Context, Nessie, you are missing the context. And thus stepping in it, so to speak.
Aulus Agerius made note of Smith's blog that he "feels obliged to identify particular groups (about which he is complaining) as Jewish, or as the 'Jewish lobby' a pattern which continues through earlier pages of his blog."
You reply, after quoting the post mentioning Smith's depiction of the Jewish lobby and his foes, is to ask, "Is it that unreasonable to describe Jews who campaigned for denial laws as a lobby?"
This is certainly missing the point.
Now, you might disagree with Aulus Agerius and present another view of Smith's blog, one disproving the contention that he focuses on Jews and a supposed Jewish lobby. You might show that Smith discussed many lobbies and didn't have a conception of or obsession with the purported Jewish lobby.
Or you might have reflected on how survivors of a group that had been subjected to the measures which the Third Reich used to attack, isolate, and destroy European Jews might - some of them in any event - form organizations to defend themselves from future such attacks.
But you didn't do any of this. You recast Aulus Agerius's observation by posing a completely different and unrelated question. One that seems designed to obfuscate the issue.
Your tone-deafness to the context, and the very real issues raised by Aulus Agerius - and your speedy attempt to deflect - is what brought out the comments on your post. You came across, in the context and in the face of the pattern of comments noted by Aulus Agerius, and by echoing Smith's term "lobby," as almost an apologist for Smith.
