I think most people are talking about AIPAC, an organization that does have alot of influence on our congress and elected officials, and other organizations like them. Netanyahu gets standing ovations from our tea party congress. Is this not factual?

I do not want the right wing Israeli government having influence over my government.

against what the majority of their constituents want and this Pew poll tells otherwise:

http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/politics/37434-140717-survey-majority-of-americans-support-israel-over-the-palestinians

Americans STRONGLY support Israel and although it's an increasingly partisan issue, the support is at near highs. You may want to ask yourself why that is rather than blame AIPAC for being successful at their mission statement.

I am not on the right, democrats are less supportive of this operation than congress.

led by Netanyahu.

Conflating the two is like saying during the Bush admin when people around the globe detested HIS administration, but still supported America, that they supported Bush.

Israel badly needs better representation than their current brutal leaders. They are a threat to Israel itself as they are generating anger across the globe, which is slowly beginning to morph into opposition to the country itself.

It's hard to support Netanyahu and Likud. I hope the people realize how much more dangerous those folks are making the whole region. Netanyahu reminds me of Cheney.

for human life. The same despicable attempts to justify the indefensible believing he is succeeding.

Both, imo, are pathological, completely without the normal human reactions to human suffering.

I couldn't agree more.

Very well said.

You can support Israel without supporting Netanyahu and his actions as head of the country.

Same thing with young people.

You're still out of sync with most people who hold an opinion on this issue in your party.

Claiming it is the just the evil influence of Aipac is asinine.

Americans overwhelmingly do support Israel, as evidenced by the poll.

I will always be a minority in many ways. I will always be against the death of civilians by the hundreds no matter who is pulling the trigger. I am fine with that.

And yes, I have heard that statement here more than once.

The fact is, AIPAC or any other organization doesn't have much influence above and beyond what the voters will support. Like it or not, if US politicians voice unequivocal support for Israel's right, for instance, to defend itself, that is because that is where the majority of voters in their state or district, most likely, sit on the matter.

Israel is one area where the divergence between the DU bubble and actual poltical reality, often becomes glaringly apparent. I am reminded of the sort of tone-deaf international ANSWER people who would always try to hijack the anti Iraq war rallies for other causes.

The lesson is, just because some people agree with you on some things, doesn't mean they're going to agree with you on everything.

I don't see people making those statements often. I get my fair share of racists comments spewed at me n DU, so i suspect there is a bit of that.
What i see is that our support us going to lead to a big ass shitstorm of magnificent proportions. Israel is deligitimizing itself by killing all those civilians. I have no problem with self defense, but hen i see dead babies pile up, over a hundred, i tend to blame the trigger pullers. And the lack of care expressed by Israels right wing government is disgusting and reminds me why i hate right-wingers.
When you start killing children to get to a missile, i notice and i find myself disgusted.
.

I know a bunch of people on the Israeli left. They were pretty optimistic during the 90s, that a permanent solution and resolution could and would be brought about in short order. While like all other aspects of that history and conflict, one can engage in endless debates about fault or responsibility- for instance, from where I sit it is widely regarded as Arafat's doing that the Camp David accords failed- the fact remains that; for whatever reason- since 2000 most of the folks on that side of the spectrum in Israel have felt much more hopeless about the situation.

This leaves a vacuum for Likud, Netanyahu and those on his side of the ideological fence.

It's too bad.

unless you provide an example, I'll assume you are talking about criticism of the media for pro-Israel bias.

That's not antisemitism. Nor is talk about the influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC.

is not at all the same thing as saying "Jews control the media".

that talk of "the influence of the Jewish lobby in Washington" is pretty overblown; honestly I suspect that most average Americans probably feel a degree of affinity and sympathy for Israel because what most Americans know of Israel resonates with the American experience of immigrants who were frequently outcast from their homelands building a new nation in a sometimes hostile land. There's a lot more behind pro-Israel sentiment in the US than just AIPAC, anyway.

See, that makes it OK.

the overwhelming sense of anti-semitism.

To spit out "zionist" like a curse like that is to say that Israel has no right to exist.

People that use Zionist like that make me want to vomit.

agree. Whenever I see a screed against zionism, it reads as racist. (And I say this as I watch in horror of the I/P situation. There is enough blame to go around between the Hamas and the Israeli govt.)

