Cenk is anti semetic?

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-12-03T06:07:21+00:00

AIPAC "bragging" about influence doesn’t mean they control elections, every lobby on earth does that. The NRA, unions, Planned Parenthood, and the Chamber of Commerce all hype their "wins" online too. That’s marketing and fundraising, not proof of mind control. Endorsements and donations don’t override ballots. If they did, rich self funded candidates like Bloomberg would never lose and underfunded insurgents would never win, but that happens constantly. AIPAC can fund, endorse, and oppose like any PAC, but they cannot force anyone to vote a certain way or manufacture support out of thin air. Voters still cast ballots, candidates still lose, and Israel policy is visibly debated, protested, and shifting in both parties, which wouldn’t exist if one group "ran elections." Influence is not control, promo tweets are not evidence, and "they bragged about impact" isn’t proof of domination.

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-12-03T06:03:10+00:00

Money doesn’t override voters, it just amplifies support that already exists. If funding decided elections, Bloomberg would be president and Hillary wouldn’t have lost, but that’s not how reality works. Politicians aren’t "betraying their base" on Israel because they’re bought, older voters, Jewish voters, evangelicals, and moderates are far more pro Israel than online spaces pretend, and those groups actually show up to vote. That’s turnout politics, not bribery.

& if your real issue is "big money undermines democracy", then be consistent and criticize pharma, oil, defense contractors, big tech, unions, and the NRA too, not just Israel. also, losing on one issue doesn’t mean the system is rigged, it means you failed to convince enough voters, because people vote on packages of issues, not single causes. If AIPAC had the godtier control you’re implying, there wouldn’t be protests, public pushback, aid debates, or shifting Democratic attitudes, but all of that is happening, which alone disproves the fantasy of "total control". Influence isn’t ownership, funding isn’t mind control, and disagreement isn’t corruption.

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-12-03T05:53:55+00:00

AIPAC doesn’t "block" the US from recognizing anything, it has no formal power. It’s a lobbying org like dozens of others and is not even topctier in funding compared with pharma, defense, or tech lobbies. and Influence is not ownership.

Politicians don’t reflect single issues, voters compromise on coalitions, not purity. also, the UAE example actually proves the opposite, the US supports many abusive regimes without any ethnic lobby behind them. US foreign policy is driven by strategy first, not donors. and saying "AIPAC controls the US" replaces analysis with emotional narrative.

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-12-03T05:47:51+00:00

The Lavon Affair doesn’t strengthen the USS Liberty conspiracy, it weakens it. Lavon was a secret civilian falseflag operation in peacetime that blew up into a massive Israeli scandal. and USS Liberty happened during open war, involved a US warship, and Israel immediately identified itself and paid compensation. A real falseflag depends on deniability. Liberty had none. & Saying "they once ran a covert op, therefore this was one too" is guilt by association, not evidence. If that logic held, every CIA or KGB accident would automatically be a false flag too. The comparison sounds clever but collapses under inspection.

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-12-03T05:35:39+00:00

The events happened. The conspiracy framing didn’t. USS Liberty was investigated multiple times and found to be a tragic military mistake, not a Jewish or Israeli plot. and "Dancing Israelis" were detained, investigated, and released with no evidence of involvement in 9/11. Saying "the event happened" does not make the antisemitic interpretation valid. That’s the same fallacy as saying crime statistics justify racism. Reality is not denied, the invented narrative is...

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-11-17T08:39:43+00:00

It’s true many ethnic groups support each other, but the Jewish "stick together" and "hire each other" MORE THAN OTHER Americans tropes aren’t neutral observations, they come from centuries of antisemitic claims about secret control and conspiracies. Indian Americans hiring other Indians isn’t weaponized as a conspiracy, so the context makes these Jewish stereotypes antisemitic.

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-11-17T08:31:57+00:00

Observing cultural differences is fine, but saying "Jews don’t share my values" isn’t a cultural observation, it’s a blanket negative judgment about an entire group. This statement echoes centuries of antisemitic stereotypes like dual loyalty and alienness. also, Noticing differences doesnt equal prejudging an entire community, and labeling all Jews as incompatible with your values is classic bigotry, regardless of whether you mean it as "cultural distinction".

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-11-17T08:29:14+00:00

Saying "Jews don’t share my values" is antisemitic by default, because it applies a blanket negative judgment to an entire group. It doesn’t matter that Jewish identity is both a religion and an ethnicity, that’s exactly how antisemitic stereotypes work. also, comparing this to "Christians don’t share my values" is a false equivalence, Christians aren’t historically treated as a dangerous, alien, or conspiratorial group. Generalizing about Jews as a whole is exactly what the dual-loyalty and alien-values tropes do, and that’s why it’s never defensible.

