Silly me. I thought the pejorative way to refer to the S. of I. was to refer to it as the "Zionist Entity." Of course, Luntz must know better and I bow to his wisdom.

This isn't actually as insane as it sounds. If I say "I'm in favour of the destruction of Israel," that can be interpreted widely as meaning historical Israel, the tribe(s) of Israel, zionists, Jews in general, etc, and would undoubtedly be labeled anti-Semitic. On the other hand if I specify "the State of Israel," I make it clear that I'm refering specifically to the political entity created in 1948, and even more to the point that the problem isn't Israel per se but the fact that it is a state, i.e. recognizing sovereign state power in a particular ethnic group and an apartheid government. Considering all the horrors that ensue from that situation, seeking its destruction is a perfectly reasonable position (which of course Luntz would still try to call anti-Semitic.)

That is Luntz's real enemy: using precise language to describe the problem limits his weasel room and often leaves his arguments dead in the water (at least until he gets his underlying premise sufficiently seared in.) Interesting how both you and he instinctively recognized the similarities in the rhetoric.

Avigail Abarbanel, an Australian psychotherapist, formerly a staff sergeant in the Israel military, describes "Israeli Denial Dysfunction". She believes it could be cured by "justice" - her idea is simple, but not easy, and would require attitude adjustments by populations in place that would be difficult, if not impossible.

http://prorev.com/2005/01/idd-israeli-denial-dysfunction.htm

You can have a lot of fun with looneys like Luntz if you ever get the chance to interview them. All that's needed is to quietly ask questions (such as "how do you know that?") that get them to backtrack through their reasoning, such that it is. Pretty soon the tantrums start.

If someone says "toenails pulled out with pliers", we might know where they stand on the issue of torture. On the other hand if someone (such as my congressman, Devin Nunes, in a recent letter) says: "the extent to which such methods appear harsh depends on the individual", we also know where they stand.