Fortunately, it is nowadays usually not socially acceptable to say explicitly that you hate Jews, so 'Zionists' gets used as a euphemism. Just as British right-wingers may talk of their concerns over 'crime and immigration', which, when used in a single phrase, usually means they don't like people who aren't white; and homophobes may speak of 'family values' in situations where it's not acceptable to use insulting terms about gays.

Just talk of "Israeli lobbyists". "Zionists". "AIPAC", etc.

Nefarious groups with hooked noses. Blood libel 2014.

When you started the OP I thought you were talking about people somewhere saying that Jews controlled the media. Now I find out yr actually talking about something else...

you say "Listen!".

But when Jews tell you what is anti-semitism, all of a sudden it's "Hold on, you're trying to shut down 'conversation'!"

But here are dog-whistles, ways of creeping around the subject so as not to get called out on being anti-Semitic.

The idea that Jews control the media, the banks, etc. is very old and well-worn. If you are unaware of it, you should read more.

Not EVERY instance of talking about AIPAC is anti-semitism in action, nor is every mention of it free of anti-semitism.

But when I hear people saying "zionist propaganda" and "zionist control of the media", I have a pretty good idea of what is behind it.

Again, why do you accept POC defining racism and women defining sexism, but not Jews telling you when they hear anti-semitism? Perhaps you need to give that some thought.

constitutes anti-Semitism.

General consensus, sure that merits listening to.

There's a lot more nasty stuff targeting J-Street.

You regularly argue that things aren't sexist or offensive when women tell you they are offended. And to say you "argue" is putting it mildly. Where do you get off scolding like this?

Pot. Kettle.

FFS.

/facepalm

I think you made a false equivalency and that you have no room to lecture anyone like you are doing.

Now go ahead and tell me what I really said, what I really think or what I really should do...

I'm glad you admitted that you should listen when a Jewish person tells you want anti-semitism is.

Congratulations on your consistency!

I knew I could count on you.

You're a special little snowflake ain't ya feller? (to quote one of my all time favorite DUers)

You see? We agree!

If the words "Israel", "AIPAC", and "Zionist" are all racist ways to creep around the subject, then no valid criticism of Israel or its supporters can exist because there is no way to refer to them without being automatically deemed a racist.

Do you see how that could be a problem?

"Jews control the US media" is not.

Seeing I don't listen to the more ridiculous ones I'm not sure why ur saying I must. But as jtfrog has pointed out already sexism really wasn't a great example for you to use.

I asked you whether you think saying that AIPAC is a powerful lobby group is antisemitic. I didn't get an answer to that. Saying that Jews control the media is definitely antisemitic. Sayying that AIPAC is a powerful lobby isnt

I find it really hard to go through long threads, and just go from 'My Posts' to whatever replies I've got...

Okay, now that I've read what you've said. Yes, if someone refers to AIPAC in a rant about Jews controlling the media and words like sinister are in there and stuff like that, that's anti-Semitic. But if someone is talking about AIPAC as being a bunch of RW warmongers who due to that weird lobby group thing that happens in the US are as powerful and influential as the gun lobby, then that's not anti-Semitic. It's like the use of the word Zionist. I've always referred to the Yishuv (that's the pre-Israel Jewish population of what became Israel/West Bank/Gaza) as Zionists because Israel didn't yet exist and Zionism was their #1 driving force. That's not anti-Semitic. But when I was at uni doing a Middle East politics course there was this girl in my class who always referred to Israel as the Zionist entity and refused to utter the name Israel. And when she said Zionist entity, she'd spit it out with some venom. At the time I thought she was a complete weirdo and anti-Semitic. That's one example of using the term Zionist in a way that's anti-Semitic...

The main reason IMO why both the US media and US congress fully back Israel in all things is because Jews in the US, for the most part, have access to the levers of white privilege, while Arabs don't.

Israel is a client state of the US, not the other way around.

reminds me that I have a large Ahava order to get to. Best cosmetic products in the world.

me in the slightest, you couldn't be more wrong. But using your barometer, I'm sure the terrorists in hamas really appreciate your support. I'm sure you'd hand over your daughter to live a wonderful life under a burqa totally controlled by her husband. Nice work.

