I think Rabbi Heir says it pretty good:

"Anti-Semitism is not born in one day and cannot be cured in one day and certainly not through the issuing of a press release," Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said in a statement. Gibson should read about Jewish persecution and the Holocaust, among other things, Hier added by telephone from Israel.

This guy is right, too:

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said the process requires hard work. "You can’t just say I’m no longer a drunk; you can’t just say I’m no longer a bigot. You need to work hard at it, and we’re ready to help him," Foxman said.

Frankly, I’m a little perplexed by Mel’s second apology, in which he says:

"Please know from my heart that I am not an anti-Semite. I am not a bigot. Hatred of any kind goes against my faith."

I agree that hatred of any kind goes against the Christian faith (are you listening, Ann Coulter?), but the part I’m not buying is the "I am not an anti-Semite".  Specifically, I have a hard time reconciling it with another thing Mel said in his apology:

""I would like to take it one step further and meet with leaders in the Jewish community, with whom I can have a one-on-one discussion to discern the appropriate path for healing."

Question to Mel:  What exactly needs "healing", if you are (supposedly) not an anti-Semite in your heart?  Are you suggesting that the Jewish community was damaged by your remarks?  Trust me, they’ve been through much worse than your offensive remarks (and don’t deny it).

No, Mel — what needs healing is what is in your heart, which was expressed through the lubricant of alcohol.  I don’t know if they have a 12-Step program for racial hatred, but if they did, the first step would be to admit that you have a problem and you need healing  Take the step, Mel. 

By the way, I think the Anti-Defamation League’s response to Mel’s second apology was a little, er, "cute".  I don’t think Mel admitted to having racial prejudice (it seems quite clear that he denied it), but the ADL’s statement assumes that Mel did own up to being a bigot, and the ADL is willing to help:

"Once he completes his rehabilitation for alcohol abuse, we will be ready and willing to help him with his second rehabilitation to combat this disease of prejudice."

That cleverly puts Mel in an awkward position.  He either has to accept the ADL’s invitation for "prejudicial rehabilitation", or deny that he needs it.  What say you, Mel?

UPDATE:  Hmmmm.  Maybe Mel’s anti-Semitism is being overstated.  Here’s a pre-arrest photo of an inebriated Mel hugging people of different ethnicity, including (according to one blogger I read) "a woman possessing arguably Hebrew features".

On the other hand, maybe he’s just digging himself some "sugar tits".

UPDATE:  Al Franken knows how to rehabilitate Mel:

So, I don’t think Mel Gibson should be totally drummed out of the business. I think he should just have to start all over again. Put him in a movie as an "under-five" (an actor who has fewer than five lines). Make him play BUSBOY #2 in a Matthew McConaughey comedy.

Watching the dailies, a producer might say, "Hey, that busboy who said, ‘You dropped your napkin, sir’ – he’s pretty good."

Then the director will say, "Of course, he’s good. That’s Mel Gibson."

And then the producer will say, "Oh, yeah, that’s right. In my next movie, let’s give him a slightly bigger role."

Then in about five or six years he could be rehabilitated and have his own sit-com.

RELATED:  Glenn Greenwald notes that Mel Gibson, once the Hollywood darling of the conservative right (see, "Christ, The Passion of the"), is now being "exposed" in some conservative circles as a "liberal".  That’s right.  Now that he’s revealed himself as being anti-Semitic, some wingers think that Gibson has been liberal all along, and merely pretending to be conservative!

IRONY NOTE:  Can someone explain to me why it is bad for Mel to condemn an entire religious people (the Jews), but people who blanketly condemn other practitioners of other religions get a free pass?  Take Kernersville’s favorite failed state Senate Candidate, Nathan Tabor, and read his latest nationally syndicated column, slightly altered:

Because of Islam’s Judism’s traditional acceptance of lying, it’s entirely possible that, when Islamic Hebrew leaders speak, they are not speaking the unadulterated truth. In fact, they may say one thing and believe something entirely different.

And I’m sure Nathan would say he’s not a bigot in his heart either.  I hasten to stress that Nathan’s article wasn’t talking about extremist Islamic facism.  He’s saying that violence, lying, etc. is part of the underlying faith, rooted in the Koran.  According to Nathan, all practitioners of Islam are — by definition — violent terrorists.  (Obviously, this is not true.  The newly-formed Iraqi government has a constitution which clearly states that all Iraqi laws shall be consistent with the Islamic faith.  Is Nathan suggesting that our allies in Iraq are lying violent thugs?  Is Nathan suggesting that Cat Stevens and Muhammad Ali are jihadists?)

From CAIR:

A recent book review by Orange County Register senior editorial writer Steven Greenhut praised a book that argues that the minority of Muslim extremists who are involved in terrorism are not a deviation from, but rather a "natural result of following the actual teachings of Muhammad and the Quran" ["Islam, without blinders," Commentary, June 11].

Such a conclusion reflects either a distressing ignorance about Islam or, more worrisome, an unrepentant Islamophobia.

No religion should bear the responsibility of the actions of an extremist few who twist its teachings. No religion should be judged through a selective reading of its scripture. In every scripture, extremists can find justification for their acts. Verses from the Bible were manipulated by extremists to justify the Crusades, the killing of hundreds of thousands of Eastern Christians and Muslims, the Inquisition, the enslavement of Africans and African-Americans, the blessing of German Nazi soldiers, apartheid in South Africa, the Catholic-Protestant pogrom cycle in Europe, the displacement of Palestinians and the bombing of abortion clinics.

Muslims do not judge Christianity or Judaism by those acts, but rather by the message of peace and justice taught by Moses and Jesus. Similarly, Islam should be judged by its message of justice and equality as followed by most of its 1.3 billion followers.

Still, that "all Muslims are bad" sentiment is repeated often by so-called respectable columnists, bloggers, TV pundits, and even politicians on the right.  And I don’t understand why Mels’ anti-Semitic prejudice is universally condemned (as it should be), while anti-Islamic prejudice is blithely accepted, or at least, goes unchallenged. 

Prejudice is prejudice; stereotype is stereotype.  This isn’t difficult to grasp.