1) "He didn't say it" was my primary point. "He implied it" is McCain's statement, but McCain is a rattlesnake. I'm sure if Morsi blew his nose it would imply something important as well to him. He went there looking to be alarmed, and he was.

2) Maybe I'm just confusing universal jubilee at bombing Iran to an overt "back to the stone age" - only McCain's song, as well as lots of jubilation at bombing those sites and plans to bomb civilian infrastructure (did we tell you how reluctant we are?)

http://presstv.com/usdetail/259998.html

http://www.infowars.com/u-s-and-israel-planning-joint-attack-on-iran/

(which reminds of the extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and civilians in our 1990 war)

One-sided articles that claim Iran wants nuclear weapons from some desire to recreate the empire of Cyrus the Great before Alexander, rather than even noting Hussein's invasion with our blessing & explicit help starting in 1982, as well as Iran being currently surrounded by US invasions plus alliance with Turkmenistan.

3) Please quit twisting my words. I said the vast majority of rockets fired from Gaza or from Lebanon by Hizbollah had landed in empty lots & fields, likely by design. This is backed by Israeli newspapers, not just pulled out of my ass. Most of the rockets are an inconvenience, not a danger, but I noted that the background terror of not knowing which one of 20 might hit a house or your kids isn't easy to live with. Second, I didn't say Israelis can make peace by themselves, but since they control the air, the border crossings, can and do invade at any time, have the money & technology (including $3 billion a year of our money), and US attitudes and UN vetos, then they can sure as fuck get serious and try to push towards peace rather than 30 years of wimpish excuses. Voting Bibi to support more illegal settlements year after year is just galling.

4) Saying Jews control the media would not be "anti-Semitic" if Jews actually did, no? Just to clarify the term? Since Israel manages to get multiple unanimous resolutions out of the Senate when I can't recall most other countries getting a single one - makes me think Israel in some matters controls our Senate. Anti-Semitic, or just observation? Is saying Jews control media worse than saying they eat Christian babies? Just to gauge level and seriousness of outrage. As I noted, most papers go in lockstep over Israel, but then, many right-wing Christians are only pro-Israel to bring on the rapture at which point they expect Jews to snuff it - hardly an enlightened prophecy.

And is it worse to be a white racist knuckle-dragging misogynist southerner (redundant, I suppose) than a Jew?

Uh, actually, if black men committed fewer crimes, there would probably be a bit less racism. Actually I think that's what happened as crime decreased in the 90's, no? Gay men abusing little boys is primarily apocrypha and slander. (the church has that side of the street). The level of Muslims blowing people up is much less than the media hysteria over it, especially if one omits countries invaded by Western powers. But yeah, a bit less of the crazy helps. (Restraint over the anti-Islamic movie was a big improvement over riots about Danish cartoons fomented by a mullah sometime after-the-fact). Brazenly sexist attitudes against women is well documented, no need to even go into detail.

Back to your original point - actually despite some heightened worries about skinheads, the level of anti-semitism in the US and Europe these days is fairly low. It seems the main issue about Israel is acts like building settlements in occupied territory and razing poor people's homes and having a bunch of hateful-sounding politicians offer empty platitudes while proceeding with heartless policies. Which isn't really anti-semitism at all - it'd apply to Romans treating Palestine (Israelis) badly, British treating Kenyans badly and other historical parallels. And almost half of Israel seems appalled by this lack of progress, and a good number voted against Israel (or at least Bibi?) behaving badly.

You said you didn't want to get in an argument with me.

And from what I can tell, there's no argument.

Peace.

