The Zionists are playing a dangerous game by scuttling Freeman’s appointment

[cali]

By Eric Walberg
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Mar 23, 2009, 00:21

Email this article
Printer friendly page


The remarkable hegemony of Zionists in the US and, by implication, world politics continues unabated, as demonstrated starkly by the withdrawal of Chas Freeman as United States President Barack Obama’s nominee to chair his National Intelligence Council (NIC).

<snip>

Jews have more of a tradition of being liberals and supporting Democrats. But nowadays, more important than shades of pink are the Zionist colours one flaunts, and no US politician, left or right, dares to buck the Zionist tide. Whether or not Freeman -- or any other US public figure -- is Jewish is now a moot point. So it is not really so important to point out that Obama’s closest advisers are Jewish, such as his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, his vice president’s chief of staff, Ron Klain, senior advisor David Axelrod, and his domestic cabinet members Timothy Geithner, Lawrence Summers, Paul Volker, Peter Orszag, Jason Furman and Jamie Rubin. It is more to the point to emphasise that they are Zionists one and all, including his Catholic vice president, Joseph Biden (“You don’t have to be Jewish to be a Zionist”), and Protestant Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

<snip>

Zionists are the essential second leg that Obama stands on, along with his imperial support. As Democratic Caucus chairman, Emanuel helped make sure that 60 percent of Democratic congressmen and virtually all the senators will continue to support the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, with the possibility of an attack on Iran still on the table, despite that fact that 60 percent of Americans (80 percent of Demcrats) are against such policies. Emanuel served in the IDF during the 1990 Gulf war, which would have resulted in his arrest and the end of his political career if he had been involved in any other country’s war as a soldier. His father was a member of the terrorist organisation Irgun and no doubt murdered dozens of Palestinians fighting to protect their homeland. “Rahm-bo” also knocked on doors for AIPAC as a student in the 1980s in AIPAC’s successful effort to unseat former Republican Congressman Paul Findley just because he was for balance in US Middle East policy.

<snip>

Jewish chutzpah celebrates the November 2008 US elections, where more Jews were elected than ever -- 10 percent of congressmen, four times their proportion in the population. This leaves aside the fact that more than 90 percent of congressmen and senators vote for all motions concerning Israel which are approved, if not formulated, by AIPAC.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, inspired by the Zionists and their stranglehold on politics and media, have led to mounting frustration, allowing occasional, if carefully modulated criticism to trickle down into the mainstream media. Time columnist Joe Klein, who supported Bush’s war against Iraq and considers himself “a strong supporter of Israel,” wrote (in a lowly blog) that the “fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives -- people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd at Commentary -- plumped for this war , and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties.” Within a day, Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, accused Klein of espousing “age-old anti-Semitic canards about a Jewish conspiracy to control and manipulate government.”

<snip>

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4483.shtml

[cali]

1. This is an example of anti-zionism that is indeed rooted in

hate. Not to mention that the article is filled with misinformation and straight out lies.

And it's articles like this that give credence to those claiming that anti-zionism=hate.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. So why in the hell did you post it? What kind of game are you playing?

[cali]

7. I posted it as an example of

how anti-zionism can indeed be hate. And the sentiments expressed by the author are hardly uncommon in the world on anti-zionism. Why such a bizarre response?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

9. Do you really think we need examples of hate posted here?

Seems like shit-stirring to me.

[shira]

10. Cali blew it

If Cali had stayed out of it for a few hours, it wouldn't have taken too long before the usual suspects here showed their true colors and commented favorably about the content.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

11. Oh poop! The trap was ruined. It would have been so much fun!

You and the PSU haters could have had a circle jerk about it!

Rats!

[cali]

15. there was no trap, nor did I have any intention of setting one.

I posted it as an example of the fact that too many deny: Anti-Zionism is too often a blind for anti-semites or haters.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. The poster PM was replying to made out that it was, which was pretty silly...

And I thought their pre-emptive 'usual suspects' showing their true colours and commenting favourably to be particularly puerile. Plus it makes the insincere attempt in later posts to ask people what their opinions are to be a bit on the fake side, seeing as how they've already announced what they think other posters will post. I'm wondering who these 'usual suspects' are anyway :)

[shira]

16. btw, what do you find wrong about the OP?

Anything? Nothing at all?

