Back in those dim days of the counter-culture, there was an iconoclastic satire magazine edited and published by Paul Krassner. The May 1967 issue of the Realist's contained one of the most searing satire of Disney as its centerfold. The Disneyland Memorial Orgy drawn by Wally Wood became a standard image from that era.
http://www.ep.tc/realist/74/12.html

Mr. Pearlman: What in the article (and from other news sources) would have you believe that the attackers knew that these unfortunate girls where Jewish? Isn't it adequate enough for you that the attack was due to a perception of the victims being from the West? This would be particularly true given that the girls were working for a Christian charity.

Nonetheless, I would hope and pray for the speedy recovery, both in body and soul, for these two innocents.

In this case, I don't think that the girls were targeted due their being Jewish, but more to their being "Western."

Yet the photo accompanying the article shows, not a funeral, but a wedding.

Editorial - WAKE UP!

Why should they get out?

As the Palestinians must finally agree that there is no return to Israel, the settlers must accept that if they want to live in the West Bank, they will not be living in the polity called Israel. They will have to decide that they are willing to live in the Arab state of Palestine, under Palestinian laws, not Israeli.

I highly doubt the Naftali Bennett has ever eaten a quarter pounder with cheese, let alone in a McDonald's.

It is about time that Israelis begin to evaluate the moral cost of settling the West Bank. By these actions, Israel makes it difficult, if not impossible to disengage from the Palestinian territories. The end result is the defacto creation of a single state between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. This state will have an Arab majority, creating the another Arab state in the region. Jews will become a minority in their own homeland. Is this the dream of Herzl and the founders of Israel envisioned?

"is it possible is at least mildly anti-Semitic?"

It is possible. But the question has no relevance. The real question would be. Have Mr. Obama's actions as president demonstrated antisemitism? The answer to that is a resounding no.

I agree with Leonard Fein's characterization of Samantha Powers. She is not anti-Israel. She does, however, have an innate bias to the underdog in a conflict. And, no matter how we view it, the Palestinian Arabs are the underdog. Nonetheless, from different things I have read from and about her, she does have a clear historical perspective and understands how the situation has come about. She doesn't blame the Israeli side any more than the Arab one for the state of affairs. She does feel that Israel, as the stronger party, should be willing to take more risks in finding a solution. This is not antisemitism, by any rational definition of the word.

The problem is that, more and more, criticism of Israeli policies and actions, no matter how mild, are being equated to antisemitism or (if Jewish) self-hatred. Thereby, strongly Zionist individuals such as Uri Avneri or Rabbi Jonathan Sacks are lumped together with those such as Philip Weiss.

The tactic is totally self-defeating. It allows for those who are truly Judeophobic to hide. It creates confusion and totally plays into the hands of extremists --- on both sides.

"How many innocent Persians were killed on Esther's orders?
How many Jews did Cyrus kill?"

Ah, I see. The current Persian enmity to Israel and Jews is due to events from 2500 years ago. Makes perfect sense to me.

"How many Israeli scientists have been assassinated by Iran?"

How many Jews and Israelis have been murdered by orders directly from Iran? (Hint: Buenos Aires 1992 and 1994)

"Will you name your granddaughter Dinah?"

You mean like Dinah Shore?

Yes, of course. It was the Jews' fault that the Nazi Germany was so antisemitic. Therefore, they deserved everything that happened to them during the years from 1933 to 1945.

Talking about a propaganda machine!

Having just read the document (thank you Billy Bostickson), the criticism is more valid for Christian Zionist rather than for Jews. As the article so validly points out, modern Zionism is more based on the nationalist politics of the 19th century than religious concepts. The Marxist concept of redemption through labour has had more influence on modern Zionism than Torah.

The founders of Israel were secular, not sectarian, There goal was "redemption" of the Jewish people freeing them from religion and the debased conditions in which they resided. That Palestine was chosen for this had more to do with historical connections with the land - and yes, that history was originally based on the religion. However, Jewish redemption was the goal not religious renewal. That is why even dedicated Zionists such as Moses Montefiore, Baron Hirsch and others helped create Jewish agricultural colonies not just in Palestine, but also in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, the United States.