[SJackson]

You're overanalyzing it. It was a threat to sue for removal of the trees unless a menorrah was also displayed. In the minds of gentiles, that threat got the Christmas trees removed.

I'm not overanalyzing, you have it wrong.

To whatever there was a "threat", imo a tad overstated, the "threat" was to sue for the display of a Menorah. As is done in likely thousands of displays in the country. The trees (Holiday trees not Christmas trees per Sea-Tac, and they were their trees) were never an issue.

Gentile support for Israel, any support for Israel, that runs at the thought of the public display of a Menorah isn't support at all.

I suspect you've placed a bit too much confidence in the initial media portrayal of the "incident".

[Dog Gone]

I guess we're just going to see it differently. The trees are gone because of a threat of litigation by a Rabbi.

The general public doesn't care two hoots about whether a menorah was there are not, but they do care that a Rabbi did something that caused the trees to come down.

Nobody is running from the sight of a menorah. They object to the removal of the trees under threat of litigation.

I'm guessing that you support the Rabbi's actions. My perception is that in life you generally reap what you sow.