That the Western press consistently characterizes the Israeli actions as immoral is anti-Semitism. ~David Mamet, The Chicago Tribune

A classic retreat when the chips are down and the argument isn’t going your way.  The damage inflicted on the rest of Lebanon is so excessive, considering the limited nature of the original provocation, that it surprises me that anyone would still have the gall to accuse critics of Israeli methods of anti-Semitism.  Most of the article is dedicated to rehashing all the old favourite charges of anti-Semitism–Europeans have always wanted to destroy the Jews, it’s all the Gospels’ fault, and so on and so forth.  Of course, Mel Gibson gets a mention, too.  People who cannot accept reasonable criticism of morally dubious policies without screaming about how the entire world is out to get you are not serious interlocutors; there is no dialogue with people like this, when arguments are answered with shouts of abuse. 

This obsession with the West’s supposed eternal, unchanging anti-Semitism is almost as remarkable as this striking claim:

The Israeli aim is not to invade Lebanon (Israel left Lebanon) but to force Hezbollah to stop killing the Jews.

Yes, Israel did leave Lebanon, but seems to have had a large-scale military operation in place to devastate Lebanon the moment there was a provocation from Hizbullah.  Perhaps Israel does not want to invade Lebanon, all things being equal.  But Israel is invading Lebanon and bringing destruction to the entire civilian infrastructure in the name of cutting off Hizbullah.  What they are achieving is the displacement and embargo of the Lebanese people.  Their plight, of course, goes unnoticed by Mamet, smug in his self-confidence that Israel cannot possibly have made any serious mistakes.  There is apparently no moral culpability for the perpetual victim.