Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Great Debates (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Anti-Semitism and the accusations agains Representative Ilhan Omar. (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=871829)

FlikTheBlue 03-05-2019 07:57 AM

Anti-Semitism and the accusations agains Representative Ilhan Omar.
 
The House Democrats are preparing a resolution on anti-Semitism following some statements made by Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota).

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/04/polit...mar/index.html

From what I've read, Representative Omar seems to be making the following argument.

1. American-Israeli groups / lobbyists donate to some lawmakers.

2. Those lawmakers support Israel.

3. Therefore those lawmakers (some of whom are Jewish) are taking money from and being influenced to support a foreign power.

She has called out this money flowing into American politics, including the now infamous "all about the Benjamins" tweet. This has led to charges of anti-Semitism against Representative Omar.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.46af9b27a1fd

Here's the debate. Are the things Representative Omar has said anti-Semitic, and if so why? IMHO the things she has said are not anti-Semitic. She has criticized some particular groups such as the Israeli government and American-Israeli lobbying organizations, but AFAICT has not said anything about Jews in general. The Israeli government and lobbyists working on their behalf ≠ Jewish people in general. I don't see criticism of other governments, even explicitly religious ones, leading to similar charges, including these examples.

1. Many people, including many Catholics, criticize the Pope and the Vatican without being labeled anti-Catholic. Although they do not lead nations, the religious leaders from many other demonations are similarly criticized without those doing the criticizing being labelled as bigoted against the denomination in question

2. Many people criticize many governments and world leaders from autocratic nations like Kim Jong Un, Nicolas Maduro, Raul Castro and their regimes, but they are not automatically labelled as being bigoted against Koreans, Venezuelans, or Cubans.

In other words, I don't get why Representative Omar is being attacked the way she is. What am I missing here?

asahi 03-05-2019 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue (Post 21520014)
The House Democrats are preparing a resolution on anti-Semitism following some statements made by Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota).

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/04/polit...mar/index.html

From what I've read, Representative Omar seems to be making the following argument.

1. American-Israeli groups / lobbyists donate to some lawmakers.

2. Those lawmakers support Israel.

3. Therefore those lawmakers (some of whom are Jewish) are taking money from and being influenced to support a foreign power.

She has called out this money flowing into American politics, including the now infamous "all about the Benjamins" tweet. This has led to charges of anti-Semitism against Representative Omar.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.46af9b27a1fd

Here's the debate. Are the things Representative Omar has said anti-Semitic, and if so why? IMHO the things she has said are not anti-Semitic. She has criticized some particular groups such as the Israeli government and American-Israeli lobbying organizations, but AFAICT has not said anything about Jews in general. The Israeli government and lobbyists working on their behalf ≠ Jewish people in general. I don't see criticism of other governments, even explicitly religious ones, leading to similar charges, including these examples.

1. Many people, including many Catholics, criticize the Pope and the Vatican without being labeled anti-Catholic. Although they do not lead nations, the religious leaders from many other demonations are similarly criticized without those doing the criticizing being labelled as bigoted against the denomination in question

2. Many people criticize many governments and world leaders from autocratic nations like Kim Jong Un, Nicolas Maduro, Raul Castro and their regimes, but they are not automatically labelled as being bigoted against Koreans, Venezuelans, or Cubans.

In other words, I don't get why Representative Omar is being attacked the way she is. What am I missing here?

The answer is obvious: she's a foreign-born, brown-skinned woman who wears a hijab.

FlikTheBlue 03-05-2019 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21520021)
The answer is obvious: she's a foreign-born, brown-skinned woman who wears a hijab.

OK, now it's my turn to reveal some of my own bias. That explanation would fly if she was a member in a Republican led congress and being attacked by the likes of Steve King. The Democrats, however, should be better than that, and I'm disappointed at the behavior of Pelosi and crew regarding how they've handled the situation. I know the Democrats aren't perfect, but the side claiming to be the ones that aren't bigoted against any minorities should be better than this.

Left Hand of Dorkness 03-05-2019 08:09 AM

One question I have, and I genuinely don't know the answer: does the American Israel Public Affairs Committee have analogous organizations that promote the relationship between the US and other nations?

Is there some organization that's basically the American Spain Public Affairs Committee? The American Mexico Public Affairs Committee? The American South Africa Public Affairs Committee?

If so, do any of them have the staffing, budget, or political pull that AIPAC has?

If AIPAC is unique, either in existence or in reach, then it's fair to examine their influence. If they're not unique, then someone who zeroes in on them ought to have their motives examined.

ElvisL1ves 03-05-2019 08:16 AM

It's also fair to note how Netanyahu, and the Israel jingo lobby, have an effective tool to shout down any questioning of his government's actions - the accusation of antisemitism. It shouldn't, but does, need to be pointed out regularly that Jewry, Israel, and Likud are not synonyms.

Alessan 03-05-2019 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue (Post 21520014)
The House Democrats are preparing a resolution on anti-Semitism following some statements made by Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota).

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/04/polit...mar/index.html

From what I've read, Representative Omar seems to be making the following argument.

1. American-Israeli groups / lobbyists donate to some lawmakers.

2. Those lawmakers support Israel.

3. Therefore those lawmakers (some of whom are Jewish) are taking money from and being influenced to support a foreign power.

Except that's not entirely accurate.

First of all, the pro-Israel donors are Americans, not "American-Israeli". Just because someone happens to be Jewish and pro-Israel does not make them any less American. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, the Israeli government does not donate to American politicians.

Second of all, she hasn't accused them of supporting a (minor, local) foreign power; instead, she has accused them of “allegiance to a foreign country.” Support is one thing; allegiance is something completely different, which feeds into the classic antisemitic canard of dual loyalty. After all, an American can advocate that the U.S. support another country and still be a patriotic American, but own who gives "allegiance" - a claim that she does not support in any way - cannot.

And who she is has nothing to do with the fact that people are criticizing her - she'd get exactly as much heat if she were a white dude. In fact, I'm personally inclined to cut her some slack because of her background.

Alessan 03-05-2019 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21520032)
One question I have, and I genuinely don't know the answer: does the American Israel Public Affairs Committee have analogous organizations that promote the relationship between the US and other nations?

Is there some organization that's basically the American Spain Public Affairs Committee? The American Mexico Public Affairs Committee? The American South Africa Public Affairs Committee?

If so, do any of them have the staffing, budget, or political pull that AIPAC has?

If AIPAC is unique, either in existence or in reach, then it's fair to examine their influence. If they're not unique, then someone who zeroes in on them ought to have their motives examined.

It's not as organized - and transparent - a body, but the Saudi Arabian lobby spends much more money in Washington than AIPAC.

iiandyiiii 03-05-2019 08:28 AM

By my reading and understanding, Omar has mixed some entirely reasonable criticism of Israeli govrenment policies and some US office-holders unquestioning support for these policies with some unfortunate anti-semitic tropes (like the "all about the Benjamins" and "allegiance to a foreign power" stuff). I think it's reasonable to criticize her for utilizing these anti-semitic tropes, even if it's unintentional.

I'm hopeful that she'll learn how to make these reasonable criticisms against Israeli policy, and the unquestioning support of that policy by some US politicians, while avoiding those anti-semitic tropes.

FlikTheBlue 03-05-2019 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alessan (Post 21520041)
Except that's not entirely accurate.

First of all, the pro-Israel donors are Americans, not "American-Israeli". Just because someone happens to be Jewish and pro-Israel does not make them any less American. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, the Israeli government does not donate to American politicians.

Second of all, she hasn't accused them of supporting a (minor, local) foreign power; instead, she has accused them of “allegiance to a foreign country.” Support is one thing; allegiance is something completely different, which feeds into the classic antisemitic canard of dual loyalty. After all, an American can advocate that the U.S. support another country and still be a patriotic American, but own who gives "allegiance" - a claim that she does not support in any way - cannot.

And who she is has nothing to do with the fact that people are criticizing her - she'd get exactly as much heat if she were a white dude. In fact, I'm personally inclined to cut her some slack because of her background.

Fair points. I should have been more precise by specifying Jewish Americans rather than Israeli-Americans. I admit to not being familiar with the whole allegiance to a foreign country being a classic antisemitic canard of dual loyalty. I'm familiar with it regarding Catholics and that it was a concern about Kennedy back when he was running for president in 1960, but had never heard this about Jewish people. Other than Israel since 1948, I wouldn't even be able guess which other nation a Jewish person would be accused of being loyal to. Does it go back far enough that the reference is to the ancient Kingdom of David?

BigT 03-05-2019 08:36 AM

What you leave out in calling Israel a "foreign power" is that they are an ally of the United States, not an enemy. "Foreign power" invokes the idea of a country working against US interests. But, if we're allies, we kinda have to try and work within the interests of both countries.

So treating this like a bad thing invokes a historical issue: that of claiming that people of Jewish descent have too much power in our government. She's even specifically referencing monetary power. She's just invoking all of the tropes against Jewish people.

It would be different if her argument was that we shouldn't be allied with Israel. There's no reason to bring up money and other trappings, or to imply Israel is a "foreign power" working against our interests, or that people of a Jewish decent have an allegiance to that foreign power. There's no reason for her to be touching the antisemitic tropes with 10-foot pole, but she keeps doing it.

And, seeing as the pro-Israel lobbyists are part of the coalition of the Democratic party, it's entirely understandable that the Democratic Party is wanting to do something to distance themselves from this person who is treating them like the enemy. It makes sense to reiterate that, while it's okay to not agree with Israel, it's not okay to be antisemitic. Because this new representative is starting the precedent of antisemitic adjacent rhetoric.

Her ethnicity is only relevant in that it is one that has traditionally been antisemitic. On its own, it means nothing. But, when someone keeps on invoking antisemitic tropes, one starts to wonder if it's because of her culture. At the very least, it seems to have not prepared her for the acceptable and unacceptable ways to voice disapproval with the US allyship with Israel--the way that doesn't come off as antisemitic.

asahi 03-05-2019 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21520056)
By my reading and understanding, Omar has mixed some entirely reasonable criticism of Israeli govrenment policies and some US office-holders unquestioning support for these policies with some unfortunate anti-semitic tropes (like the "all about the Benjamins" and "allegiance to a foreign power" stuff). I think it's reasonable to criticize her for utilizing these anti-semitic tropes, even if it's unintentional.

