> The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which functions as a front for Israeli intelligence in the US

This sentence does not appear to be backed up by the article it is linking to, and the vibe of it makes me somewhat suspicious of the outlet.

Nonetheless, if the law is being proposed, it is stupid

▲

ajsidnbc a day ago | parent | next [-]

> the vibe of it makes me somewhat suspicious of the outlet. Nonetheless, if the law is being proposed, it is stupid

You see an obviously ludicrous bill, and instead of asking “How did this bill even get here in the first place?” you instead question whether or not the source is (I’m assuming) anti semitic?

I’m assuming you’re acting in good faith, because otherwise that’s a very underhanded way to run defense for a genocidal ideology.

That this law was even proposed indicates there’s some very anti-American forces running our government.

	▲	apparent a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		When someone wonders about the the journalistic bona fides of an outlet, it is often because they want to know if the information being presented is accurate and balanced. For example, do they mention that the bill has a carveout for First Amendment protected speech? I didn't see that mentioned, but it's right there in the bill, below the definition of "material support" (which they also don't cite). These definitions may be applied in ways that are not fair by the government, but any journalistic outlet worth its salt would include them in their writeup. It seems that this article is more meant to raise alarm and paint the other side as extremists, rather than inform the readership about what has actually been proposed (with all its warts).
	▲	john-h-k a day ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		See the last line of my comment. > Nonetheless, if the law is being proposed, it is stupid All i was doing was saying specific wording used in the article causes me to update slightly against the site being unbiased and neutral. There is no grand conspiracy by me here. There is no comment nor opinion on Israel/Palestine within the comment.
	▲	_DeadFred_ a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The top comment on HN discussions often devolve into various other discussions. Funny that is never 'underhanded' discussion, but outside of the pale when it comes to this topic. You can't have a good faith HN discussion on this topic. Normally on HN people refute arguments, not resort to just 'bad faith'.

▲

TimorousBestie a day ago | parent | prev [-]

The article it cites says this (emphasis added):

> For much of its history, the ADL has operated in the United States as if it were a hostile intelligence organization—which, in essence, it was. The organization’s spymaster was Irwin Suall, who from the 1960s to 1997 ran his nationwide network of agents and informants from the ADL’s New York City headquarters. As millions of dollars in donations flowed into the “civil rights” organization, tens of thousands of dollars flowed out to Suall’s clandestine operatives in the field, actively engaged in violating the civil rights of thousands of Americans. Among his agents was Roy Bullock, a beefy San Franciscan with the codename “Cal” who posed as a small-time art dealer in the Castro District and spied undercover in the US for the ADL. To hide the ADL’s involvement, Bullock’s payments were laundered through a Beverly Hills attorney who, Bullock would later tell authorities, never missed a payment in more than three decades. Bullock said he would submit his reports to the ADL’s executive director in San Francisco, Richard Hirschhaut, now the regional director of the American Jewish Committee for Los Angeles.

This supports the stated claim. You can dispute the facts in this citation, of course (I don’t take them as the gospel truth myself), but The Cradle didn’t cite it incorrectly.

▲

john-h-k a day ago | parent [-]

Acting like a hostile intelligence agency != being a front for Israeli intelligence

	▲	TimorousBestie a day ago \| parent [-]
		1. The links to Israel are made elsewhere in The Nation article, I already copy-pasted more than I wanted to. 2. The Cradle didn’t say “being a front”, they said “functions as a [front]” which is equivalent to “acting like a” front. Honestly, the word “functions” was the hyperlink to The Nation article. So surely you saw it?