Mr. Weinberg,
Re: your original post. It's unfortunate that Hitchens has the dubious Galloway to use as a straw man to collectively represent those opposed to the Iraq war and occupation. (Though Even Amnesty International and Cindy Sheehan do not escape the venom of Hitchens’ agenda).

For Galloway to say that Zionism has nothing to do with Jewishness is obviously untrue: Israel's "Law of Return" for example, clearly wasn't written for Arab Palestinians.

On the other hand, your reference to:
"the kind of ritual pseudo-distancing which ALWAYS [emphasis mine] serves as a prelude for wacky anti-Semitic hallucinations" actually attests the success of a propaganda strategy designed to shut down criticism of Israeli policy and its supporters.

The pervasive mind set goes: Zionism is the same as being Jewish, therefore to critique Zionism (or oppose Israel's policies) is anti-Semitic.
Obviously, the "ritual distancing" would not be so prevalent if this smear of "anti-Semite" was not so ritualistically applied to critics of Israel (though not so much in Israel itself) that it has become a knee-jerk reaction in the minds of many in the West.
This smear tactic is not even deterred by the fact that many of the most articulate critics of Israeli policy are Jewish: they are labelled anti-Semites by way of being "self-hating Jews".

Although I've seen many good pieces from you, your seeming endorsement of this propaganda strategy is disturbing.

Mr Weinberg, could do a little gesture yourself and say the obvious: that being a strong critic of Israeli policy does not make you an anti-Semite, and that there are often reasons other than anti-Semitism for someone to feel the need to differentiate? (I suppose the fact that you said "pseudo" distancing allows for existence of "real" distancing--though this is not clear from your statement).