I'm hopeful that she'll learn how to make these reasonable criticisms against Israeli policy, and the unquestioning support of that policy by some US politicians, while avoiding those anti-semitic tropes.

I don't think "all about the Benjamins" is necessarily an anti-semitic trope, though - at least not in the context of what she said. She didn't necessarily single out Jews; she was responding to a comment made by Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, who criticized US political leaders - Jewish or not - for their positions on Israel and on free speech rights, to which she responded "It's all about the Benjamins." By that she presumably meant that US politicians who support Israel do so because they get financial incentives to do so - but that's true of politicians who support other kinds of political interests. It's just woven into the mind of everyone that any remark like hers that is critical of Israel is inherently anti-Jewish, which actually speaks to how successful pro-Zionist groups have been in getting post-WWII guilt-laden Americans in conflating Israel and Judaism.

As I've said in other threads, though: she has to understand she is the last person who can say such a thing. Not just because she's a Muslim but because she's a foreign-born Muslim, and born in a country with a history of anti-US sentiment. It's not fair - she should theoretically have the same right to express herself as the rest of us, particularly given her commitment to public service. But sometimes optics matter, and this is one of those times. She can still criticize Israel but using Twitter to do it isn't the right approach, IMO

ElvisL1ves 03-05-2019 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 21520068)
the acceptable and unacceptable ways to voice disapproval with the US allyship with Israel--the way that doesn't come off as antisemitic.

What do you think are the acceptable ones? :dubious:

Alessan 03-05-2019 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue (Post 21520064)
Fair points. I should have been more precise by specifying Jewish Americans rather than Israeli-Americans. I admit to not being familiar with the whole allegiance to a foreign country being a classic antisemitic canard of dual loyalty. I'm familiar with it regarding Catholics and that it was a concern about Kennedy back when he was running for president in 1960, but had never heard this about Jewish people. Other than Israel since 1948, I wouldn't even be able guess which other nation a Jewish person would be accused of being loyal to.

Really, it's not so much a matter of allegiance to foreign countries as it is lack of allegiance to their own countries. "Dual loyalty" is another way of saying "not fully loyal". Jews have always been accused of being loyal to themselves only, as traitors hiding among loyal patriots, ready to stab their country in the back in the name of "international Jewry". It's why Jews weren't allowed full citizenship anywhere in Europe until the 19th Century.

FlikTheBlue 03-05-2019 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21520070)
I don't think "all about the Benjamins" is necessarily an anti-semitic trope, though - at least not in the context of what she said. She didn't necessarily single out Jews; she was responding to a comment made by Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, who criticized US political leaders - Jewish or not - for their positions on Israel and on free speech rights, to which she responded "It's all about the Benjamins." By that she presumably meant that US politicians who support Israel do so because they get financial incentives to do so - but that's true of politicians who support other kinds of political interests. It's just woven into the mind of everyone that any remark like hers that is critical of Israel is inherently anti-Jewish, which actually speaks to how successful pro-Zionist groups have been in getting post-WWII guilt-laden Americans in conflating Israel and Judaism.

As I've said in other threads, though: she has to understand she is the last person who can say such a thing. Not just because she's a Muslim but because she's a foreign-born Muslim, and born in a country with a history of anti-US sentiment. It's not fair - she should theoretically have the same right to express herself as the rest of us, particularly given her commitment to public service. But sometimes optics matter, and this is one of those times. She can still criticize Israel but using Twitter to do it isn't the right approach, IMO

I thought the all about the Benjamins was meant to be more of a double entendre rather than specifically anti-Semitic, the obvious one being Franklin with the other being Netanyahu.

iiandyiiii 03-05-2019 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21520070)
I don't think "all about the Benjamins" is necessarily an anti-semitic trope, though - at least not in the context of what she said. She didn't necessarily single out Jews; she was responding to a comment made by Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, who criticized US political leaders - Jewish or not - for their positions on Israel and on free speech rights, to which she responded "It's all about the Benjamins." By that she presumably meant that US politicians who support Israel do so because they get financial incentives to do so - but that's true of politicians who support other kinds of political interests. It's just woven into the mind of everyone that any remark like hers that is critical of Israel is inherently anti-Jewish, which actually speaks to how successful pro-Zionist groups have been in getting post-WWII guilt-laden Americans in conflating Israel and Judaism.

As I've said in other threads, though: she has to understand she is the last person who can say such a thing. Not just because she's a Muslim but because she's a foreign-born Muslim, and born in a country with a history of anti-US sentiment. It's not fair - she should theoretically have the same right to express herself as the rest of us, particularly given her commitment to public service. But sometimes optics matter, and this is one of those times. She can still criticize Israel but using Twitter to do it isn't the right approach, IMO

She probably wasn't intending to utilize the trope of a Jewish conspiracy controlling money and using it to manipulate people, but just as there are words, references, and allusions that one should avoid using when criticizing a black person, the same goes for criticing a Jewish person (or Jewish organization), IMO. That doesn't mean that all the criticism against her is reasonable -- much or most of it is not. Especially those that criticized her for daring to question the US relationship and support for Israel. It's entirely reasonable to question our relationship with and support for Israel; it's not reasonable to utilize anti-semitic tropes (intentionally or not) when doing so.

ElvisL1ves 03-05-2019 09:16 AM

Please, people. "All About The Benjamins" has been standard slang at least since Puff Daddy's 1997 single, and of course refers to Franklin's portrait on the $100 bill. Even Weird Al did a version. To conclude the use of the term is antisemitic, you have to want to conclude it.

Ravenman 03-05-2019 09:16 AM

First of all, before declaring Rep. Omar innocent of all charges -- let's remember that she issued what I viewed as a sincere apology for her comments, IIRC the "all about the Benjamins." (I actually believe her apology was sincere, as opposed to Steve King's re: white nationalism.) So to assert that she did nothing wrong, when she quite specifically said she caused offense in a way that she regrets, is a non-starter.

Second, I will admit that this is conjecture, but based on the way she has talked about Israel, I get the feeling that she just doesn't know a whole lot about the subject of U.S.-Israeli relations. For example, her "benjamins" comment implies that AIPAC is giving large campaign contributions to politicians. The fact is that AIPAC does not. AIPAC spends tons on lobbying, which includes things like mobilizing their membership, big annual conventions in DC, organizing trips for lawmakers to Israel, and so on.

Further, it sounds like her perception of U.S.-Israeli relations could be shaped substantially by her family and community -- which I think isn't a stretch to say has a substantive objection to Israeli policies in general. This probably contributes to her admitted ignorance of harmful antisemitic tropes. So, it sounds to me like she has heard a lot of one side of the story, but very little of the other side. Which kind of makes a neat parallel to the lobbying efforts of AIPAC: they talk a lot about one side of the story, so lawmakers hear that side a lot; but the Palestinian side of things does not get a lot of currency. I think it's a problem if people are only hearing one side of story, period, no matter what the issue is.

I'm not exactly clear on what the resolution does, but I think its absolutely clear that Rep. Omar has definitely used antisemitic tropes in discussing U.S.-Israeli relations. I would generally say that I'm inclined to say that she has done so without understanding that her words could be taken as so offensive. Perhaps a rough equivalent may be the octogenarian who freely uses the word "Chinaman," because that's the term he's always used without meaning offense, or realizing how offensive it is to everyone else.

But why does this issue have such legs? Probably not because her comments are construed as an attack on our ally Israel, but because they are an attack on the integrity of her fellow lawmakers. She is effectively calling them people who are willing to change positions for campaign contributions and people whose patriotism is questionable and out to sale for the highest bidder. I can see how her fellow politicians would take umbrage.

iiandyiiii 03-05-2019 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21520122)
Please, people. "All About The Benjamins" has been standard slang at least since Puff Daddy's 1997 single, and of course refers to Franklin's portrait on the $100 bill. Even Weird Al did a version. To conclude the use of the term is antisemitic, you have to want to conclude it.

The term isn't anti-semitic in a vacuum. When used flippantly about a Jewish organization, it's reasonable to criticize it. Not because of something inherent about the phrase, but because of the anti-semitic trope about Jewish control of money and usage of money to manipulate others. It'd be no different if she had used the phrase "it's all about the money".

EDIT: I don't think it was a big deal -- she gave a good apology for it. Reasonable to criticize her for it and reasonable for her to apologize. A little thing.

senoy 03-05-2019 09:46 AM

I think that it's reasonable to assume that she's anti-Semitic. She traffics in anti-Semitic stereotypes that are no different than the anti-immigrant and anti-racial minority tropes coming from the right. She apologizes for her 'benjamins' quote and then immediately within days in a completely tone deaf way brings up the 'divided loyalties trope' while saying that what she said the first time shouldn't really be considered anti-Semitic anyway. It's obvious that she's pretty bathed in anti-Semitic thought and at this point doesn't even realize that she's being anti-Semitic since in the middle of her apology she digs a deeper hole.

FlikTheBlue 03-05-2019 10:03 AM

ISTM that there are two separate but related issues. One is that yes, Rep. Omar has used language that is anti-Semitic. The other is that she has criticized the US - Israeli relationship. What prompted my post is that it seems to me that her critics are attacking her for the first issue and then using that attack to try to shut down debate on the second issue. It's the latter that Rep. Omar is fighting back about, and I agree that even if one critic of that relationship (herself) has used anti-Semitic language, that doesn't mean that US - Israeli relations should not be criticized or debated.

Velocity 03-05-2019 10:19 AM

What Elvis1Lives said. Some people use "anti-Semitism" as a way of shutting down valid criticism of Israel, as if criticizing Israel and hating on Jews are the same thing.

Ravenman 03-05-2019 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21520122)
Please, people. "All About The Benjamins" has been standard slang at least since Puff Daddy's 1997 single, and of course refers to Franklin's portrait on the $100 bill. Even Weird Al did a version. To conclude the use of the term is antisemitic, you have to want to conclude it.

Which has literally fuck-all to do with anything. It's not the words that are antisemitic, it is the context. For example, if you tell your five year old kid, "You probably like watermelon, don't you?" there's nothing offensive with those words. If you say the same exact thing to an African-American, of COURSE it is offensive!

I contend that you want to conclude that Rep. Omar did nothing wrong.