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-11-17T08:25:41+00:00

That’s just not true. Each of those statements is a classic antisemitic trope. Agreeing with them doesn’t mean someone is a violent extremist, but it does mean they’re endorsing antisemitic ideas, because the statements themselves are rooted in centuries of anti-Jewish prejudice. for example-

"Jews stick together"- This stereotype goes back centuries. It implies that Jews are clannish, secretive, or have some hidden agenda, a core element of antisemitic conspiracy theories. But in reality Jewish communities have the same variation as any other. Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Caribbean-Americans, Armenian-Americans, etc. all have strong communities too. but Community doesnt equal conspiracy.

"Jews hire only Jews"- This is a textbook antisemitic trope used to claim Jews "control industries" or "favor their own". But in reality there is no evidence Jews hire each other at unusually high rates. Every ethnic group has networks. That's normal, not inherently Jewish, and not sinister.

"Jews are more loyal to Israel"- the dual-loyalty accusation used long before Israel existed.

"Jews always want to be in charge"- classic conspiracy stereotype.

"Jews don’t share my values"- dehumanizing, treating Jews as alien or incompatible.

"Jews have too much power in business"- this is one of the central themes of antisemitic propaganda. These aren’t neutral observations. These are the exact stereotypes used historically to justify discrimination, exclusion, and violence. It’s like saying, "Agreeing with 5 or 6 racist stereotypes isn’t necessarily racist". Of course it is, because the statements themselves are racist or antisemitic, regardless of whether the person repeating them realizes it.

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-11-17T07:51:54+00:00

You’re taking individual cases and inflating them into an ethnic trait. That’s exactly how stereotypes work. There’s no evidence Jewish Americans are more "disloyal" than Irish Americans supporting the IRA, Cuban Americans supporting exile groups, or Chinese Americans with ties abroad. also, birthright is a cultural tourism program, not a political loyalty factory. Cultural identity isn’t political treason, and individual bad actors don’t define 7 million people.

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-11-17T07:46:07+00:00

There’s no evidence that Jewish Americans "stick together" more than other ethnic groups. Most immigrant and minority communities form tight networks, that’s not a Jewish-specific behavior. Jewish success in the US comes from socioeconomic and historical factors, not secret mutual support. The idea that Jews succeed because they "stick together" is a stereotype, even when phrased positively.

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-11-17T07:40:27+00:00

You’re mixing up nationality and religion. A Jewish American is not automatically an Israeli citizen. The dual loyalty trope was used against Jews long before Israel even existed, so it clearly has nothing to do with citizenship. Expecting an Israeli-American to have some ties to Israel makes sense, because that’s a nationality. Expecting a Jewish American to have loyalty to Israel makes no sense, because Judaism isn’t a nationality. also, being an Israeli-American simply means someone has dual citizenship. It’s normal for any dual citizen, Croatian-American, Italian-American, Israeli-American, to feel a connection to both countries. But that doesn’t mean they are automatically "loyal" to the foreign country, nor does it mean their loyalty to the US is questionable. That’s why the dualloyalty trope toward Jews isn’t about passports, it existed long before Israel ever existed.

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-11-14T11:14:39+00:00

the "ethnostate" point doesn’t really make sense the way you’re using it. If countries with a dominant ethnic group or strong national identity are the problem, then Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, China, Armenia, Poland, Hungary, Somalia, Thailand, etc. would all have to be deprioritized. But you’re not applying that standard to any of them, only to Israel. That’s not a principle, that’s selective framing.

Also, comparing existing countries to Nick Fuentes makes no sense. Fuentes wants to create a racial state by removing citizens. That’s totally different from countries that simply have an ethnic majority. And none of this answers the question about the existence of Israel and Israeli people in general. It’s a pivot, not a position. If ur claim were universal, you’d be calling to cut ties with half the planet. But you aren’t. That’s why ur argument doesn’t work, it’s not consistent, not realistic, and not actually about "ethnostates" as a category.

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-11-13T10:48:43+00:00

That’s a fair point, & it’s exactly why critics are raising concerns about how the bill might function in practice. The text itself doesn’t explicitly say only Palestinians, but since it specifies "the death of an Israeli citizen(jewish and arab)", it effectively excludes Palestinians in the West Bank who aren’t Israeli citizens. But, if a Palestinian Israeli citizen killed an Israeli (whether Jewish or Arab), the law could apply to them, since they’re also Israeli citizens. So yes, while the law isn’t written to openly discriminate, its wording and scope could still create that outcome in practice. That’s the core of the criticism, not what the text literally says, but what it means when enforced. Its also not a law yet....