Amazing mental gymnastics to leap from a snarky comment on a call to boycott to accessory to infanticide.

They're in a very loud minority in this country and their shrieking hysteria is irrelevant to the situation at hand.

Its not that the Jews control the media, its that Israeli supporters (both people who are Jewish themselves and people who support Israel) pretty much control all the levers of power in the U.S.

Take a look at Congress, which congressman/woman would ever have the guts to criticize Israeli policies. If any did, they would have to contend with wall to wall coverage from media outlets who will pile on the guests to condemn them day and night.

Then you have AIPAC which has no other objective but to pull elected officials into line when and if they stray from the 'support Israel at all costs' line.

Lastly, you have the evangelicals who will support Israel no matter what because these evangelicals need Israel to conquer all the land so that the 'rapture' can come.

See all the above (the congress, AIPAC, other think tanks, Media and evangelicals) all hold the levers of power in the U.S, and they all favour Israel no matter the amount of war crimes it commits simply because if one of these people strays from the party line, then the rest of the party will come down on them like a tonne of bricks.

The Media is extremely complicit in keeping the Israeli supporter hold on power in the U.S, because the media controls the message the public hears, and if the public sees 30 seconds of footage of innocent Palestinian deaths while at the same time seeing hours of coverage and sympathy for one dead Israeli soldiers who was a combatant, then the public becomes conditioned to support Israel which means those others that hold the levers of power can keep their positions and influence

Encouraging warmongering leaders, reckless action and perpetual violence isn’t being pro-Israel any more than Rev. Moon encouraging warmongering right-wingers here was him being pro-America.

It's just manipulation of "levers of power"?

Baloney.

Politicians voice support for Israel because that is how their constituents feel. Like it or not.

Maybe there are - but I guess I must have missed them

It's a straw man argument by the OP because, through social media, many Americans are finally seeing how Israel strong arms and kills people housed in the largest open-air prison in the world and it's making them nervous.

It has nothing to do with who is and isn't Jewish. It has to do with power.

In fact, if someone had said that, I guarantee we would have heard about it. We would have seen post after post of outrage about it.

And no, those statements don't seem to generate the same long-lasting outrage as, for instance, the dude who wrote a spreadsheet about his marital sex life. Or people ruining the fine dining experience of TGIFs by bringing a baby to dinner... Or the dastardly flu researcher who is going to KILL US ALL!!!!!!! ...by doing research on flu viruses.

Or Oh No NASA bombed the moon, teh brutes.

In case you haven't noticed, the relationship between GD outrage and the outrage-worthiness of the actual thing, is often way out of whack.

They strongly imply de facto media control by Israelis or American Jews. Might I say, dog whistle.

It is all about the wording.

I post doesn't change the OP.

And most importantly, if you don't agree with it, why would you bring it up?

does not make it so and pulling the "anti-Semitic" card should not shut down comments or debate.

people turning themselves into pretzels denying the obvious. Some things (depressingly) never change.

I think you're imagining things. Or maybe the offending post was deleted.

Still, I don't think there's very much "Jews control the media" stuff being posted. That post is an exception. Claiming that there is a bias towards Israel in the media is not anti-semitism, nor is criticizing the Israeli government.

And it got hidden.

they have been winning that war for years...

that AIPAC is an AMERICAN advocacy group - not Israeli and not a PAC.

I'm reading.

I'm not a RAH-RAH, GO ISRAEL person myself... I feel they've crossed the line many times.

But a lot of the rhetoric used against Israel does seem to have an anti-semitic slant to it.

Especially the crap about control of the media and the U.S. government.

I haven't really seen it on this site, but the comments section of other political and world news sites are dominated by it.

anti-semitism is s rampant and most people don't realize it.

So sad.

But I have been called "dirty Jew" and "Jew" before as a taunt in high school and while out with friends in my teens and early 20's. One kid, when my friends and I were leaving a theater, we were about 18, proceeded to follow us and call me "jewboy" "kike" "hey jew" , it was two teens about our age looking to start a fight but they were only yelling the derisive terms at me. That is just one occasion. I never answered back that I am not Jewish. I wondered what was it that made them think I was Jewish? On the occasions this has happened which is sadly, as I said, more than once I never said I was not Jewish. I looked back at this later in life and I think it was because I did not want to shed it off like it was something I would not want to be, that being Jewish, even if someone thought I was, was a terrible thing. I remember well how it made me feel when I was being taunted, I felt completely isolated, singled out.