ElvisL1ves 03-05-2019 10:37 AM

It makes no difference to declare the context off-limits instead of the words. It's an avoidance tactic either way.

iiandyiiii 03-05-2019 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue (Post 21520221)
ISTM that there are two separate but related issues. One is that yes, Rep. Omar has used language that is anti-Semitic. The other is that she has criticized the US - Israeli relationship. What prompted my post is that it seems to me that her critics are attacking her for the first issue and then using that attack to try to shut down debate on the second issue. It's the latter that Rep. Omar is fighting back about, and I agree that even if one critic of that relationship (herself) has used anti-Semitic language, that doesn't mean that US - Israeli relations should not be criticized or debated.

This is mostly in line with my thinking.

Royal Nonesutch 03-05-2019 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21520292)
For example, if you tell your five year old kid, "You probably like watermelon, don't you?" there's nothing offensive with those words. If you say the same exact thing to an African-American, of COURSE it is offensive!

What if your five year old kid is African-American?

Is it offensive then?

ITR champion 03-05-2019 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue (Post 21520064)
Fair points. I should have been more precise by specifying Jewish Americans rather than Israeli-Americans. I admit to not being familiar with the whole allegiance to a foreign country being a classic antisemitic canard of dual loyalty. I'm familiar with it regarding Catholics and that it was a concern about Kennedy back when he was running for president in 1960, but had never heard this about Jewish people. Other than Israel since 1948, I wouldn't even be able guess which other nation a Jewish person would be accused of being loyal to. Does it go back far enough that the reference is to the ancient Kingdom of David?

It definitely is an old, anti-semitic stereotype. This column on anti-semitism by Mark Steyn begins by mentioning an 18th century work of fiction set in a fictional kingdom, but to get the plot in motion, the author described laws that limited Jewish rights of property ownership. Such laws did really exist in many countries and were often justified on the grounds that it was just known that Jews could not be real citizens of any country because of their divided loyalty.

I would recommend reading Steyn's whole column, which was written after the Pttisburg massacre last fall, before the current kerfuffle with Ilhan Omar but certainly seems relevant to this thread. Since Jews began gathering in Israel in the 19th century, even before the official founding, it has been a nation of immigrants and refugees. Many were fleeing persecution and had no other place to go. So today we look around a see certain public figures like Omar or Jeremy Corbyn with a compulsive need to trash Israel but no similar need to go after real human rights abusers like China or Saudi Arabia, and no explanation ever given for that.

ElvisL1ves 03-05-2019 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITR champion (Post 21520646)
So today we look around a see certain public figures like Omar or Jeremy Corbyn with a compulsive need to trash Israel

Wouldn't it be more helpful to address what they're saying instead of declaring it out of bounds, with or without the pop psychoanalysis?

enalzi 03-05-2019 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITR champion (Post 21520646)
So today we look around a see certain public figures like Omar or Jeremy Corbyn with a compulsive need to trash Israel but no similar need to go after real human rights abusers like China or Saudi Arabia, and no explanation ever given for that.

This took me literally two seconds to Google:

"The Saudi government might have been strategic at covering up the daily atrocities carried out against minorities, women, activists and even the #YemenGenocide, but the murder of #JamaKhashoggi should be the last evil act they are allowed to commit. #BDSSaudi #murderedjournalist" - Ilhan Omar

WillFarnaby 03-05-2019 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21520122)
Please, people. "All About The Benjamins" has been standard slang at least since Puff Daddy's 1997 single, and of course refers to Franklin's portrait on the $100 bill. Even Weird Al did a version. To conclude the use of the term is antisemitic, you have to want to conclude it.

Um you realize Jadakiss says “You should do what we do//Stack chips like Hebrews// don’t let the melody intrigue you// we only here for that green paper with the eagle” on that song.

Of course “Hebrew” was edited out not because of a conspiracy at all.

Left Hand of Dorkness 03-05-2019 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enalzi (Post 21520712)
This took me literally two seconds to Google:

"The Saudi government might have been strategic at covering up the daily atrocities carried out against minorities, women, activists and even the #YemenGenocide, but the murder of #JamaKhashoggi should be the last evil act they are allowed to commit. #BDSSaudi #murderedjournalist" - Ilhan Omar

Okay, but Jeremy Corbyn stays silent on China, right?
Quote:

Jeremy Corbyn will attempt to challenge the Chinese on their human rights record when he attends a state banquet to be held by the Queen for the country’s president, Xi Jinping, next week.
Okay, but he's never said anything about Saudi Arabia, right?
Quote:

Since becoming Labour leader, Corbyn has taken a strong stance on the raising of human rights abuses with other states, and successfully pressed David Cameron to drop a prisons deal with Saudi Arabia.
In all fairness, "Jeremy Corbyn China Human Rights" took me at least five seconds to Google.

Ravenman 03-05-2019 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21520302)
It makes no difference to declare the context off-limits instead of the words. It's an avoidance tactic either way.

This is patently silly, and offensive.

ElvisL1ves 03-05-2019 02:14 PM

And that's another avoidance tactic. :rolleyes:

Shodan 03-05-2019 02:18 PM

I don't think it was anti-Semitic. If Omar's criticisms are valid, then they are valid even if other people are making the same criticisms for bigoted reasons. I don't think they are valid, but that is not currently the question.

I don't think it was wrong to accuse Jonathan Pollard of divided loyalties, because other people have accused other people of having divided loyalties. Some people do have divided loyalties, others don't - one needs to figure it out in each case, on its own, and not just rule it out ab initio.

Regards,
Shodan

DrDeth 03-05-2019 02:31 PM

She crossed the line at least once in using the term “allegiance to a foreign country.". The "All About The Benjamins" was a maybe, but taken in context, it also appears anti-semitic.

BobLibDem 03-05-2019 02:50 PM

Would it have been anti-Semitic if "all about the Benjamins" had been in reference to Congressmen taking cash from the NRA? If not, then why is pointing out the financial allegiance to the Israeli lobby offensive when pointing out the financial allegiance to other lobbies is not?

My two cents: if this had been a WASP making these comments, nobody would have gotten the vapors over it. But some want to use this to drum up anti-Muslim bigotry.

asahi 03-05-2019 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21520102)
She probably wasn't intending to utilize the trope of a Jewish conspiracy controlling money and using it to manipulate people, but just as there are words, references, and allusions that one should avoid using when criticizing a black person, the same goes for criticing a Jewish person (or Jewish organization), IMO. That doesn't mean that all the criticism against her is reasonable -- much or most of it is not. Especially those that criticized her for daring to question the US relationship and support for Israel. It's entirely reasonable to question our relationship with and support for Israel; it's not reasonable to utilize anti-semitic tropes (intentionally or not) when doing so.

I don't see how you can complain about the pro-Israeli lobby without bringing money into it. For the record and just so we're clear, Israel's not the only country that has interests, or that uses money to try to corrupt the American political system to further their interests. Obviously Russia and China do the same thing. Saudi Arabia does it too, obviously. A lot of countries do. She's not saying "Jews control the banks and the media" -- that's a trope. But saying that American politicians are easily influenced by Israeli money is not the same thing. It's as though some people are saying any comment that criticizes the pro-Israeli lobby's attempts to influence our system monetarily (among other things) is akin to making antisemitic remarks, and I just don't buy that and I think we're gullible as hell if we establish that as a precedent.

I personally think Omar probably does have strong biases against Israel, but that doesn't mean she can't make that kind of remark. I would nevertheless agree, however, that her own ethnicity makes it difficult, if not impossible, for her to make such remarks without inviting suspicion, which is why she should probably stay away from foreign policy and just focus on how Trump sucks at presidentin'. Even though I don't like the precedent it establishes in terms of criticism of Israel, I can't say I'm entirely against the idea of the Democratic party reining her in and taking away her microphone.

asahi 03-05-2019 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem (Post 21520859)
Would it have been anti-Semitic if "all about the Benjamins" had been in reference to Congressmen taking cash from the NRA? If not, then why is pointing out the financial allegiance to the Israeli lobby offensive when pointing out the financial allegiance to other lobbies is not?

My two cents: if this had been a WASP making these comments, nobody would have gotten the vapors over it. But some want to use this to drum up anti-Muslim bigotry.

Oh I think there would still be controversy and calls for apologies, but with Omar, there's a much deeper level of suspicion to overcome, and fair or not, she needs to come to that realization - fast.

iiandyiiii 03-05-2019 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21520874)
I don't see how you can complain about the pro-Israeli lobby without bringing money into it. For the record and just so we're clear, Israel's not the only country that has interests, or that uses money to try to corrupt the American political system to further their interests. Obviously Russia and China do the same thing. Saudi Arabia does it too, obviously. A lot of countries do. She's not saying "Jews control the banks and the media" -- that's a trope. But saying that American politicians are easily influenced by Israeli money is not the same thing. It's as though some people are saying any comment that criticizes the pro-Israeli lobby's attempts to influence our system monetarily (among other things) is akin to making antisemitic remarks, and I just don't buy that and I think we're gullible as hell if we establish that as a precedent.

If she made it a broad criticism on lobbying, then I don't think it would be problematic at all. But by singling out Israel, I think she's falling into that trap.

And apparently she agreed, because she made what appears to me to be a genuine and solid apology.

Ravenman 03-05-2019 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem (Post 21520859)
Would it have been anti-Semitic if "all about the Benjamins" had been in reference to Congressmen taking cash from the NRA? If not, then why is pointing out the financial allegiance to the Israeli lobby offensive when pointing out the financial allegiance to other lobbies is not?

My two cents: if this had been a WASP making these comments, nobody would have gotten the vapors over it. But some want to use this to drum up anti-Muslim bigotry.

How about the fact that AIPAC isn’t giving dollars to candidates, unlike the NRA, so she’s factually wrong?

And do you assert that greedy Jews using money to manipulate people just isn’t a theme that has been used for hundreds of years to play on racist sentiments?

ElvisL1ves 03-05-2019 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21520880)
with Omar, there's a much deeper level of suspicion to overcome

Hmm, yeah, why do you think that is?

Quote:

and fair or not, she needs to come to that realization - fast.
Does anyone else have any realizing to do?

ElvisL1ves 03-05-2019 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21520720)
Um you realize Jadakiss says “You should do what we do//Stack chips like Hebrews// don’t let the melody intrigue you// we only here for that green paper with the eagle” on that song.

(A) Diddy had the hit, and (B) It's about wanting to get money. If you had any awareness at the time of Benjamin meaning Netanyahu instead of Franklin, do please enlighten us.

Quote:

Of course “Hebrew” was edited out not because of a conspiracy at all.
Please tell us more about this conspiracy idea.

