Accusations of anti-Semitism are serious things, so I am not going to make them. But after reading this piece by Leon Wieseltier on Andrew Sullivan, I have some questions which I would love to see the Inspector Javert of Trig Palin’s matrilineal line answer.

1. Why does Sullivan insist on discussing the presence of a “Goldfarb-Krauthammer wing” of the American Jewish community, in addressing Middle East foreign policy issues, but never once discussed a “Cheney-Rumsfeld wing” of American Christianity when discussing the policies advocated by American Christians concerning the Middle East? (And no, discussing “Christianists” does not count; the “Christianist” epithet is reserved for Christian influences on domestic policy that are not in keeping with Sullivan’s beliefs.) Does the “Goldfarb-Krauthammer wing” really possess no “respect for learning, compassion for the other, and support for minorities”?

2. For that matter, per Wieseltier’s point, how would Sullivan have felt if there were some announced, designated division on foreign policy issues between a certain number of gay people, and the “Sullivan wing” of the gay community? Would he have approved of this kind of rhetorical effort to divide the gay community into “good gays” and “Sullivan gays” on questions of foreign affairs?

3. Why doesn’t Sullivan ever write about other lobbying groups on the issue of foreign policy? Why does he only fixate on the Jewish lobby?

4. Are Sullivan’s dark intimations about the Jewish lobby, the Netanyahu government’s supposed declaration of “war” on the Obama Administration, and his comment that the United States is “being dictated to in the conduct of its own foreign policy by an ally [Israel] that provides almost no real benefit to the US, and more and more costs” somehow Sullivan’s way of trying to make up for his “fifth column” remark about the “decadent Left” in the aftermath of 9/11?

5. Why does Sullivan believe that Israeli efforts to take on Hezbollah-initiated and Hamas-sponsored terrorism constitute “military adventurism”?

6. Having condemned “military adventurism,” why did Sullivan state that he is close to endorsing “a direct American military imposition of a two-state solution,” which would entail “NATO troops on the borders of the new states of Palestine and Israel”? Is it just “military adventurism” when the Jews Israelis do it?

I’d like answers to these questions. I’m sure lots of other people would as well. Thus far, Sullivan’s closest attempt to respond to these questions has been to note that once upon a time, Leon Wieseltier stated that Andrew Sullivan is not anti-Semitic. That’s nice, but who cares? And before I am done asking questions, here is one final one: What is the difference between Andrew Sullivan’s position on Israel and the Middle East . . . and Pat Buchanan’s?