I know the right enjoys calling people like me anti-American for being against certain actions by various American presidents and or the Congress/SCOTUS at a given time.
But that doesn't make me anti-American.
I was against the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq.
That didn't make me anti-American either.
One can criticize the actions of a country and its leadership without the intercalation of bigotry into that criticism.
Here's a link to the same story from the Washington Post via MSN
LINK
The question to ponder is, had this article been used, would Israel have even come up in this thread?
Or did it come up because the source is the Israeli Times?
Or would it have come up anyway, because people see the word antisemitism, and immediately have to talk about what they don't like about Israel, even when the story is about what is happening in America?
Even when to link all Jewish people everywhere as a single being, as if they are a hive mind, beholding only to their Jewish identity, thereby making them responsible for all things someone doesn't like about Israel, is a form of bigotry?
It even carries with it the suggestion that if not for Israel, Jewish people everywhere else wouldn't be under attack. Because bringing up Israel in a story about hate and the violence it engenders in America is going off topic just to bring up Israel. The story is about violence against Jewish people in America, not about Israel.
Foreign papers cover American news stories, just as American papers cover foreign news stories - but that doesn't mean they are pushing an agenda. A current event, and Wray speaking was a current event, can be news and reporting it is simply reporting a current event.
Israel would be interested in the rise of antisemitism anywhere.
Just as women pay attention to the rise of attacks on women anywhere.
Same with the LGBT community about attacks on them.
Same with many people and groups who have been attacked throughout history.
History demands we pay attention.
= new reply since forum marked as read