ElvisL1ves 03-05-2019 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21520893)
How about the fact that AIPAC isn’t giving dollars to candidates, unlike the NRA, so she’s factually wrong?

Is it really that simple?
Quote:

Among the best-known critical works about AIPAC is The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and Harvard University Kennedy School of Government professor Stephen Walt. In the working paper and resulting book, they accuse AIPAC of being "the most powerful and best known" component of a larger pro-Israel lobby that distorts American foreign policy. They write:

Quote:

AIPAC's success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it. ... AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the myriad pro-Israel PACs. Those seen as hostile to Israel, on the other hand, can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to their political opponents.
Bolding added.
Quote:

And do you assert that greedy Jews using money to manipulate people just isn’t a theme that has been used for hundreds of years to play on racist sentiments?
Do you assert that any concerns about Likud's political operations in the US are racist, and so should be dismissed and denounced? It looks that way.

Jackmannii 03-05-2019 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT
the acceptable and unacceptable ways to voice disapproval with the US allyship with Israel--the way that doesn't come off as antisemitic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21520073)
What do you think are the acceptable ones? :dubious:

A sample:

Acceptable (and a proposal I've made here): There should be a drastic curtailment of military aid to Israel by the U.S. unless Israel agrees to an indefinite halt to any settlement construction or building of additional housing units in territories likely to be negotiated as part of a Palestinian state, since such construction is regarded as a significant obstacle to peace.

Unacceptable: There should be a drastic curtailment of military aid to Israel by the U.S. unless Israel agrees to an indefinite halt to any settlement construction or building of additional housing units in territories likely to be negotiated as part of a Palestinian state, since such construction is regarded as a significant obstacle to peace. The reason such a measure hasn't been taken is because of U.S. citizens who owe allegiance to Israel as well as politicians bought by AIPAC and Israeli cash who won't allow it.

See? Not so hard.

Omar has crossed the line more than once. She gets cut no slack by me.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan
I don't think it was wrong to accuse Jonathan Pollard of divided loyalties

That slimy little traitor sold out his country for money and I suspect that if Israel had turned him down he would've happily sold secrets to the Russians.* In his case, it was all about the Benjamins.

*it came out that Pollard had passed classified information to South Africa and attempted to sell it to Pakistan.

snoe 03-05-2019 03:24 PM

For context, here's the context for what she said about "allegiance to a foreign country:"
Quote:

So for me, I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is ok for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country. And I want to ask, why is it ok for me to talk about the influence of the NRA, of fossil fuel industries, or Big Pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobby that is influencing policy? [applause] And I want to ask the question, why is it ok for you to push, for you to be… there are so many people… I mean most of us are new, but many members of Congress have been there forever. Some of them have been there before we were born. So I know many of them were fighting for people to be free, for people to live in dignity in South Africa. I know many of them fight for people around the world to have dignity to have self-determination. So I know, I know that they care about these things.
But now that you have two Muslims that are saying “here is a group of people that we want to make sure that they have the dignity that you want everyone else to have!” …we get to be called names, we get to be labeled as hateful. No, we know what hate looks like. We experience it every single day.
It seems to me that
1) she's questioning why AIPAC "can't" be criticized when other lobbies can (this seems aimed at her fellow Democrats, given the lobbies she cites) and
2) drawing a contrast between how her (and Tlaib's) pro-Palestinian advocacy is treated versus how pro-Israel -- and other pro-human-rights -- advocacy is treated (this seems like a bipartisan critique).
All that said: I get why people sincerely dislike the way she's talked about this, and the pragmatic thing would be to find another way to talk about it, since that sincere dislike gets coopted by people looking for any reason to tar her (and her party) as anti-Semitic. You live with the consequences of what you say, and the fact that many of your critics are bigoted/acting in bad faith/whatever doesn't mean they're all that way.

ElvisL1ves 03-05-2019 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoe (Post 21520928)
I get why people sincerely dislike the way she's talked about this, and the pragmatic thing would be to find another way to talk about it, since that sincere dislike gets coopted by people looking for any reason to tar her (and her party) as anti-Semitic.

That's going to happen anyway. Might as well forge ahead.

Quote:

You live with the consequences of what you say, and the fact that many of your critics are bigoted/acting in bad faith/whatever doesn't mean they're all that way.
Maybe not. But the ones who aren't are not very prominent.

DrDeth 03-05-2019 03:39 PM

If this was purely political, and not anti-semitic, we'd expect to find some muslim lawmaker supporting Israel and being anti-terrorist Palestine.

Is there such a thing? I have heard some Jewish politicians criticizing Israel , so that does happen. *

Omar supports "BDS": ie boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel.

Michigan Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib questioned the loyalty of lawmakers who were pushing a bill that would protect states that penalize Israel boycotters.

*
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.pre...arty-1.6960212
WASHINGTON - Two leading Jewish American members of Congress strongly criticized on Friday the political deal between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the far-right Otzma Yehudit party.

The condemnations from Capitol Hill came after three straight days of criticism from within the organized Jewish community, including a rare statement on the subject issued on Friday by AIPAC, the powerful lobby group supporting the Israeli government.

Rick Kitchen 03-05-2019 03:46 PM

The Nation article, written by Phyllis Bennis, who was there when Representative Omar made her comments, and who identifies as Jewish:
https://www.thenation.com/article/il...c-party-aipac/

Left Hand of Dorkness 03-05-2019 04:02 PM

Paul Waldman writes in the Washington Post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waldman
I’m going to try to bring some clarity to this issue, understanding how difficult it can be whenever we discuss anything that touches on Israel.

To be clear, I do this as someone who was raised in an intensely Zionist family with a long history of devotion and sacrifice for Israel, but who also — like many American Jews — has become increasingly dismayed not only by developments in Israel but by how we talk about it here in the United States.
...
Now, back to Omar. Here’s the truth: The whole purpose of the Democrats’ resolution is to enforce dual loyalty not among Jews, but among members of Congress, to make sure that criticism of Israel is punished in the most visible way possible. This, of course, includes Omar. As it happens, this punishment of criticism of Israel is exactly what the freshman congresswoman was complaining about, and has on multiple occasions. The fact that no one seems to acknowledge that this is her complaint shows how spectacularly disingenuous Omar’s critics are being.

You may have noticed that almost no one uses “dual loyalty” as a way of questioning whether Jews are loyal to the United States anymore. Why has it almost disappeared as an anti-Semitic slur? Because, over the last three decades, support for Israel has become increasingly associated with conservative evangelicals and the Republican Party.
...
In the United States today, a “supporter of Israel” is much more likely to be an evangelical Christian Republican than a Jew.
...
Dual loyalty is precisely what AIPAC demands, and what it gets. Again, it makes this demand not of Jews, but of every member of Congress, and even of politicians at the state level whom you wouldn’t think would be conducting foreign policy. And it is working.
...
When Gov. Greg Abbott (R) — also not a Jew — proclaims that “Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies,” he’s expressing his dual loyalty.

The whole article is worth reading, but I think the point he raises--that American Jews are less likely to support Israel's current government than are American Evangelical Christians, and that the charge of "dual loyalty" is more accurately (and in this case is) directed at the religious right than at Jews--is a pretty significant point.

MortSahlFan 03-05-2019 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21520021)
The answer is obvious: she's a foreign-born, brown-skinned woman who wears a hijab.

Yes.. One group you can openly criticize (even the President), and then you have one group NO ONE can criticize.

Most Semites are Arab, but the term is nothing but a gimmick for the brainwashed sheep.

ElvisL1ves 03-05-2019 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackmannii (Post 21520927)
Unacceptable: There should be a drastic curtailment of military aid to Israel by the U.S. unless Israel agrees to an indefinite halt to any settlement construction or building of additional housing units in territories likely to be negotiated as part of a Palestinian state, since such construction is regarded as a significant obstacle to peace. The reason such a measure hasn't been taken is because of U.S. citizens who owe allegiance to Israel as well as politicians bought by AIPAC and Israeli cash who won't allow it.

See? Not so hard.

Not to you, maybe. Can you tell us why it's "acceptable" to bring up a problem, while the possible reasons for it are off limits? You don't solve problems that way. Or, how about telling us just what constitutes off limits for you, and how those limits came to be defined?

DrDeth 03-05-2019 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackmannii (Post 21520927)

Acceptable (and a proposal I've made here): There should be a drastic curtailment of military aid to Israel by the U.S. unless Israel agrees to an indefinite halt to any settlement construction or building of additional housing units in territories likely to be negotiated as part of a Palestinian state, since such construction is regarded as a significant obstacle to peace....

Many times, Israel has offered to do this if Palestine would stop with terrorist attacks. Until and when Palestine stops with the state sanctioned terrorism, I feel Israel can do anything they want.

enalzi 03-05-2019 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21520956)
If this was purely political, and not anti-semitic, we'd expect to find some muslim lawmaker supporting Israel and being anti-terrorist Palestine.

You do know there's only one other Muslim congressperson right? Are you trying to say that because 2 of 3 Muslims in congress Criticizing Israel, that it must be because of antisemitism?

Left Hand of Dorkness 03-05-2019 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackmannii (Post 21520927)
Unacceptable: There should be a drastic curtailment of military aid to Israel by the U.S. unless Israel agrees to an indefinite halt to any settlement construction or building of additional housing units in territories likely to be negotiated as part of a Palestinian state, since such construction is regarded as a significant obstacle to peace. The reason such a measure hasn't been taken is because of U.S. citizens who owe allegiance to Israel as well as politicians bought by AIPAC and Israeli cash who won't allow it.

How about this, changing the parts I underlined:


There should be a drastic curtailment of military aid to Israel by the U.S. unless Israel agrees to an indefinite halt to any settlement construction or building of additional housing units in territories likely to be negotiated as part of a Palestinian state, since such construction is regarded as a significant obstacle to peace. The reason such a measure hasn't been taken is because of U.S. citizens who support Israel because of their evangelical faith, as well as politicians unduly influenced by AIPAC and its conservative followers, who won't allow such curtailment.

As Waldman points out, AIPAC has very strong support among US conservative Christians, for complicated reasons.

Shodan 03-05-2019 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackmannii (Post 21520927)
That slimy little traitor sold out his country for money and I suspect that if Israel had turned him down he would've happily sold secrets to the Russians.* In his case, it was all about the Benjamins.