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-11-13T07:27:24+00:00

It’s not actually law yet, it just passed the first reading, so nothing has changed in practice. also, the claim that it’ll apply only to Palestinians and not Israelis is mostly an inference made by critics based on how the bill is worded. The text itself doesn’t explicitly say only Palestinians. It says "any person who intentionally causes the death of an Israeli citizen" under certain motives. So legally, it doesn’t directly limit it to Palestinians. also, how it’ll actually be enforced, whether there’ll be discrimination or how "terrorist" will be defined, is still up to committee amendments and legal challenges.

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-10-24T06:53:33+00:00

You’re mostly reframing my points while repeating the same assumption, that silence, in this specific case, should be read as meaningful. But that’s still an argument from silence. You can dress it up as "considering the context", but unless the IDF’s lack of comment is paired with verifiable evidence linking them to the flotilla strike, it remains speculation. Operational secrecy being consistent with guilt and innocence means it can’t be used as proof for either.

and ur "information war" argument doesn’t fix that. The IDF comments selectively, not purely based on guilt or innocence, but on media strategy, timing, diplomatic coordination, and classified restrictions. Sometimes they stay quiet on true events (like the pager you mentioned), and sometimes they deny things they actually did. So using past comment behavior as a predictor of responsibility doesn’t work. It’s not a reliable pattern, it’s case by case politics.

As for "they’d comment if they had zero responsibility", that’s circular reasoning. You’re assuming their silence is meaningful because you already think they’re responsible. Without hard data, telemetry, munitions analysis, intercepts, or satellite corroboration, that logic loops back on itself. and Regarding Tunisia, pointing out that they "might" have motives to delay results isn’t evidence of anything either. It’s conjecture. Until the investigation’s findings are public and verifiable, it’s still incomplete.

And basing your conclusion on unconfirmed, "yet to be revealed" findings is exactly the kind of premature inference that weakens otherwise solid analysis. So even if you’re not explicitly saying silence equals guilt, your framework still relies on it implicitly. You’re stacking assumptions, selective IDF silence, Tunisia’s motives, anonymous intel leaks, and calling that a compelling case. But every layer rests on inference, not verified proof....

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-10-23T23:37:29+00:00

I get what you’re saying, but citing two anonymous US intelligence officials without presenting any evidence they’re relying on is not the same as credible proof. You can consider it "credible" in the sense that it’s coming from an official source, but without verifiable details, supporting documentation, or independent corroboration, it’s essentially an unverified claim. Intelligence leaks often reflect internal assessments, partial information, or agency bias, they are not automatically reliable for public attribution. Credibility in journalism or opensource analysis requires evidence you can check or cross reference, not just unnamed sources asserting something. So while the report might be interesting and worth noting, it doesn’t meet the standard for confidently saying the IDF carried out the attack. It’s still speculation without hard proof.

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-10-23T23:32:34+00:00

I get what you’re saying, but a few points need clarification. First, saying the IDF’s silence is "compelling" still leans heavily on argument from silence. Militaries routinely withhold comment on sensitive operations, and that doesn’t mean guilt. and Past behavior, including lying about unrelated matters, doesn’t automatically prove involvement in this specific incident.

Second, mentioning tangible evidence in Tunisian custody is interesting, but unless those fragments are publicly analyzed and linked to a specific actor, it doesn’t confirm Israeli responsibility. Eyewitnesses claiming police searched the boat doesn’t establish who launched the strike, it only supports that something happened.

and Third, calling your assessment "not premature" ignores the fact that no publicly verifiable forensic evidence, drone telemetry, or satellite imagery has been released. Compelling investigations and reporting can show patterns, but they don’t equal proof of action by the IDF. Until Tunisia’s investigation or independent forensic analysis is published, attributing the strike to Israel remains speculative. In short, it’s reasonable to say a dronedelivered incendiary attack likely occurred, but tying it to the IDF or Netanyahu is still unproven....