I'm not trying to set a trap here, btw. I'm assuming you think the article is crap. I just want to know why you think it is.

[shira]

17. this question applies to anyone willing to answer (besides the pro-Israel posters here).

thanks!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. Oh goody! Shira, is there a new-fangled "anti-semitism" meter you're going to employ

to test my results?

Are you smoking crack today or what?

[shira]

26. just asking what you or others find objectionable in the OP, since the consensus seems

to be that the OP is hateful.

But maybe I'm wrong and you or other anti-zionists find nothing wrong with it?

Why get so defensive? What are you afraid of? Would it really be any better if someone besides myself asked these questions? Would that make it easier for you to respond?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

29. Hey Shira -- did you hear about the panel at the 92nd Street Y yesterday?

It's all unravelling. The days when PsOV like yours and Abe Foxman's rule are over.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is Zionism racist? Foxman: 'You bet it is. Every nationalism is'
Tonight the 92d Street Y held a panel on "Why Zionism has become a dirty word," with four Zionists on stage and some non-Zionists demonstrating out in Lexington Avenue. The hall was less than half full, and the panel itself had a confounded feeling. The token liberal, documentarian Oren Rudavsky, said Zionism has become a dirty word because of Israel’s actions. Neocon Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal said it’s because the antisemitic left has captured public opinion and is practicing "Stockholm syndrome" on it. And Abe Foxman insisted it's all because of anti-Semitism.

Foxman seemed somewhat fulfilled by this, as if he continually needs to find fresh evidence that the Holocaust, which he survived, is a living reality. It seemed out of time.

I am going to dispense with Rudavsky right at the start because he was very good and restrained, for instance, saying that everyone loved Israel after '67 and now everyone despises it and--well, look what Israel did in Gaza. But the event wasn’t about Rudavsky. It was about Foxman and Stephens.

Stephens was very impressive. Attractive, fluid, articulate, a little crazed yes-- but he deflected that by saying he was a "lunatic neoconservative." I liked that; and I need to take Stephens on here. But before I get to him: the entertainment section, a portrait of a vaudeville character, crowdpleaser Abe Foxman.

Foxman truly is larger than life and he has grown to fill the role. He is portly, and breathes heavily, and has obviously said his stock lines so many times that he verges on self parody. I’ve never really seen the performance in a big hall and I was struck by how loose the thinking was – Gaza was a model of restraint, Israel didn’t kill 44 at the school, it only killed 14, Zionism is Judaism and Jewish identity. I was also struck by the Holocaust worldview. When Rudavsky said a mild word about Gaza, Foxman angrily defended Gaza as a situation where Jews finally stood up and defended Jews, as if it was the Warsaw ghetto. Also, a lot of his material was very stale. I recall him referring to three major figures: Abba Eban, Martin Luther King, Golda Meir, and maybe Yasser Arafat. Well they're all dead. And it all happened a long time ago. The arguments feel stale. He said that the only way for Arabs to have peace is, quoting Golda Meir, for them to begin to love their children more than they hate Jews, and even Bret Stephens, who said that he agreed with 99 percent of what Foxman said, had to step in: No, Palestinian mothers love their children, it's evil people who coerce other people's children to be suicide bombers.

Foxman's manner is bombastic. Here is the speech from which I've taken my headline:

“Can you be anti-Zionist and not be an anti-Semite? Almost never. Unless you can prove to me you're against nationalism. If you're one of those unique individuals in this world that's opposed to American nationalism, French nationalism, Palestinian nationalism, then you can be opposed to Jewish nationalism. Is it racist? You bet it is. Every nationalism is racist. It sets its laws of citizenship, it sets its own capital... It sets its songs, it sets its values. It is, if you will, exclusive, and you can even call it racist. But if the only nationalism in the world that is racist is Jewish nationalism, then you're an anti-Semite.. I don't want to make any apologies for it. ”

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/03/foxman-is-zionism-racism-you-bet-it-is-all-nationalism-is-.html

[shira]

32. can you answer my question first? then I'll answer you, okay?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

39. Actually I could care less what you think! Your POV is becoming extinct. nt

[shira]

56. maybe you're right.......antisemitic acts are spiking big time worldwide, not a good sign

[Idealism]

65. You know, I had a disagreement with BTA about this very topic.

I postulated that all forms of nationalism are inherently racist, and he disagreed. I wonder what he will say now...