*it came out that Pollard had passed classified information to South Africa and attempted to sell it to Pakistan.

My point is that it is OK IMO to say "it's all about the Benjamins" in Pollard's case even though he's Jewish. A Jewish guy who sells out his country for money is acting out a Jewish stereotype. But selling out your country is still worthy of criticism.

A criticism is valid if it's true, even if others make it falsely.

Omar's criticism is not valid IMO, but it is not anti-Semitic for that reason.

Regards,
Shodan

iiandyiiii 03-05-2019 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21521022)
Many times, Israel has offered to do this if Palestine would stop with terrorist attacks. Until and when Palestine stops with the state sanctioned terrorism, I feel Israel can do anything they want.

Three cheers for collective blame!

NAF1138 03-05-2019 05:53 PM

Omar has made valid criticism of Israel, but she is also an anti semite. She doesn't think she is, she doesn't want to be, but she is victim of and a perpetuater of systemic anti semitism that is pervasive in our society. But that it's even a question if this is antisemitism is surprising to me, because it really super obviously is.

1) on its face claiming that Jews are controlling American politicians with their money and buying favor is blatantly anti semetic. I see no claims that it's all about the Benjamins when discussing trade deals with China or Saudi Arabia or any other ally or trade partner that has a history of human rights abuses. Israel is not in the right in term of human rights at the moment, but that doesn't make this a bizarre double standard and it doesn't make it not playing into old terrible tropes.

2) I would posit that it's equally anti semetic to say that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to America. Flip it around. If anyone claimed that Omar was displaying dual loyalty to ANY Islamic group let alone another nation, there would be actual protests in the streets. But she's just claiming that American Jews aren't really Americans unless they stop supporting Israel, then they are the good kind of Jew and its okay.

Does she realize that this is what her words mean? I genuinely don't think she does. I think we have already seen evidence that she had begun to realize that she has more baked in prejudice than she though she had in the aftermath of the All about the Benjamins comment, but then the right pounced and she made the dual loyalty comment and now she's in a defensive posture and poare crying Islamophobia rather than takeing a breath and recognizing that a person can be right and Antisemitic at the same time. That these biases and prejudices are, just like all prejudices, largely systemic and I unexamined in by the holder of the prejudice. Holding these views doesn't make her a bad person, how she responds now that she has been shown the error of her ways will tell us that.

WillFarnaby 03-05-2019 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21520904)
(A) Diddy had the hit, and (B) It's about wanting to get money. If you had any awareness at the time of Benjamin meaning Netanyahu instead of Franklin, do please enlighten us.

No. The Lox had the hit. That’s why Puff jacked it.

Quote:

Please tell us more about this conspiracy idea.
A joke.

ITR champion 03-05-2019 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21520666)
Wouldn't it be more helpful to address what they're saying instead of declaring it out of bounds, with or without the pop psychoanalysis?

Arguments about wicked Jews pulling the strings of world politics with their money, or having dual loyalty, are generally not worth refuting, for the same reason as anti-vaccine conspiracies or holocaust denial. People who push those arguments won't listen to reason and even engaging with it makes you feel slightly dirty.

But in any case, it's already been pointed out that AIPAC does not actually give much in the way of campaign donations. There is no evidence that anyone in Congress has switched their position to pro-Israel based on a financial donation, or that anybody on this issue is in any way lacking loyalty to the US because of their Jewishness. None. So what's to be addressed?

Let's look at it this way. She implied that the only reason anyone would support Israel is because of the money. Well, I know much better reasons for supporting Israel. (1) Because Israel is a nation founded as a homeland for refugees and immigrants driven from other countries by violence and prejudice. (2) Because Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has maintained a robust democracy for the past 70 years, and has defended western values such as women's rights and freedom of religion. (3) Because Israel has persevered through almost constant warfare and terrorism from some of its neighbors. (4) Because throughout all that warfare, Israel tries as hard as possible to minimize civilian casualties, while Hamas and friends instead aim for mass slaughter of any Jews that they can kill.

Heck, what reason is there why any civilized person wouldn't want Israel to prevail in its conflict against Islamic terrorist groups?

Kimstu 03-05-2019 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITR champion (Post 21521265)
Heck, what reason is there why any civilized person wouldn't want Israel to prevail in its conflict against Islamic terrorist groups?

If by "prevail" you mean "continue taking over the occupied territories as Jewish-controlled municipal and residential areas while squeezing out the millions of indigenous non-Jewish residents who are kept under Israeli domination on Israeli-controlled land while being denied the rights of Israeli citizens", I can think of several reasons why a civilized person would object to that outcome.

Left Hand of Dorkness 03-05-2019 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITR champion (Post 21521265)
But in any case, it's already been pointed out that AIPAC does not actually give much in the way of campaign donations. There is no evidence that anyone in Congress has switched their position to pro-Israel based on a financial donation, or that anybody on this issue is in any way lacking loyalty to the US because of their Jewishness. None. So what's to be addressed?

It's also been pointed out that AIPAC coordinates PAC donations by drawing attention to politicians friendly to Likud, and by drawing attention to those who oppose Likud. Why are you leaving that out?

It's also been pointed out that the dual loyalty charge is now leveled primarily at conservative evangelical Christans, who say things like, "Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies." Why are you leaving that out?
Quote:

Originally Posted by ITR champion (Post 21521265)
Let's look at it this way. She implied that the only reason anyone would support Israel is because of the money.

I don't see that implication. Where do you see it?

DrDeth 03-05-2019 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enalzi (Post 21521027)
You do know there's only one other Muslim congressperson right? Are you trying to say that because 2 of 3 Muslims in congress Criticizing Israel, that it must be because of antisemitism?

There are three altogether, but there are quite a few state reps.

DrDeth 03-05-2019 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimstu (Post 21521278)
If by "prevail" you mean "continue taking over the occupied territories as Jewish-controlled municipal and residential areas while squeezing out the millions of indigenous non-Jewish residents who are kept under Israeli domination on Israeli-controlled land while being denied the rights of Israeli citizens", I can think of several reasons why a civilized person would object to that outcome.

All Palestine has to do is stop the terrorism, which is against all laws, ethics and morality. However, they have made it a way of life, they appear unable to.

Once they stop, they will get my sympathy. Until then they are the basest sort of criminals, targeting school kids in buses.

It's very simple- stop the terrorism.

iiandyiiii 03-05-2019 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21521426)
All Palestine has to do is stop the terrorism, which is against all laws, ethics and morality. However, they have made it a way of life, they appear unable to.



Once they stop, they will get my sympathy. Until then they are the basest sort of criminals, targeting school kids in buses.



It's very simple- stop the terrorism.

Even more collective blame! Bravo to you for putting that responsibility and blame on every Palestinian man, woman, and child!

asahi 03-05-2019 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21521022)
Many times, Israel has offered to do this if Palestine would stop with terrorist attacks. Until and when Palestine stops with the state sanctioned terrorism, I feel Israel can do anything they want.

It's not "Palestine" attacking Israel -- it's a faction within "Palestine" that is attacking Israel.

What Israel is doing is saying that collective punishment is acceptable because they're God's chosen ones and they're victims of the holocaust. Ironically, the lesson of the post-WWII era (4th Geneva Convention, to be exact) is that the civilized world made a concerted effort to say that collective punishment was against the laws of humanity.

Mind you, I don't believe all Israelis endorse or embrace Netanyahu and Likudism.

asahi 03-05-2019 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21521426)
All Palestine has to do is stop the terrorism, which is against all laws, ethics and morality. However, they have made it a way of life, they appear unable to.

Once they stop, they will get my sympathy. Until then they are the basest sort of criminals, targeting school kids in buses.

It's very simple- stop the terrorism.

Oh God, what imbecilic rubbish!

First of all, there is no Palestine because Israel won't allow for a real Palestinian state to develop. But beyond that is this notion that all citizens of a territory (which it occupies illegally under international law, incidentally) can be punished collectively for the actions of a few rogues.

I know this: you clearly know very little of the history over there -- very little.

DrDeth 03-05-2019 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21521433)
Even more collective blame! Bravo to you for putting that responsibility and blame on every Palestinian man, woman, and child!

Who elected the Terrorist government?

if it was just a few rogue terrorists, that'd be one thing- but it is the actual government, which is quite popular with the people. This is institutionalized terrorism, not just a few randos.

DrDeth 03-05-2019 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21521443)
It's not "Palestine" attacking Israel -- it's a faction within "Palestine" that is attacking Israel.

What Israel is doing is saying that collective punishment is acceptable because they're God's chosen ones and they're victims of the holocaust.

It's a very popular faction, approved by the government.

And bus bombings and random mortar and rocket attacks- are they not collective punishment?

Israel build settlements- Palestine bombs schoolkids and random rocket attacks.

Miller 03-05-2019 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21521453)
Who elected the Terrorist government?

if it was just a few rogue terrorists, that'd be one thing- but it is the actual government, which is quite popular with the people. This is institutionalized terrorism, not just a few randos.

And Israel elected Netanyahu, therefore, it's okay to make sweeping generalizations about Jews, right?

asahi 03-05-2019 09:32 PM

Here's the bottom line. Nothing Omar said was an attack on Jews. Nothing she said was threatening to Jews, whether we're talking about global Jewry or Jews in America. Her comments were completely in the context of the American-Israeli political nexus and nothing more. There's not a single person here who seriously argue otherwise, and there's not a single person reading this who believes that her comments in and of themselves are antisemitic. They simply believe that Omar is antisemitic because of her ethnicity. And this speaks to the degree to which Americans have been brainwashed into believing Israel = Jew, and Jew = Israel. Therefore, criticizing Israeli political influence = criticizing American Jewishness.

Seriously, why do so many Americans give a toss about Israel? I mean I care about England and Germany, like a little, because of my ancestry, but I'm not going to defend English or German attempts to influence American politics. Why does Israel matter? Why is America so concerned with Israel's "right to exist"?

DrDeth 03-05-2019 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miller (Post 21521472)
And Israel elected Netanyahu, therefore, it's okay to make sweeping generalizations about Jews, right?

Not about Jews, but yes about the Government of Israel. I dunno what Netanyahu has to do with the millions of Jews here in the USA, from what I see, he's pretty unpopular here.

Note my comments: "All Palestine has to do..." "if Palestine would stop with terrorist attacks" and "Until and when Palestine stops with the state sanctioned terrorism, ...": I am blaming the state of Palestine, and the people who support it.

