San Diego Union Tribune (U.T)Editorials fostered toxic anger

One Jewish WWII combat vet, whom I described the article to, (Initials M B)talked about how he often visited the Soledad site. And here's some hard data that can be verified. He says that he feels uncomfortable there, as he has looked around the memorial plaques, and only saw a very few Jewish insignias. He struggled to express himself, "that's not....representative of those who fought in the war"

Actually that's a bit of quantitative evidence of the effect of having a cross as the overarching symbol. It could be useful to the plaintiffs, but that's not the avenue that interests me right now. I want to try to win over the hearts of those who currently are stuck in a "Cross, No Cross" binary decision.....to transcend this, rather than have a legal victory that will lead to further animosity.

This U.T. editorials (among many)before the referendum was antagonistic to the point of fomenting hatred, and something I would guess a new, more enlightened Editorial Board may actually want to rectify.

My comments in italics
--------------
Mount Soledad memorial is worth saving
July 18, 2005

Proposition A on the July 26 ballot boils down to a singular question: Do you want to keep the 29-foot cross and war memorial atop Mount Soledad? Or do you want the cross removed, as atheist Philip Paulson has been demanding in court for over 15 years?
If you want to preserve the cross, erected over half a century ago at the end of the Korean War as a tribute to veterans, vote Yes on Proposition A. If you want the cross torn down, vote No.

Not "cross removed" but the more violent connotation of "cross torn down"

As far as the ballot measure goes, it's as simple as that.
As a legal matter, however, the issue is anything but simple.
Proposition A asks voters whether they want to transfer the monument to the federal government, in accordance with a new federal law that designated the site a national memorial. The aim of Proposition A proponents is to sidestep a federal judge's ruling that the cross on public land violates the California constitution.

To be honest, though, there is no guarantee that shifting the property to federal hands would remedy the constitutional issue. The best that can be said for Proposition A is that it might shift the long-running litigation costs of defending the cross from San Diego taxpayers to the federal government. Certainly, passage of Proposition A will not bring an end to Paulson's determined drive to dismantle the cross.

The above paragraphs acknowledge the legitimacy of the breach of the constitution, and admits that the goal is to remove the expense from the city to the federal government. Personification of evil, to "Atheist Phil Paulson" is a classic propaganda technique,

What is very clear, however, is that if voters reject Proposition A, the cross will come down. The City Council already has attempted to end the court dispute by removing the cross. Only a referendum signed by tens of thousands of San Diego voters thwarted the move.

Proposition A is probably the last chance to save the cross, even if it is not a sure bet.

based on antonym for "save" the connotation is if this is not passed the cross will be "killed," something that happens to living things, so removing the cross is connected to the killing of he who the symbol represents.

We believe it is worth a try.
Vote Yes on Proposition A.
----------------------
The tone was clearly to foment hatred towards Phil Paulson specifically, and Atheists in general. If this tone, even as an echo of the previous battle, is revived now,-- if it is not diffused by something different, we could have a resurgence of anti-semitism, something I have heard reports of becoming more previlent.