[Behind the Aegis]

67. Consider yourself in good company in being wrong.

[Idealism]

68. That is your opinion and I have mine, but who is to say which is universally right?

[Behind the Aegis]

69. I have an opinion and you have an opinion, who is to say one isn't wrong, universally or otherwise?

[Idealism]

70. Well we both can't be right, but I doubt that matters n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

71. So you disagree with Abe Foxman on this one?

[Violet_Crumble]

19. That article's a load of crap....

It's more of the *control the US*, *they're devastating the US* rubbish that some folk thrive on. This seems to be a sentiment expressed a lot in some quarters in the US, and it's as though they're scared that if they admit to themselves that the US is far too powerful to be controlled by any other group or nation, and that the US never does anything that it doesn't want to, their whole world will crumble around them. Ignorance, hatred or stupidity? I bet sometimes it's a mixture of all three, but I don't have enough patience with them to delve too much about what drives them. All I know is they're talking crap...

I want to comment on the conclusion you drew about anti-zionism, though: 'And it's articles like this that give credence to those claiming that anti-zionism=hate.' Well, that's indeed true, but the same can be said for a lot of other things, including Zionism itself. I've seen articles written by Zionists that advocate the ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Israel and the Occupied Territories, but that doesn't lead to the conclusion (at least for objective folk) that Zionism=hate. It leads to the same conclusion that reading this article did - that there's some real arseholes out there with extreme views, but their views aren't indicative of most or all Zionists or anti-zionists.

One of the problems is that how people define anti-zionism is every bit as differing as how Zionism is defined. But Zionist and anti-zionist are in my experience in the forum, nothing more than perjorative labels to be thrown around with gleeful abandon. I've never really considered myself Zionist or anti-Zionist, so I decided to test it out once in one of the many rather simplistic arguments about Zionism that happen here from time to time. Someone defined Zionism simply as 'a homeland for the Jewish people' and as I agree with that, I posted and said that must make me a Zionist then. One of the more full-on pro-Israel types ghtook exception to my comment and informed me I wasn't. Kind of lame i thought, considering I really don't think someone has to be Zionist or anti-Zionist...

Anyway, here's something Lithos posted in another thread that says it much better than I ever could:

'Zionism (and also Islamism) is nothing more than a word of convenience. Zionism is a placeholder where an extremely complex set of ideas, motivations and histories involving Israel, Nationalism, Humanism, Culturalism, Religion, and Ethnicity are reduced down to a single word. The exact weight of each of these associated meaning of course depend completely on the author and the audience. The problem occurs when there is a disconnect between the author and the audience's meanings.

Personally I do not like such words of convenience as they often serve to cloud and confuse and in a few cases serve as guises for those who desire to prey upon such ambiguity.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=265482&mesg_id=265534

p.s. There's another word I'm growing to dislike coz it gets used with dreary monotony in this forum lately (not by you, but by a few others), and that's *hater*.

[LeftishBrit]

2. Umph.

Perhaps one could note that:

(1) All but one of the Jewish representatives in the House are Dems. I am not sure whether there've been changes in this respect in the Senate since the last election, but last year, in a Senate that was almost equally divided overall between Republicans and Dems, there were 13 Jewish Senators of whom 10 were Democrats or further left (Sanders); 2 were Republicans; and 1 was, well, Lieberman. Both Jewish Supreme Court Justices are liberal.

(2) 22% of the Senators who voted against the IWR were Jewish - disproportionate to their numbers.

(Yes, I'm enough of a nerd that I took the trouble to check all this, when there were suggestions that American Jews were particularly hawkish and dragging other Americans into wars.)

(3) Mentioning Nick Griffin in this context is hysterical. I'm sure Griffin and Walberg have exactly the same views about Zionists!

(4) He is right that you don't need to be a Jew to be a Zionist. And he and his ilk may in a sense be right that America is controlled by Zionists. America is, or should be, controlled by its voters; and it appears that the majority of voters are Zionists. One can agree with them or not, but no deep dark conspiracy needs to be involved.

[leveymg]

3. Fortunately, the world is far more complex than this.

Everyone wants to rule the world, of course, but nobody can. There is no single ethnic group that runs U.S. foreign policy, and Jews themselves are deeply divided about virtually every specific issue.