I am sure numerous Palestinians dont support the terrorism. But the government does.

asahi 03-05-2019 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21521455)
It's a very popular faction, approved by the government.

And bus bombings and random mortar and rocket attacks- are they not collective punishment?

Israel build settlements- Palestine bombs schoolkids and random rocket attacks.

LOL! I'll respond when you come back with something better than a Sean Hannity level response because you clearly know nothing about the history over there.

"But they've been killing each other for thousands and thousands of years!!!!" BWAHAHA!:rolleyes:

asahi 03-05-2019 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NAF1138 (Post 21521171)
Omar has made valid criticism of Israel, but she is also an anti semite. She doesn't think she is, she doesn't want to be, but she is victim of and a perpetuater of systemic anti semitism that is pervasive in our society. But that it's even a question if this is antisemitism is surprising to me, because it really super obviously is.

1) on its face claiming that Jews are controlling American politicians with their money and buying favor is blatantly anti semetic. I see no claims that it's all about the Benjamins when discussing trade deals with China or Saudi Arabia or any other ally or trade partner that has a history of human rights abuses. Israel is not in the right in term of human rights at the moment, but that doesn't make this a bizarre double standard and it doesn't make it not playing into old terrible tropes.

2) I would posit that it's equally anti semetic to say that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to America. Flip it around. If anyone claimed that Omar was displaying dual loyalty to ANY Islamic group let alone another nation, there would be actual protests in the streets. But she's just claiming that American Jews aren't really Americans unless they stop supporting Israel, then they are the good kind of Jew and its okay.

Does she realize that this is what her words mean? I genuinely don't think she does. I think we have already seen evidence that she had begun to realize that she has more baked in prejudice than she though she had in the aftermath of the All about the Benjamins comment, but then the right pounced and she made the dual loyalty comment and now she's in a defensive posture and poare crying Islamophobia rather than takeing a breath and recognizing that a person can be right and Antisemitic at the same time. That these biases and prejudices are, just like all prejudices, largely systemic and I unexamined in by the holder of the prejudice. Holding these views doesn't make her a bad person, how she responds now that she has been shown the error of her ways will tell us that.

Which is fine because Americans have, like, a lot more baked-in prejudice for Israel and against Palestinians and Muslims period - even though most probably would fail a basic geography quiz.

ITR champion 03-05-2019 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21521356)
It's also been pointed out that AIPAC coordinates PAC donations by drawing attention to politicians friendly to Likud, and by drawing attention to those who oppose Likud. Why are you leaving that out?

It's also been pointed out that the dual loyalty charge is now leveled primarily at conservative evangelical Christans, who say things like, "Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies." Why are you leaving that out?

Uh, because those things are completely irrelevant to the topic.

Quote:

I don't see that implication. Where do you see it?
This has already been covered by others in the thread. Glenn Greenwald had a Twitter thread in which he said "GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy threatens punishment for @IlhanMN and @RashidaTlaib over their criticisms of Israel. It's stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans". Then added things such as, after mentioning that Keith Ellison was the first Muslim elected to Congress, "He was also viciously vilified as an anti-Semite - by the DNC's largest billionaire donor. Perhaps there's a pattern to be seen here?" So in a thread about the topic of Israel, and attacks vs defense of Israel, Greenwald chose to bring up the topic of Jews and their money. Then Omar responded to the first tweet with her "Benjamins" comments, obviously implying that she agreed with the notion that the Jews and their money are what drives support of Israel.

And to note, many Democrats immediately saw the issue and criticized the tweet on those grounds, and she deleted it and issued an apology.

octopus 03-05-2019 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21520039)
It's also fair to note how Netanyahu, and the Israel jingo lobby, have an effective tool to shout down any questioning of his government's actions - the accusation of antisemitism. It shouldn't, but does, need to be pointed out regularly that Jewry, Israel, and Likud are not synonyms.

That’s how weaponized language is supposed to work.

DrDeth 03-05-2019 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21521482)
LOL! I'll respond when you come back with something better than a Sean Hannity level response because you clearly know nothing about the history over there.

"But they've been killing each other for thousands and thousands of years!!!!" BWAHAHA!:rolleyes:

I didnt say that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...uicide_attacks
https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-...red-from-gaza/
Hamas leader ‘not denying’ that West Bank terror attacks were ordered from Gaza
Ismail Haniyeh also says Palestinian men in the West Bank do not need orders to carry out attacks against Israelis; adds that he is ready to meet Abbas.Hamas Politburo chairman Ismail Haniyeh said on Sunday he does not deny that orders to carry out recent deadly terror attacks in the West Bank came from the Gaza Strip.

...“I will also respond to the Zionists who are saying what is happening in the West Bank is based on directives and arrangements from Gaza,” Haniyeh said in the hour-long speech. “This is an accusation we do not deny… because it is a source of pride reigning over all of us.”


https://www.counterextremism.com/threat/hamas
Hamas uses its provision of social services to build support amongst grassroots Palestinians, helping it to win the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections. However, the group’s engagement in politics and welfare has not tempered its commitment to terrorism. Hamas’s preferred methods include suicide bombings, rocket and mortar attacks, shootings, and kidnappings. Hamas as a whole or its armed faction have been labeled terrorist organizations by the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, the European Union, New Zealand, Australia, and Japan..Governance did not moderate Hamas. The group has been responsible for thousands of Qassam rockets fired at Israeli towns,....Hamas reaffirmed its refusal to recognize Israel, as well as its commitments to violence and the creation of a Palestinian state in the entirety of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. ....

Hamas has thus far refused to disarm and its leaders have remained committed to the group’s strategy of so-called armed resistance. Despite the new political document and reconciliation agreement with Fatah, Hamas shows no signs of renouncing its dedication to violence or the creation of an Islamist state.Theme Four: Israel and “armed resistance”
Hamas recognizes the fact that Israel exists, but does not recognize its legitimacy or right to exist. The introduction to the charter quotes Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna as saying “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”* Hamas upholds “armed resistance” as the only method to liberate Palestine. In Article 13 of the charter, Hamas renounces all peace plans or negotiations to resolve the issue of Palestine. Negotiations are a “contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against [Islam]….”
*

Ravenman 03-05-2019 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21520921)

I see on open secrets that pro-Israel PACs combined (including liberal ones) contributed about the same as the air traffic controllers. So yes, I still think your line of argument here is foolish.

Quote:

Do you assert that any concerns about Likud's political operations in the US are racist, and so should be dismissed and denounced? It looks that way.
I don’t know what you’re talking about, but I assume it’s the same drivel that is trying to make me look like an AIPAC/Netanyahu fan. So I consider it to be silly as well, and don’t even know how to respond.

Ravenman 03-05-2019 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21521494)
I didnt say that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...uicide_attacks
https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-...red-from-gaza/
Hamas leader ‘not denying’ that West Bank terror attacks were ordered from Gaza
Ismail Haniyeh also says Palestinian men in the West Bank do not need orders to carry out attacks against Israelis; adds that he is ready to meet Abbas.Hamas Politburo chairman Ismail Haniyeh said on Sunday he does not deny that orders to carry out recent deadly terror attacks in the West Bank came from the Gaza Strip.

...“I will also respond to the Zionists who are saying what is happening in the West Bank is based on directives and arrangements from Gaza,” Haniyeh said in the hour-long speech. “This is an accusation we do not deny… because it is a source of pride reigning over all of us.”


https://www.counterextremism.com/threat/hamas
Hamas uses its provision of social services to build support amongst grassroots Palestinians, helping it to win the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections. However, the group’s engagement in politics and welfare has not tempered its commitment to terrorism. Hamas’s preferred methods include suicide bombings, rocket and mortar attacks, shootings, and kidnappings. Hamas as a whole or its armed faction have been labeled terrorist organizations by the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, the European Union, New Zealand, Australia, and Japan..Governance did not moderate Hamas. The group has been responsible for thousands of Qassam rockets fired at Israeli towns,....Hamas reaffirmed its refusal to recognize Israel, as well as its commitments to violence and the creation of a Palestinian state in the entirety of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. ....

Hamas has thus far refused to disarm and its leaders have remained committed to the group’s strategy of so-called armed resistance. Despite the new political document and reconciliation agreement with Fatah, Hamas shows no signs of renouncing its dedication to violence or the creation of an Islamist state.Theme Four: Israel and “armed resistance”
Hamas recognizes the fact that Israel exists, but does not recognize its legitimacy or right to exist. The introduction to the charter quotes Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna as saying “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”* Hamas upholds “armed resistance” as the only method to liberate Palestine. In Article 13 of the charter, Hamas renounces all peace plans or negotiations to resolve the issue of Palestine. Negotiations are a “contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against [Islam]….”
*

Hamas speaks for all Palestinian interests in the West Bank?

NAF1138 03-05-2019 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21521484)
Which is fine because Americans have, like, a lot more baked-in prejudice for Israel and against Palestinians and Muslims period - even though most probably would fail a basic geography quiz.

Sure. That doesn't mean she isn't an antisemite, maybe only slightly, but still really. Both can be true.

DrDeth 03-05-2019 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21521499)
Hamas speaks for all Palestinian interests in the West Bank?

Hams is the defacto government of Gaza. And vies with Fatah for the West Bank. They openly fight with one another for control.

wiki "Since June 2007, the Fatah-led governments have exercised authority in Ramallah, West Bank, and has been recognized as the official government of the Palestinian Authority; while since Hamas took control in the Gaza Strip, it has exercised de facto control there, ousting Fatah PNA representatives in June 2007."

Admittedly Fatah has recently publicly eschewed terrorism. But they wont condemn Hamas for it.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/ter...cal-legitimacy
The victory of the radical terrorist group Hamas in January elections has cast leaders of the Fatah movement, ironically, as the doves of Palestinian politics.
So, it more Hamas that's the problem. Fatah has matured, somewhat.

DrDeth 03-05-2019 10:02 PM

You know, this has become a hijack. go ahead and start a new thread about Hamas and Terrorism, and the wrongs of the Israeli government.

Back to the Congresswoman.

Left Hand of Dorkness 03-05-2019 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITR champion (Post 21521489)
Uh, because those things are completely irrelevant to the topic.

Uh, no they're not. We're looking at whether a comment that sounds like "divided loyalties" is antisemitic. It's directly on-point if the people it's directed at aren't Jewish.