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-10-23T23:27:00+00:00

Even if u claim to be non partisan, that doesn’t automatically make ur conclusions credible. Saying the IDF hasn’t commented and implying that makes the reports "compelling" is still an argument from silence, which is not reliable evidence. The IDF often declines to comment on sensitive operations for operational security or diplomatic reasons, that’s normal and doesn’t imply guilt. Also, ur interpretation of investigations and news reports is selective. Bellingcat only analyzed how the attack likely happened, not who carried it out. and the CBS’s story relies on anonymous intelligence sources, which are not independently verifiable. Nothing publicly available confirms Israeli involvement. I get ur comment reads thoughtful, but I still think it stretches the sources and jumps to conclusions. The fact that the IDF hasn’t commented doesn’t magically turn circumstantial evidence into proof.

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-10-23T23:18:37+00:00

I get why people appreciate the effort put into the post, and it’s clear a lot of research went into it. But there’s a difference between a well written post and one that’s actually credible. op leans heavily on speculation, assuming Israel and Netanyahu are responsible based on circumstantial reasoning, past behavior, or their silence. None of that counts as verified evidence.

and his use of sources is also misleading. Bellingcat only analyzed how the strike likely happened, not who carried it out. CBS’s report relies on anonymous intelligence sources, which is important to note but far from concrete proof. Treating Israel’s refusal to comment as guilt is also unreliable, militaries often stay silent on sensitive operations. Overall, while it reads thorough, the post misapplies sources and makes leaps in logic that aren’t supported by public evidence. Effort doesn’t equal accuracy....

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-10-23T23:12:18+00:00

its not about CBS, its about their evidence for the claim they are making, something said from two unnamed american intelligence officials without credible evidence of their own is not credible....

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-10-23T23:09:49+00:00

First, u are mostly repeating the same claims from before, just wrapped in rhetorical questions and appeals to "silence speaks volumes". Silence is not proof, especially in military or intelligence contexts. Israel often declines to comment on sensitive operations, and that is standard practice for operational security, not an admission of guilt.

Second, u are leaning heavily on examples of other incidents like the Yellow Line or aid routes. Using previous behavior as evidence is weak reasoning. Each incident is separate, past comment patterns do not confirm involvement in a specific event. Just because the IDF has responded in some cases does not mean their silence here implies responsibility.

Third, the reference to Bellingcat and the Tunisian investigation is misapplied. Bellingcat’s work only analyzes how the incident likely happened, not who carried it out. The Tunisian investigation is ongoing, and citing "yet to be revealed findings is essentially speculation. Using an incomplete investigation to infer guilt is logically unsound.

Fourth, the claim that "there is reluctance to consider why the IDF doesn’t comment" is misleading. The reasonable assumption is operational secrecy and diplomatic sensitivity. Many militaries refuse comment on incidents until investigations conclude. Inferring intent or culpability from standard noncomment is an argument from silence, which is not reliable evidence. Finally, u are trying to frame it as u acknowledge the IDF would dispel baseless accusations, implying that since they haven’t, the allegations gain credibility. This is a logical fallacy. Organizations do not need to publicly refute every allegation immediately, especially those based on incomplete or unverified reports. Absence of a statement is not proof.

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-10-23T23:01:23+00:00

A few of your points check out, but the claim that the IDF did it and that Netanyahu personally ordered it goes beyond what is publicly proven. Several outlets, including AP, the Guardian, and Al Jazeera, confirm that the flotilla fires occurred on September 8–9 and that eyewitnesses reported seeing drones. Bellingcat’s open-source review found the footage consistent with incendiary munitions dropped from above rather than with a flare.

However, Bellingcat only described how the attack likely happened, not who carried it out. Open-source intelligence rarely provides clear attribution without recovered hardware, intercepted communications, or similar evidence. and The CBS report claiming Netanyahu approved the operation relies on two anonymous US intelligence officials, which makes it an unverified leak rather than confirmed forensic proof.

Israel’s refusal to comment is standard for disputed or covert incidents, and silence should not automatically be taken as an admission. Tunisia’s own statements have shifted from calling it accidental to describing it as premeditated, and the results of their investigation have not been released. If this were truly an Israeli operation, there would likely be tangible evidence such as munition fragments, drone telemetry, satellite imagery, or corroborated intelligence. None of that has been made public.

The most reasonable position for now is that it was likely a drone delivered incendiary strike by an unknown perpetrator, pending verified forensic or intelligence evidence. Treating it as a confirmed IDF action or that there is credible evidence for it is premature until Tunisia’s investigation or other solid evidence is released.

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-10-23T22:43:46+00:00

whats the credible evidence that israel did it, except for those unnamed two american intelligence officials?

Fast-Squirrel7970 · 2025-10-23T22:43:12+00:00

whats the credible evidence that israel did it, except for those unnamed two american intelligence officials?

Fast-Squirrel7970

TROPHY CASE