With apologies to Ronald Reagan in his 1980 debate with Jimmy Carter, “There they go again.”

Some Jewish organizations are madly in love with the idea that one cannot criticize Israel under any circumstances because Israel’s enemies will eat it up (as if not saying something will make them love Israel and the Jewish people). In particular, they believe you cannot criticize non-Jews who say outlandish things but are deemed friends of the Jewish state.

Enter Rush Limbaugh, America’s leading mean-spirited populist masquerading as a political commentator. (For the record, I devour intellectual based right-wing arguments in publications such as Commentary, to which I’m a long-time subscriber. It makes me rethink positions upon which I was raised. Yeah, I know… “but some of my best friends are…”)

Rush recently said on the air, “To some people, banker is a code word for Jewish; and guess who Obama is assaulting? He’s assaulting bankers. He’s assaulting money people. And a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish. So I wonder if there’s - if there’s starting to be some buyer’s remorse there.”

OK, so Rush is an idiot. After all, 78 percent of the Jews did vote for Obama, which means one in five did not. And Rush, it’s not as if we can return the president for store credit. It’s a four-year deal, with admittedly below average satisfaction to date. And while there are some Wall Street Jewish bankers, they’re as out of touch with the rest of us as the non-Jewish bankers (whom Rush must believe all voted for McCain).

But worse for me was that a coalition of Jewish groups just sent out a press release with this headline in caps: “NATIONAL JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS COME TO RUSH LIMBAUGH’S DEFENSE”

It’s signed by American Friends of Likud, CAMERA (the pro-Israel media monitoring hawks), Emunah of America (a woman’s Zionist religious group), the D.C.-based Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the National Council of Young Israel (a Zionist Orthodox synagogue group), Religious Zionists of America and something called Z-Street (which is meant to respond to the peacenik young upstart J Street, which is opening in Baltimore).

The group’s statement: “While one may agree or disagree with Mr. Limbaugh’s views on many subjects, his outspoken support for Israel has been eloquent, informed and undeniable. Moreover, in commentary on the Jewish people, he has been nothing short of a philo-Semite. We are grateful for his strong and singular voice on these issues.”

Huh? Where did the State of Israel enter into this argument?

So there you have it: Israel is all that matters. Forget what some might say is borderline latent anti-Semitism (and I don’t think he said it to be anti-Semitic, but it’s an element in western society with which we must constantly wrestle). Forget everything else Rush might have said in the past. If you say what we like about Israel, you’re OK with us.

And now you know why I call myself a “neo-centrist,” whatever that means.

First, the conclusion: While we always have to watch out for it, anti-Semitism is no longer a major threat in the United States. In fact, non-Jews willingly marry us, there are two U.S. Supreme Court Justices who openly identify with their Jewish roots and Sen. Joe Lieberman (modern Orthodox) failed as a 2004 presidential candidate because he was, frankly, a really lousy candidate – not because he was Jewish. And on a much lighter note, a woman named Madonna has done more to popularize Jewish mysticism than 10 generations of scholars.

In Europe, however, a different picture emerges and American Jews better get used to being alarmed about coming to the aid of European co-religionists. In fact, a recent poll by Germany’s University of Bielefeld showed that 42 percent of Europeans agreed that “Jews exploit the past to extort money.”

The facts: In 2008, according to the Anti-Defamation League, anti-Semitic episodes in this country dropped for the fourth consecutive year. Yet, a study released this week by the Coordination Forum for Countering Anti-Semitism showed such incidents “increased dramatically around the world, particularly in Western Europe” this past year. The operation is coordinated by the Jewish Agency for Israel and the Israeli Ministry for Diaspora Affairs.

Sadly, more events were recorded during the first three months of 2009 – which covered the conclusion of the 2008-2009 Israeli-Hamas War – than in the entire previous year. In France alone, there were 631 anti-Semitic incidents last year compared to 474 in all of 2008. Great Britain was a close second with 600 incidents, up from 541. Of even greater concern is the violent nature of some events, which resulted in eight murders.

What it means: This highly disturbing information is further proof that those who claim to be “not anti-Jewish, but anti-Israel” can and do encourage a culture of hatred that can lead to tragic results. While one is entitled to oppose the government of Israel’s policies, far too often that spills over into flagrant hatred of all Jews and particularly the Jewish state.

Clearly, Europe is more dangerous for Jews today than just one year ago. That’s not to declare that the community must begin fleeing – although aliyah from France in particular has risen dramatically in recent years. It does mean that more attention and resources must be put into combating European anti-Semitism. While significant efforts have been undertaken in recent years, they clearly fall short. This issue should be placed in the context of intolerance in general and not be solely about Jews. In doing so, the entire continent must confront how xenophobia is gaining ground on its blood-soaked lands.

We in the media who report on religious leaders spend a lot of time on conflict – after all, it excites people, which creates reader interest (not to mention insane letters to the editor).  But we don’t spend enough time noting those important and influential theologians who offer a different political view.

So I was intrigued to read yesterday that Syria’s foremost Muslim leader had declared that Islam commands its followers to “protect Judaism.”

“If the Prophet Mohammed had asked me to deem Christians or Jews heretics, I would have deemed Mohammed himself a heretic,” Sheikh Ahmed Hassoun, the Mufti of Syria, was quoted as telling a delegation of American academics visiting Damascus, according to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz.

He added, “If Mohammed had commanded us to kill people, I would have told him he was not a prophet.”

Now many people will quickly point this out as long-standing Islamic theology to “protect” Jews and Christians due to their “dhimmi” or second-class status in an Islamic-ruled country. That is, as Peoples of the Book the state is obligated to protect the basic rights of these groups (as opposed to basic “infidels” who do not believe in what the Torah – the first great revelation – calls the “creator of the heaven and earth.”).

Still, the sheikh’s words are important as they clearly fly in the face of political-based drivel from Hamas and others who have twisted Islam into a sadistic, repressive and murderous understanding of what large swaths of people see as God’s word.

That’s why leading U.S. rabbis, let alone Israeli ones, should both praise the sheikh and invite him to repeat his words at a conference outside of the region – say in this country or in Europe. That could do a great deal to undermine the theological attraction of Islamic fundamentalism.

It also could kick start a project that I write about periodically – the need to create a treaty between Islam and Judaism, which I believe is critical to even the remote hopes of the much-needed political settlement between the Jewish state and its predominantly Muslim neighbors.

Award-winning architect Frank Gehry is no stranger to international acclaim for his remarkable designs. This week, however, he should be applauded for what he is not doing. That’s because he announced he will not build the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Museum of Tolerance in Jerusalem, according to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz.

The center was to be placed on the site of a former Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem’s city center. While part of that land is already a parking lot, there still are some nearby Muslim graves, which is adjacent to a well-traveled park. Placing this structure here is simply incongruent with the center’s desire of spreading the broader moral messages of the Holocaust.

For the record, Mr. Gehry announced that he was withdrawing due to a request by the center to reduce the building’s scope as well as financial disagreements. Americans for Peace Now quickly wondered about that explanation. “The exit from the project of its celebrity architect offers Israel and the SWC a wonderful face-saving opportunity—a chance to change course and come up with a new plan on a new site,” noted Lara Friedman, APN’s director of policy and government relations.

Regardless, this setback for the Wiesenthal Center should serve to increase the pressure on it to select a new sight in the city – and potentially find Israeli Arab partners to ensure that such an error does not occur again.