Meanwhile, your evidence that "she implied that the only reason anyone would support Israel is because of the money" is this:
Quote:

Originally Posted by ITR champion (Post 21521489)
This has already been covered by others in the thread. Glenn Greenwald had a Twitter thread in which he said "GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy threatens punishment for @IlhanMN and @RashidaTlaib over their criticisms of Israel. It's stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans". Then added things such as, after mentioning that Keith Ellison was the first Muslim elected to Congress, "He was also viciously vilified as an anti-Semite - by the DNC's largest billionaire donor. Perhaps there's a pattern to be seen here?" So in a thread about the topic of Israel, and attacks vs defense of Israel, Greenwald chose to bring up the topic of Jews and their money. Then Omar responded to the first tweet with her "Benjamins" comments, obviously implying that she agreed with the notion that the Jews and their money are what drives support of Israel.

The problem is, of course, the word "only." Had you said, "She implied that many people support Israel because of AIPAC's ability to direct political donations," then the evidence you offered would be on point.

This may seem like hairsplitting to you. Me, I tend to think it's important to paraphrase one's cites accurately.

str8cashhomie 03-05-2019 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackmannii (Post 21520927)
Acceptable (and a proposal I've made here): There should be a drastic curtailment of military aid to Israel by the U.S. unless Israel agrees to an indefinite halt to any settlement construction or building of additional housing units in territories likely to be negotiated as part of a Palestinian state, since such construction is regarded as a significant obstacle to peace.

Unacceptable: There should be a drastic curtailment of military aid to Israel by the U.S. unless Israel agrees to an indefinite halt to any settlement construction or building of additional housing units in territories likely to be negotiated as part of a Palestinian state, since such construction is regarded as a significant obstacle to peace. The reason such a measure hasn't been taken is because of U.S. citizens who owe allegiance to Israel as well as politicians bought by AIPAC and Israeli cash who won't allow it.

I honestly believe that AIPAC buys political influence for a pro-Israel agenda in the US. As has been mentioned in this thread, they don't literally bribe politicians with money, but they, like many special interest groups, spend a lot of money lobbying with the goal of advancing a pro-Israel agenda in US politics, and this is one of the factors in America's policy when it comes to Israel/Palestine. I also think in the post-Citizen's United US, this is a distinction without a difference. The criteria laid out above gives no room for this opinion to be expressed without being antisemitic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITR champion (Post 21521265)
She implied that the only reason anyone would support Israel is because of the money.

No, she implied that the only reason anyone would try to deny free speech to a critic of Israel is because of the money.

The context of her "It's all about the Benjamins" tweet was a Glenn Greenwald tweet linking an article about GOP leadership planning on pushing for punishment for Omar and Rashida Tlaib, and making the conjecture that it was related to anti-BDS legislation: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statu...27576013193216

asahi 03-05-2019 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NAF1138 (Post 21521506)
Sure. That doesn't mean she isn't an antisemite, maybe only slightly, but still really. Both can be true.

Yes, both *can* be true but stop jerking us around and provide evidence where it actually *is* true incontrovertibly, or does she even get that chance?

The question is rhetorical - I realize the answer is, no, she doesn't get that chance. But why not? Especially when Steve King can go on for decades being racist before finally being reprimanded.

Kimstu 03-05-2019 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21521426)
All Palestine has to do is stop the terrorism [...]

IMO the existence of a terrorist faction or terrorist acts is irrelevant to whether Palestinians are intrinsically entitled to citizens' rights and/or national sovereignty in their ancestral homeland. Their basic rights should not be treated like a good-conduct prize that Israel is entitled to withhold or bestow as it pleases. Terrorism is always bad, but it's not a sufficient excuse for keeping an entire people stateless and rightsless indefinitely.

And it's not as though "stop the terrorism" is even believable as a good-faith condition for obtaining sovereignty or rights for the Palestinians. On the contrary, the Israeli right wing is making no secret of the fact that it's independently committed to perpetual dominance of so-called "Greater Israel" and all its environmental resources, and has been for decades. A significant proportion of Israelis have no intention of relinquishing their control of the occupied territories under any circumstances, or of accepting the Palestinian population either as fellow-citizens or as citizens of their own independent nation under any circumstances, terrorism or no terrorism.

DrDeth 03-05-2019 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimstu (Post 21521546)
IMO the existence of a terrorist faction or terrorist acts is irrelevant to whether Palestinians ....

You know, this has become a hijack. go ahead and start a new thread about Hamas and Terrorism, and the wrongs of the Israeli government.

Back to the Congresswoman.

asahi 03-05-2019 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimstu (Post 21521546)
IMO the existence of a terrorist faction or terrorist acts is irrelevant to whether Palestinians are intrinsically entitled to citizens' rights and/or national sovereignty in their ancestral homeland. Their basic rights should not be treated like a good-conduct prize that Israel is entitled to withhold or bestow as it pleases. Terrorism is always bad, but it's not a sufficient excuse for keeping an entire people stateless and rightsless indefinitely.

And it's not as though "stop the terrorism" is even believable as a good-faith condition for obtaining sovereignty or rights for the Palestinians. On the contrary, the Israeli right wing is making no secret of the fact that it's independently committed to perpetual dominance of so-called "Greater Israel" and all its environmental resources, and has been for decades. A significant proportion of Israelis have no intention of relinquishing their control of the occupied territories under any circumstances, or of accepting the Palestinian population either as fellow-citizens or as citizens of their own independent nation under any circumstances, terrorism or no terrorism.

Moreover, the right wing of Israel is engaging in terroristic collective warfare against Palestinians, which it then turns around to justify collective punishment against Palestinians. The very same victimization complex that Nazis used to drive Jews out of Germany, if they didn't work them to the bone and bake them in ovens first.

asahi 03-05-2019 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21521551)
You know, this has become a hijack. go ahead and start a new thread about Hamas and Terrorism, and the wrongs of the Israeli government.

Back to the Congresswoman.

yeah, and guess who hijacked it?

tomndebb 03-05-2019 10:53 PM

Moderating
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21521451)
Oh God, what imbecilic rubbish!.

This is not a Warning.
However, it is a note that including extremely antagonistic adjectives that are generally used of people rather than ideas makes this look like a personal attack.
Dial it back. Further employment of such tactics may garner one a Warning.

[ /Moderating ]

Miller 03-06-2019 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21521479)
Not about Jews, but yes about the Government of Israel. I dunno what Netanyahu has to do with the millions of Jews here in the USA, from what I see, he's pretty unpopular here.

Note my comments: "All Palestine has to do..." "if Palestine would stop with terrorist attacks" and "Until and when Palestine stops with the state sanctioned terrorism, ...": I am blaming the state of Palestine, and the people who support it.

I am sure numerous Palestinians dont support the terrorism. But the government does.

And Ilhan Omar was talking about the government of Israel, not Jews as a people, but that didn't stop you from calling her anti-semetic.

Interesting how you expect your words with a charity you don't extend to other people.

DrDeth 03-06-2019 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miller (Post 21521633)
And Ilhan Omar was talking about the government of Israel, not Jews as a people, but that didn't stop you from calling her anti-semetic.

Interesting how you expect your words with a charity you don't extend to other people.

I didnt do that. "She crossed the line at least once in using the term “allegiance to a foreign country.". The "All About The Benjamins" was a maybe, but taken in context, it also appears anti-semitic."

asahi 03-06-2019 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomndebb (Post 21521578)
This is not a Warning.
However, it is a note that including extremely antagonistic adjectives that are generally used of people rather than ideas makes this look like a personal attack.
Dial it back. Further employment of such tactics may garner one a Warning.

[ /Moderating ]

Agreed, and so noted - I apologize to the Board and to DrDeth. I let my passions get the better of me.

asahi 03-06-2019 06:05 AM

Here's what needs to be remembered: when people call out Saudi Arabia for its over attempts to influence American (and global foreign affairs) with its oil money and petroleum blackmail, nobody says "OMG! You're anti-Muslim!" And sorry, but the relationship between the Israeli lobby and Washington is transactional and necessarily involves money, so that's not a 'trope' - that's just political reality.

The fact that there's a resolution on the floor, the fact that we're having this conversation is proof of the degree to which Zionists have brainwashed post-WWII guilt-laden Americans into believing that criticism of Israel and the attempt of Likudists to corrupt American foreign policy equates to being an anti-semite. It's really bizarre how Americans care so much for a country that most of them have never been to, and the amount of space that Israel occupies in American media coverage and in our political culture is extraordinary. Lobbies like AIPAC have convinced a generation or two that Israel needs to illegally occupy and occupy territory in contravention to international law for its own self-preservation. And we don't question it.

Back to the original issue here, Omar said nothing that was derogatory about Jews per se; she simply called out Israel's political influence in our political system and she called out American politicians. That's it, and nothing more.

ElvisL1ves 03-06-2019 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21521433)
Even more collective blame! Bravo to you for putting that responsibility and blame on every Palestinian man, woman, and child!

Odd how charges of racism cannot be laid on Netanyahu supporters, isn't it? They're declared out of bounds, antisemitic, and other deplorable words, but can never be discussed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITR Champion
She implied that the only reason anyone would support Israel is because of the money.

You inferred it (and that's being kind to you). The question is why you did so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21521514)
You know, this has become a hijack. go ahead and start a new thread about Hamas and Terrorism, and the wrongs of the Israeli government.

AIPAC is an agent of Likud and represents its policies in Washington. It isn't a hijack to point that out.

NAF1138 03-06-2019 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21521536)
Yes, both *can* be true but stop jerking us around and provide evidence where it actually *is* true incontrovertibly, or does she even get that chance?

The question is rhetorical - I realize the answer is, no, she doesn't get that chance. But why not? Especially when Steve King can go on for decades being racist before finally being reprimanded.

You are assuming facts not in evidence. I quite like Omar and was quite impressed with her after the All About the Benjamins incident. But then she went and claimed that Jews aren't real Americans. But her words are the evidence. I don't claim know her heart, but I know that she traffics repeatedly in tropes that are antisemitic. That she doesn't have hate doesn't mean she isn't racist.

Steve King should be impeached. Is a fucking travesty that the right are dick less cowards who won't confront him.

That said, whataboutism looks just as bad on you as it does on the right.