I am much older today and yet not too long ago I was asked if I was Jewish, at the time it was by my ex girlfriend's grandmother who was sincere in her query, in this respect I kindly answered that I was not. Incidentally I had also introduced my girlfriend at the time to my parents and when my father and I were alone on the patio he asked me, "is she Jewish?"

Having said all that I concur with the sentiment of the OP. Having had a small taste of what it is like I can say it is rude, insensitive and disgusting.

Some of us grew up with a LOT of anti-semitism and we know what it is in a way that non-Jews cannot and do not. You just have to rust on me on this, the same as you would trust a person of color about racism.

It has a feel to it that we come to recognize like a scent.

Once when I was 8. I was encouraged to never return to the Boy Scouts (webelos) because it wasn't for "jew-boys". The second time was as an adult. A supervisor while attempting to apologize for his earlier racist statement did it with "you shouldn't be offended when I call you a kike, cause ****** isn't mad when I call him a nig*er". I complained up the chain. It was dealt with without persons losing their jobs.
I do not have a stereotypically Jewish appearance; nor, am I very good at being Jewish. But, I am Jewish. I am proud of being Jewish. In order to be more in your face about it, to make it perfectly clear; I have for the last 13 years regularly wore a kippah (and, because life treats me as a straight man, I have been asked by close to a hundred people (mostly adults) "what's the little hat for? It won't keep the sun ouch'yer eyes.&quot .

I speak carefully (99% of the time). I take great pains to differentiate between the general group and the members of said group I am angry at. I do not expect everyone to meet my standard (as I sometimes fail to do), but I' like to ask everyone to at least try to be more specific.

It's not about Jews or Israel.

It's about the far fight in Israel and their minions who've infested our Capitol and influence what can and can't be said when it comes to the Palestinian issue.

'mow the grass'...

Really... no one should be shocked we are seeing exactly what we are seeing.

and did our MSM call him on his genocidal language???

with anti-semitism. When reporters are yanked from Gaza for reporting the news because it was unfavorable to Israel we
should be allowed to discuss it.

You chose to use words like pernicious. I'm sorry it being against death and war is now considered anti-semitic.

A pervasive stereotype that's barely even questioned. One of the most insidious and embedded of bigotries. I'm glad you spoke up.

and "Zionist influence on the media".

people stop and take stock but apparently not. They don't care who they're getting into bed with.

I thought you couldn't sneeze without someone whangin' on that thing

I haven't seen it recently (but I don't immerse myself in crap 'journalism.' either.)

I don't use the word "Zionist" myself, because as you mentioned, it's been so overused by obvious antisemites that it often sounds more like a slur than a simple descriptor. Still-- there is nothing inherently antisemitic about it. I mean, that's like the Queen of England claiming the word "imperialism" is racist.

I could not possibly care less about peoples' religions. I was raised an atheist, so Judaism and Protestantism and Voodoo all seem equally silly to me. I do care about foreign policy, however-- and you can't discuss US foreign policy without discussing Israel. And you can't discuss Israel's influence on US policy without discussing AIPAC. And Zionism is at the center of AIPAC.

The DU ToS section on hate speech explicitly mentions "claiming nefarious influence by Jews/Zionists/Israel" - that's what I thought then and I still maintain that the post is exactly what I bolded.

Then again I don't read this site as much as I did at one point in time.

It seems like there has been quite a bit of controversy over the use of social media and the amount of coverage in traditional media about pictures being used for propaganda. I frankly don't follow this close enough to have an informed opinion on it. I've picked up bits and pieces on CNN the last few days.

They just had an interview with three people via Skype, two women of whom I'd never heard of and the third person being Alan Dershowitz. During the interview Dershowitz was rude as hell toward Don Lemon. Obviously there were issues with the sound (that's an issue with Skype, it's far from perfect) so the four couldn't all hear each other clearly. The conversation could have been an interesting one though.

It's just another attempt to silence a point of view that many don't like.