This sort of simplistic pap does only one thing - it's a brainless straw man that the Right-wing loves to show off as an example of anti-semitism so as to disparage everyone who disagree with them.

[oberliner]

4. Unfortunately this is the message being spread across much of the Arab world

Would that Al-Ahram Weekly would not give a regular voice to this kind of garbage.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

12. Cali didn't link Al Ahram. It was some online journal (I've never heard of).

I suppose with goggle one can dig up any kind of hatred.

Lord knows I could post pages of it here.

But really, what's the point?

[oberliner]

13. Al-Ahram is not a hate site though, is it?

From what I understand, it is a pretty widely read mainstream publication in the Arab world.

Is that not accurate?

Here's the link to the same article in Al-Ahram which is where it was originally published:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/939/in4.htm

[ProgressiveMuslim]

14. I certainly don't think it's a hate site.

I googled that and it didn't turn up. I used the title instead of the author.

[Sezu]

18. See for yourself. What do ya think?

http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/arab/as_arabmedia_07_04/asam_egypt_07_04.asp

[shira]

22. nah, not antisemitic

what do Jews know about antisemitism anyway?

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Of course it's not n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

24. VC, c'mon. Aren't all Arabs really anti-semites? Al Ahram is Egyptian. Egypt is Arab. Ergo....

[Violet_Crumble]

27. It's incredibly ridiculous....

I figured Oberliner wasn't asking it as a serious question, but why does it come as no surprise that two others take it and run the distance with it...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

28. As if Oberliner is not well aware of Al-Ahram!

[Violet_Crumble]

30. I know he is, which is why I figured the question was coz of the two diffferent places it appeared..

I think...who knows...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

31. In any case, I thought forum rules prohibited the posting of pieces which would be termed "hate."

Not sure why it is allowed to stand.

[shira]

33. why is the OP hate?

what makes it hate in your opinion? Maybe it's too similar to other anti-zionist articles in IP here, so that's why it hasn't been taken down yet? If this OP is hate, maybe many others are too.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

36. Cali said so in post #2.

[shira]

51. it's hate because Cali said so?

Do you think it's hate?

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Yeah, wondered the same thing myself...

Then again, I posted a real nasty from GAMLA once and got away with it without the thread being locked...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

38. With that, I am going to do my part to let this thread die its natural death. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Don't blame you. I was halfway tempted not to post in it at all after reading a few posts...

...especially the one that pre-empted what the 'usual suspects', whatever that's supposed to mean, would say. I detest that sort of stupid stuff in threads where someone comes along and does the mind-reading act and pretends to know what others think. I was halfway tempted to post 'great article!!!' just to be annoying :)

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

5. Walberg seems at best...

to be a prime example of the saying "Lie down with dogs; get up with fleas"; at worst, a not-too-heavily disguised rightist himself.

He is prepared to join forces with all kinds of unsavoury people if they're anti-war. Usually, left-wingers who are tempted to make common cause with anti-war rightists do so either with hardline Islamists OR the types of people who indulge in conspiracy theories about a New World Order - not both. But with Walberg, it does seem to be both.

Among much else, he has contributed to the notoriously antisemitic 'Ziopedia'.

[bemildred]

8. Just seems incoherent to me.

He doesn't know diddle about US politics. I must say I am disappointed in OLJ. Maybe they are being catholic on purpose, but I see a lot of twaddle from there. This is thinly-disguised Jew-baiting.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. I had a bit of a WTF?? moment when I tracked down Ziopedia...

Only stayed on the homepage, but that was an eyeful. 'How is choseness transmitted'? A photo of Fritzl with a skullcap photoshopped onto his head? That was more than enough to confirm what you said about the site. But I got a huge shock when I saw their list of columnists. Uri Avnery, John Pilger, and Ilan Pappe are on it, and they're people who I have the utmost respect for. Surely they're not contributing to such a cesspit and that site does what David Duke's site did to a friend of mine, and it's publishing their stuff without their permission....

on edit: looked into that a bit more, and publishing their articles without permission is exactly what it looks like what that site's doing. That's really sad, coz out of the three of them, I bet John Pilger's the only one with enough media legal grunt behind him to do something about it...

