive stance. The neo-cons help them feel empowered to fight back instead of being sitting ducks in Israel while the Palestinians send in suicide bombers. The marriage of convenience works the same way with all people. If they feel threatened and someone wants to kill a bunch of their main bogey-men, then hey, have at it!

The Jewish Community Center here in SF is having Norman speak in a lecture series, and actually stated that he has some interesting ideas about what to do in the Middle East. Interesting if you'd like to be on the OTHER side of a holocaust for once, but otherwise, it's a thinly veiled attempt to promote a murderous agenda. I'm for free speech so it's a good thing he's coming. But NOBODY should be fooled as to his agenda.

About Glenn Greenwald calling Jews in general, Nazis, by implication? Oh no one? Yeah I forgot; your mouth to God's ear. Antisemitism is fine, really but we should just accept that you're engaging in it as well. Just cop to it already. No one will think any different of you.

None of this means they aren't biased towards Murdoch et al, just that no one entirely in the pocket of the right would take so many liberal stands over the last few years. I came into this with a definite anti-ADL bias, but now I'm interested in how they mix left and right.

You make a fair point, and I acknowledged in my second post that the ADL has condemned a healthy number of conservatives:

The bulk of Foxman's response is devoted to what he says was my "suggestion that the Anti-Defamation League has been selective in singling out liberals for condemnation, while remaining silent about the abuse of Holocaust imagery by those on the right." He cites past ADL condemnations of people like Glenn Beck, Pastor James Kennedy, James Dobson and Rick Santorum for what the ADL believed to be their reckless use of Nazi insults to make political points.

I think Foxman makes a fair point here as far as it goes. My intent was to focus on the ADL and other groups' relationship with Rupert Murdoch and Fox News -- as well as their political sympathy with those spouting a neoconservative view -- and what appears to be their resulting unwillingness to condemn Fox and neoconservative pundits specifically. Foxman does not really address that, though he persuasively makes the case that the ADL has been more willing to criticize those on the Right than my post may have suggested.

As many commenters pointed out, and as I think is clear, it's not a Left/Right dichotomy per se here. Most of those condemnations have nothing to do with foreign policy and war, but come from, for intsance, equating abortion or global warning concerns to the Holocaust.

The issue is that they are eager to take sides in pro-war v. anti-war factions by refusing to condemn the former while easily and frequently condemning the latter.

regarding the recent Mearsheimer & Walt book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", that I caught on CSPAN. It was basically an incoherent rant that was the same tired old message that I've been hearing from the pro-Likud right (both in Israel and in the US), at once both self-pitying and combative, that basically asserts that "they're out to destroy us, they're this close to doing it, and so we have the right to defend ourselves by any means necessary, and anyone who challenges any aspect of our attempts to do this or any aspect of our policies or actions is spreading vicious lies and probably an anti-Semite". Blah blah blah. I.e. the Likud version of Cheney's 1% doctrine, which anyone who dares challenge is a vicious liar with some sort of anti-Semitic agenda.

Well, of course Israel has enemies who seek to destroy it. Of course there are people who hate Israel, who also happen to be anti-Semites, and are motivated to hate Israel because of it. And of course Israel has the right to defend itself legitimately, against actual enemies and threats, appropriately and as called for, not only militarily but also rhetorically and politically. As does any sovereign country. None of this is in dispute as far as I'm concerned.

But that's not what Foxman was doing. What he was doing was essentially calling any critic of Israel and its policies, no matter the policy, was at the very least a vicious liar, and most likely an anti-Semite. I.e. criticism of Israel was simply NOT ALLOWED, PERIOD, and anyone who did so was a bad person with a hateful agenda. Never mind the specifics of their criticisms and the facts and reasoning that they used to make them. This was simply beyond the pale and not permissible, no matter what. Israel was always acting legitimately, its survival was always gravely threatened, and by definition it could do no wrong, and therefore criticism of it was simply absurd, and always ill-motivated.

The corollary to this, of course, was that anyone who praised Israel, supported its policies--any of its policies--condemned its enemies--real and imagined, including any of its critics--and called for if not engaged in actions against them, was therefore honorable and praiseworthy, no matter the substance (or lack thereof) of or motivation for their support and praise. I.e. all "supporters" are virtuous, and all critics are evil. Period. There can be no debate on this.

Thus, it's ok, if not essential, to call critics of Israel and any of its policies "Nazis" and "Hitlerish", because that's what they are. And it's ok to embrace Fox News and so-called "Christian Zionists", because they are unabashed supporters of Israel and its policies, and the fact that one is a fake news propaganda wing of the GOP and far-right, and the other representing people who basically support Israel because they think that it will help bring upon the "End Times"--and thus have their own agendas, which have nothing to do with being actually supportive of Israel's long-term best interests--is irrelevant. They are "friends", the others are "enemies", and that's all that there is to it.

That Foxman's "thesis" is absurd, dishonest and offensive is, I think, fairly obvious to any reasonable and informed observer. Criticizing Israel and its policies does not make one anti-Semitic (or else a sizeable segment of the Jewish Israeli and Jewish non-Israeli population is anti-Semitic, including myself) any more than criticizing the US and its policies makes one anti-American. Nor does "supporting" Israel and its policies make one its "friend". But that's what Waxman basically said--and if you disagreed, well, that just proved his point. Whatever.

But what most disturbs me about this sort of message--which, of course, is not only sheer nonsense, but often expressed precisly for its silencing effect, as a form of thought crime propaganda, much like the congressional condemnation of the MoveOn ad last week--is that it's ultimately self-defeating, because any policies--whether nobly or ignobly motivated--that do not allow themselves to be criticized, to the point of calling any criticism of them to be themselves ignobly motivated, are inherently dangerous.

When a policy precludes any criticism of it, it not only prevents any rational and reality-based analysis of its validity and effectiveness--which are essential for its long-term success--but also indicates its own insecurity, and likely invalidity and ineffectiveness, if not illegitimacy. Strong, competent and legitimate regimes and policies allow and even welcome criticism of themselves, because they know that they can handle it, and that they will likely benefit from it. Weak, incompetent and illegitimate regimes and policies do not allow and cannot handle criticisms of themselves, because they know (even if they'd never admit) that they can't handle it, and might well crumble in the face of it.

Which, of course, is not limited to Israel or its current policies vis a vis Iran, Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria, etc., but to the US, and its current policies as well, vis a vis Iraq, Iran, the "GWOT", the "surge", warrantless wiretaps, torture, etc. The more stridently that a regime and its policies declare that they are above criticism, the more likely that they are absolutely in need of it, and inherently invalid and profoundly flawed.

See the connection here? We are noble and right, surrounded by enemies who seek to destroy us, and thus justified in taking whatever actions we choose to defend ourselves, which are not to be legitimately criticized or opposed. And anyone who does criticize or oppose us or them, is acting out of bad motivations and may well be yet another of our enemies. This is the Bush doctrine. This is the Likud doctrine. And Fox, Foxman, "Christian Zionists", etc., are merely willing pawns in their efforts to promote this doctrine. But I guess that saying this makes me anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and anti-US.

Even though nothing could be further from the truth.

But what does truth have to do with any of these people?