Beets, let me try my hand at making this connection:

First make the connection that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism:

Jewish people had prayed to return to Zion since 586 BC, after the destruction of the first Jewish state. Jews have always had a holy trinity of sorts, which is God, Torah, and Israel, which is more commonly translated to faith, practice, and peoplehood. According to that logic, believing Israel is not essential to the Jewish people is the same as saying France is not essential to the French people. The Jews believe that the necessity for an Israeli state is written in the Torah, and even the U.N. seems to agree. Thus, denying the existence of Israel is denying a key part of the faith, which denies the faith’s legitimacy, which is anti-Semitic.


Now, make the connection that criticizing Israel is anti-Zionistic:

Then, assuming you agree that Israel has the right to exist, consider that this current conflict with Hezbollah is a response to murders committed by a hostile foreign organization that has professed in its doctrine that they are trying to destroy Israel. It does not make sense to criticize Israel's usage of all means necessary to defend themselves from these attackers because this conflict is not about eight soldiers…it is about anti-Zionistic sentiments that have been rampant in the region since 1948. Curbing Israel from destroying Hezbollah is effectivley as supporting an enemy that has as its stated goal the destruction of Israel, which is anti-Zionistic.

Thus, you can make the leap that being critical of Israel is essentially anti-Zionist which is essentially anti-Semitic.
 

You can, but Glickman didn't, and the reason O'Malley made it was so that she could set up a straw man for people to dismiss without actually reading what Glickman's point was (which was that O'Malley had been duped by Hezbollah media efforts).
 

What you are saying is true, but I thought it would be a fun execize to do it legitimatley.