[bemildred]

45. Such a long list of "contributors" they have.

I wonder how long they will last. One might almost suspect there is some sort of fakery going on, given the lack of clue otherwise required to be doing that.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

25. Trying to figure why this thread has not been locked. nt

[cali]

35. Why should it be?

you post things just as provocative, far, far more frequently? I don't run around calling for them to be locked, just because I don't like what they espouse. You obviously find this very unsettling. I'm sorry about that, but I/P isn't formulated solely for you.

I had a point to make here to all the folks who say that anti-zionism isn't hate and/or doesn't mask anti-semitism. Yes, it sometime is. And not infrequently. I could post any number of articles that are similar to this, and easily found on sites commonly used as sources here.

There's a danger to militant anti-zionism. Here it is, in no uncertain terms.

I certainly don't think that all anti-zionists are haters or bigots, but I do think a significant number of them are. And it does the pro-peace folks no good at all, to embrace them.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

37. You post something and then declare it's hate.

I may not agree with everything I post, but I have never put up a thread that I *knew* would be considered hate speech.

Whole thing is pretty darned weird to me.

Don't you think Shira's reaction was almost... vampiric? Waiting to pounce? Kind of humorous actually.

[cali]

41. you frequently post articles that I consider hate.

And that another poster "pounced" on this thread and tried to use it for their own purposes, is something that happens here everyday, a dozen or more times a day.

Again, I think there are dangers to the anti-zionism bandwagon, and this provides a very good example of why.

Now why don't you address the article. Do you consider it hate? If so why? Do you agree with the author on some points? You've posted things that are similar; not sure whether you agree with them or not. What parts of this do you disagree with?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

42. I would not dream of posting an article that I knew to be bigoted. It's against forum rules.

I think that you chose to do so is exceedingly weird.

Given that you never miss an opportunity to point out the error of my ways, I figured I was entitled to say so.

I hope you find the ensuing discussion of your OP illuminating.

[shira]

43. doesn't matter if Cali thought the OP was hateful

It must be hateful for a reason. Why is the OP hateful? What should we be looking out for in future I/P threads here, so we know to alert the mods?

[cali]

46. yes, well, what I find hateful and what you find hateful are two different things

you've posted stuff that is the equivalent of the piece I posted and you obviously don't find it hateful. I find hate pointed at Palestinians, Israelis, Arabs or Jews- or any other group or nation, equally deplorable, and yeah, I point it out when I see it- wherever it comes from. I had a serious point to make in posting this. And it wasn't to spread hate or endorse it. You know that. Now how about commenting on the piece. If you find it hateful, what is it, specifically, that the author says, that you'd so designate?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

72. It's all about intention. We're not allowed to post pieces that are bigoted. To do so on purpose?

You may consider some of what I post hateful. But you can rest assured that I thought it was bigoted, I wouldn't have put it there.

Still can't wrap my head around why you would do such a thing... or what a hate piece wasn't locked. Maybe the mods didn't agree with Cali's analysis.

[Idealism]

47. Why even bother posting obviously hateful material?

Flame bait at best, and it has already damaged any hopes of a debate on this topic...

Disappointing.

[cali]

48. not at all flamebait

it's an object lesson to those that consistently claim that anti-zionism isn't hate. Too often it is, and this article isn't even remotely unusual. Are all those who claim the mantle of anti-zionist, motivated by hate? Certainly not, but that many are, is something those who aren't motivated by hate, are going to have to figure out how to deal with. I think that's important and worth discussing.

Disappointing that you don't.

[Idealism]

58. I think the problem is Zionism has changed in meaning for many people.

Zionism today, some say, is not the Zionism of 1947. The unfortunate face of Zionism today are the settlers. Rather than people claiming themselves to be anti-Zionist, I would rather they change the label to anti-Settler, or something similar. There are anti-Semites who try to pass themselves off as anti-Zionists who should not be given solace.

[shira]

60. a bit off topic

I'm also against settlements and occupation, but I wonder if we agree on something.

Would you be for a quick end to all settlements and occupation in Gaza and the W.Bank (within the next 6 months), no blockades, etc..., if it meant rockets on Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion airport, Hamas takeover of the W.Bank, and inevitably MANY more casualties (perhaps 10s of thousands) on both sides in what would make Intifada 2 look lame in comparison?

