With how the protesters seem to be influencing things in Washington, I would not be surprised if the Mossad was also donating millions to support them.
Um... Maybe I'm just too old and dim...but could you please explain the logic of "X is receiving donations from the Mossad" ==>> "X is a [::insert extremely negative description here::] Jew"?
The trope is of a “globalist elite influencing our government”. It is a very old trope and very offensive, even used by the Nazis and still used today by neo-nazis and KKK alike.
Um... isn't "attempt to influence the US government in ways beneficial to us" part of the regular job for EVERY other nation's intelligence/security/foreign relations agencies? Whether or not said nation has ever had a single Jewish citizen.
Would it also be very offensive to suggest that the Israeli Ministry of Education is secretly conspiring to make sure that Israeli school children learn how to multiply and divide fractions?
Claiming that a foreign agent supplied money isn’t offensive, but insinuating that a grasroots movement, a foreign agent, and our government is all linked in a global conspiracy, is very offensive.
The US government is perfectly capable of making bad foreign policy all on their own. There may be a foreign agent trying to influence things, but the final policy is ultimately the responsibility of the US government, and the US government alone.
It is far more likely that a US government which is extremely pro-Israel—to the point where it arrests peaceful student protestors for opposing a genocide—that this governments has their own reason to be this extreme. My guess is that they see profits in supporting an antagonizing state—i.e. Israel—in the Middle East. That having this antagonizing state keep the whole region unstable serves some purpose which the US ruling class likes (my guess is oil prices, weapons manufacturing, and inflated influence).
If a half-competent intel agency giving some money to a group whose angry behavior seemed to be furthering their aims would qualify as "a global conspiracy"...then maybe every intel agency on the planet is doing global conspiracy 24x7x365, and your definition of that phrase is kinda useless?
Overall - I get the feeling that you are angrily arguing against a variety of beliefs and positions that I'm (at best) barely aware of. And occasionally asserting "2 + 2 = 4"-level facts in a manner suggesting that I disagree with them.
Question - Is there some Wikipedia page which describes the beliefs or position which you assume that I hold, where I might read and try to understand the background for your comments?