    bslev, seriously, dude, what flabbergasting thing did I say in the process of agreeing with you which is "offensive to your people"?
 I said that I agreed with you that Morsy probably hates Jews. Was that it? Were you flabbergasted that I suggested that some Jews probably hate him? I was just guessing there, was I wrong? Is it because after you brought up semantics I tried to draw a distinction between two words that have distinctly different meanings? I said that denial of Jewish control is correct. I then added that denial of Jewish influence, and yes, I believe it is strong influence, would be wrong if you did so. [You ignored that and  again went with "control".] Or, is it simply because any allegation that Jews have an influence on the media makes your antennae burst into flame because all you can hear, maybe because all you want to hear, is echoes of an ancient trope?
 Would it help if I loaded up any response with multiple caveats? Okay, here is an important one. I sometime object to what I see as influence in a direction which I do not like. I see this influence, which might sometimes be used in ways that I do not like, invested in some people and some groups. But, in the case of Jewish influence, the one you cannot stand to see me comment on, there is mountains of it which I see as good and beneficial. I just don't complain about the things that I like.
 Have you heard of Thomas Cahill? He wrote "How the Irish  Saved Civilization" as part of his "Hinges of History" series.  It is a good read in case you missed it. Cahill expresses admiration for the Irish and what they did historically. He also has some opinions about Jews. When I tell you that he thinks Jews have been very influential I hope you pause before instantly writing him of as just another bigot pushing an age old anti-Semitic trope. Cahill also wrote, as part of the "Hinges of History" series, "The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels". Here is a quote from that book.

"The Jews started it all - and by "it" I mean so many of the things we care about, the underlying values that make all of us, Jew and Gentile, believer and atheist, tick.  Without the Jews, we would see the world with different eyes, hear with different ears, even feel with different feelings.  And not only would our sensorium, the screen through which we receive the world, be different: we would think with a different mind, interpret all our experience differently, draw different conclusions from the things that befall us.  And we would set  a different course for our lives."
By "we" I mean the usual "we" of late-twentieth-century writing: the people of the Western world, whose peculiar but vital mentality has come to infect every culture on earth, so that, in a startlingly precise sense, all humanity is now willy-nilly caught up in this "we."  For better or worse, the role of the West in humanity's history is singular.  Because of this, the role of the Jews, the inventors of Western culture, is also singular: there is simply no one else remotely like them; theirs is a unique vocation.  Indeed, as we shall see, the very idea of vocation, of a personal destiny, is a Jewish idea.

If Cahill is ten only percent correct then Jews have had a tremendous impact. Is there any reason to think that that impact has all played out and is entirely historical? Could Jews possibly continue to have some impact even if it is debatable as to when where and how it is manifested and how strong it is? And if so, does it make sense to think that every single bit of it is beneficial to everyone it touches?
 How about J.J. Goldberg, Editor at Large of "The Forward"? Is he anti-Semitic? He says:

It’s almost a cliché these days to suggest that the presence of a well-organized Jewish community in America has a lot to do with the way Israel is treated by government and the media. It’s a mistake, though, to note the community’s ability to threaten and then to overlook its role as a leavening force in the larger culture. Jewish sensibilities help shape America’s sense of humor, U.S. attitudes toward civil rights, and much more. It would be astonishing if American Jews didn’t also influence America’s view of Israel—much as Irish Americans have helped mold attitudes toward Ireland.

But can those with influence really threaten anyone in any substantive way? Consider how often it is pointed out that Republicans who slip up and say something unacceptable to Rush L. must quickly prostrate themselves and ask his forgiveness. It has often been mentioned here as a demonstration of his power and in those cases nobody here rushes in to suggest that such power doesn't exist. But, what if someone suggests strong Jewish influence in American media? Here are excerpts from  an interesting example of what usually follows, again from Goldberg:

Then why, the interviewer asked, is there “such a focus on the Holocaust?” Stone’s reply: “The Jewish domination of the media. There’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f—ed up United States foreign policy for years.”

Well, you can imagine what happened next. The American Jewish Committee said Stone had “outed himself as an anti-Semite.” Yuli Edelstein, Israel’s minister of Diaspora affairs and public diplomacy, warned that they “could lead to a new wave of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism.”

Yet by the time Stone sent his second apology, billionaire producer Haim Saban and super-agent Ari Emanuel had already both called on Leslie Moonves, president of CBS, which owns Showtime, to cancel “Secret History.”

Few seemed to notice the irony: Two of the most powerful men in Hollywood, both Jewish, urging a third power player, also Jewish, to punish Stone for suggesting that Jews dominate the media. The bottom line: Stone’s comment that Jewish influence in the media stifles open discussion brought the media crashing down on his head.

Emphasis added. All are encouraged to read the entire article at:

http://forward.com/articles/129839/a-wounded-people-vs-oliver-stone/

bslev, we never had any discourse so if you continue to reject any comment I make with only a few smears directed at me personally, well then nothing is lost, but nothing is gained either.

PPS - Yanover's books on Amazon appear to be a gas. Can click "search inside this book" to get some excerpts.