[Idealism]

62. I think the hypothetical you are describing is too off the wall to even describe.

There will never, nor should there be, a quick end to all settlements with resettlement occurring in Israel. The vacuum created would be unpredictable and just endanger civilians on both sides, unfortunately.

In an ideal world, the settlements, occupation, and terror can end from both sides and we will all live happily ever after... problem is if I were an Israeli Prime Minister there are certain things that will be politically difficult to do. If I were a hard-liner in Hamas leadership, there is a certain level of hostility I am supposed to display towards Israel that can make reconciliation a difficult proposition. The first step is getting a unified Palestinian government, which means Hamas needs to promise to end the violence FIRST against other Palestinians (it is about baby steps towards a bigger solution) like Fatah. The symbolism behind a Fatah/Hamas reconciliation can be huge. If they give up violence against Fatah in order to work for the common Palestinian good, giving up violence as a means of protesting occupation and working towards the best possible Palestinian good can't be far behind.

[shira]

64. can't disagree with you there, thanks!

[LeftishBrit]

50. Perhaps so that we know how the discourse is sometimes affected by hateful attitudes

I agree that there is little point in pointing out material from obvious hate-sites: everyone knows that Stormfront is bigoted, and no one needs to be pointed to it.

But it is very easy for people to accept material from apparently mainstream or progressive or simply unfamiliar sites as at least worth considering - when on further examination it turns out to be hateful.

Just a few examples, which I came across over the last couple of years - and I'm sure I'm not aware of everything:

(1) A left-winger, finding quotations in support for partly-genuine criticisms of Israel, quoted an article by Andy Martin. My anti-RW-xenophobe radar went off at some of his remarks, and I checked and found that he was a RW Republican. A year later this - and his frank antisemitism AND connection with some more mainstream Republican groups, that shouldn't have given him the time of day (but did of course) - became clear. Perhaps if he had been exposed a bit earlier, and his writings discussed more, he could have been more marginalized?

(2) But my radar doesn't always work that well. When the subject of Phil Tourney came up, I knew he was RW, but had no idea of his links to the far-right and some very nasty views indeed. I had to be pointed to these by a couple of other members of the forum. Then I was shocked.

(3) A moderate Zionist quoted Reuven Koret, who in one article said something that might have seemed reasonable. He is VERY far-right on the Israeli spectrum, and I pointed this out, and gave some examples of truly hateful things he'd written. This is not because I wanted to quote hate for the sake of doing so, but because I wanted to point out why Koret should be discredited. Same as those who needed to point out to me how Tourney was connected to the right.

(4) During the primaries, someone linked to a 'Jewish' organization that implied that Obama's views would not be good for Israel. Well, it was a 'Jewish' organization in the way that the Ku Klux Klan is a 'Protestant' organization! - one of the Kahanist groups. Some of us pointed this out - again, not because we wanted to encourage hate, but becuase we wanted to *discourage* it.

Well, these are just a few examples of both Zionist and anti-Zionist people/sites/groups that preach hate and that might not be instantly obvious as such. And I think it needs to be pointed out that such things exist AND that they are not confined to the very obvious and well-known hate-groups.

[azurnoir]

52. The very title of OP said it for me

using "THE ZIONISTS" when referring to any group or subject other than Zionism itself is usually a red flag of sorts, that being said the interplay between this and another currently running thread has a decidedly "good cop/bad cop" feel about it.

[cali]

53. lol. yes, it's a conspiracy.

pathetic. truly and deeply so. But leave it to you to cast baseless accusations.

[azurnoir]

54. It was just an observation

no need to get defensive, I did not say who I was talking about did I? BTW I have been following this thread and a few others since they posted.

[shira]

55. do you believe the OP is hateful?

or do you plead the 5th?

[azurnoir]

57. I will leave that to your imagination n/t

[shira]

59. no surprise there

it's kinda hard debating here when we cannot even agree on what makes an article hateful.

I wonder, if in the article zionists and jews were replaced by palestinians and muslims, would such criticism be considered hateful?

hmmm.

[azurnoir]

61. I stated ny case about the article in the first post I made here

you assume much

[shira]

63. really, that's it? just zionists?

if that were replaced by "the Lobby" (which consists of jewish and non-jewish zionists) the entire article would have been much better, yes or no?

[azurnoir]

66. Ah yeah n/t