NAF1138 03-06-2019 07:43 AM

Here, read this https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-new...erves-dialogue

Pull quotes:

Quote:

"At its essence, much of anti-Semitism can be boiled down to a deeply held double standard through which the anti-Semite makes moral allowances for themselves and their friends that they do not make for Jews. This is why the member states of the United Nations condemn the Jewish state more than all other non-Jewish states combined every year, while the misconduct of countries like China and Saudi Arabia goes entirely unremarked. It’s why activists like Linda Sarsour call to boycott all Zionist Jews yet simultaneously refuse to break ties with Louis Farrakhan. Their moral rules apply only to Jews. Omar challenged this double standard and rejected it. Jews, she said, deserved the same treatment as she would want for herself."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omar on The Daily Show
“With that tweet, what I finally realized is the realization that I hope that people come to when we’re having a conversation about white privilege,” she told Noah. “You know, people would be like, ‘I grew up in a poor neighborhood. I can’t be privileged. Can you stop saying that? I haven’t benefited from my whiteness!’ And it’s like, ‘No, we’re talking about systematic, right?’ And so for me, that happened for me.

I was like, ‘Do not call me that [anti-Semitic]. … And it was like, ‘Oh, I see what you’re saying now.’ And so I had to take a deep breath and understand where people were coming from and what point they were trying to make, which is what I expect people to do when I’m talking to them, right, about things that impact me or offend me

She seemed to have recognized her failings. That's a good first step. Apologists actually make things worse.

Also important to read is this one.

http://on.theatln.tc/04lKZug

Left Hand of Dorkness 03-06-2019 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NAF1138 (Post 21521855)
Here, read this https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-new...erves-dialogue

Pull quotes:





She seemed to have recognized her failings. That's a good first step. Apologists actually make things worse.

Also important to read is this one.

http://on.theatln.tc/04lKZug

Honestly, I'm not gaining a lot of understanding from those articles. They seem to be rehashing the same old arguments, using even vaguer language.

What do you think of the points Paul Waldman raises in the WaPo editorial I linked to earlier?
Quote:

Originally Posted by NAF1138 (Post 21521849)
But then she went and claimed that Jews aren't real Americans.

Wow. I REALLY don't think she did this.

asahi 03-06-2019 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NAF1138 (Post 21521849)
You are assuming facts not in evidence. I quite like Omar and was quite impressed with her after the All About the Benjamins incident. But then she went and claimed that Jews aren't real Americans. But her words are the evidence. I don't claim know her heart, but I know that she traffics repeatedly in tropes that are antisemitic. That she doesn't have hate doesn't mean she isn't racist.

Steve King should be impeached. Is a fucking travesty that the right are dick less cowards who won't confront him.

That said, whataboutism looks just as bad on you as it does on the right.

She never said Jews are not real Americans, nor did she imply it. Once again, we have people taking what she said and making whatever conclusions they want to with her words.

As I said, politically, it's not wise for her to talk about Israel so openly for precisely this reason. But that doesn't make her anti-Jewish.

But putting aside her intended meaning for a moment, the fact is that there probably are some Jews with dual-loyalty to both the US and Israel. There are American-born Jews who maintain Israeli citizenship, and there are American-born Jews who serve in the IDF. That doesn't mean they're anti-American, but suffice it to say, they have dual loyalty. Is that an unreasonable conclusion?

asahi 03-06-2019 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21521869)
Honestly, I'm not gaining a lot of understanding from those articles. They seem to be rehashing the same old arguments, using even vaguer language.

What do you think of the points Paul Waldman raises in the WaPo editorial I linked to earlier?

Wow. I REALLY don't think she did this.

That's because she REALLY didn't.

NAF1138 03-06-2019 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21521869)
Honestly, I'm not gaining a lot of understanding from those articles. They seem to be rehashing the same old arguments, using even vaguer language.

What do you think of the points Paul Waldman raises in the WaPo editorial I linked to earlier?

Wow. I REALLY don't think she did this.

Your right. If they are good Jews and don't support Israel they are fine. Maybe it was not her intent, but it sure feels like that's what she said to this Jew. You can't handwave away a thousand years of history of people claiming that Jews are more loyal to each other than anyone and using that to attack them. Even if unintentional.

Again, if anyone claimed Omar had dual loyalty to, say Somalia, it would be insane the reaction. Or maybe if people made claims that Obama was born in Kenya. To me, one of the people she is talking about (and someone who donated to the DCCC to help elect her) it feels the same. That actually does matter. How Jew view this.
In particular I like the Tablet article because it's from a Jewish perspective and has her own reactions and realization that she was being antisemitic, but that she is actually trying.
Again, I like Omar, I think she is prejudiced, but I think she, at one point, had started to realize that. I think the debate over if she is predjuced further entrecnches the prejudice because, it's pretty obvious.

I like the Atlantic article because it deals with the flip side and lays out that she is, perhaps unintentionally, using dog whistles. Both were written before this became "a thing" which I also think is important.

Jackmannii 03-06-2019 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21521042)
How about this, changing the parts I underlined:


There should be a drastic curtailment of military aid to Israel by the U.S. unless Israel agrees to an indefinite halt to any settlement construction or building of additional housing units in territories likely to be negotiated as part of a Palestinian state, since such construction is regarded as a significant obstacle to peace. The reason such a measure hasn't been taken is because of U.S. citizens who support Israel because of their evangelical faith, as well as politicians unduly influenced by AIPAC and its conservative followers, who won't allow such curtailment.

As Waldman points out, AIPAC has very strong support among US conservative Christians, for complicated reasons.

I think you are overlooking substantial support for Israel in the U.S. that does not come from either of those two groups.

Many times people blame lobbying groups for "undue influence", ignoring the fact that a major reason for their influence is that their views are substantially represented in the general population.*

*one wonders why opposing lobbying groups which are often very well funded seem unable to counter this "undue influence", whether it applies to Israel, gun laws, Social Security etc.
Could it be that these other Unduly Influential lobby groups also have substantial support among Americans as a whole?

septimus 03-06-2019 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue (Post 21520014)
In other words, I don't get why Representative Omar is being attacked the way she is. What am I missing here?

I started an IMHO thread in agreement with you.

It's a meme that Trump and the GOP are imbecilic (despite that Trump, Hannity, Ryan etc. probably all have 3-digit IQs). If I write that a Republican initiative is "stupid", is that politically incorrect because it plays to the stereotype of GOP imbecility? :confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21520126)
First of all, before declaring Rep. Omar innocent of all charges -- let's remember that she issued what I viewed as a sincere apology for her comments, IIRC the "all about the Benjamins." ... So to assert that she did nothing wrong, when she quite specifically said she caused offense in a way that she regrets, is a non-starter.

One needs to choose one's battles wisely. She realized that her remarks gave some offense, and apologized so that the conversation could move on. Presumably she'll be less flippant in future. But to treat her apology as sincere shame is to misunderstand pragmatism in communication.

Because of their long-time persecutions, especially the Holocaust, I think Jewish sensitivities should be especially respected. But often political correctness becomes absurd. A few years ago there was a thread in BBQ Pit related to the statistical fact that for many decades a large portion of Hollywood studio heads were Jewish. In California, Cambodians often operate doughnut shops; Indians often operate motels; Japanese used to operate plant nurseries. Why did Jews end up operating Hollywood studios? It seemed like an interesting question without any need for "judgment."

Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus (Post 17497671)
The following people were all raised as Jews.

Sumner Murray Redstone (né Rothstein), magnate of CBS-Viacom
Jack and Sam Warner, founders of Warner Bros.
Samuel Goldwyn (né Szmuel Gelbfisz)
David Geffen, cofounder of Drreamworks SKG
Steven Spielberg, cofounder of Drreamworks SKG
Jeffrey Katzenberg, cofounder of Drreamworks SKG
Michael Eisner, CEO of Disney
Bob and Harvey Weinstein, founders of Miramax
Joseph M. Schenck, co-founder of 20th Century Pictures
William Fox (né Fried), founder of Fox Films
Adolph Zukor, founder of Paramount
Jesse L. Lasky, co-founder of Paramount
Marcus Loew, founder of MGM
Louis B. Mayer (né Lazar Meir), founder of Mayer Pictures (later MGM)
David O. Selznick, producer of Gone with the Wind
Joel and Ethan Coen, producers of Fargo
Sherry Lansing (née Duhl), CEO of Paramount etc.

I was startled! Almost every click led to "Jewish." The only clicks that didn't were for Darryl F. Zanuck and Cecil B. DeMille; the latter had a Jewish mother.

I draw no inference. But watching the Board pretend Hollywood is not "dominated by Jews" is amusing. [my new emphasis]

I was pounced on from every direction, beginning with

Quote:

Huh. I didn't realize that around a dozen and a half people (some of whom are dead) made every decision in Hollywood.
And then Dopers acted dopey by not seeming to understand that those who founded the big studios almost a century ago would be VERY old now:
Quote:

Apparently dead people can do amazing things! I wonder what else they can do? Cartwheels? Space travel? Mind control?
Ooookay.

Left Hand of Dorkness 03-06-2019 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NAF1138 (Post 21521935)
Your right. If they are good Jews and don't support Israel they are fine. Maybe it was not her intent, but it sure feels like that's what she said to this Jew. You can't handwave away a thousand years of history of people claiming that Jews are more loyal to each other than anyone and using that to attack them. Even if unintentional.

"A good Jew" doesn't enter into it at all, given that there are plenty of non-Jews that she disagrees with on the subject.
Quote:

Again, if anyone claimed Omar had dual loyalty to, say Somalia, it would be insane the reaction.
Right, but you don't have the governor of Texas saying, "Anti-Somalia policies are anti-Texas policies." That's where "dual loyalties" comes into play, right? And that's not a Jew saying that. It's a US conservative Christian.

Alessan 03-06-2019 09:39 AM

Personally, my reaction to the statement, "Jews founded and still dominate Hollywood" is, "You're welcome."

Ravenman 03-06-2019 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus (Post 21521959)
One needs to choose one's battles wisely. She realized that her remarks gave some offense, and apologized so that the conversation could move on. Presumably she'll be less flippant in future. But to treat her apology as sincere shame is to misunderstand pragmatism in communication.

She made comments on the Daily Show that further indicate to me that she was sincere in her apology.

I can't figure out why some posters here are so insistent that she lied when she said she was sorry. Really, is this the argument you want to embrace? That she's simultaneously an outspoken firebrand who will tell it like it is; but is also just a cowardly politician who will lie about being sorry just to avoid some flak?

My assumption is that she is sincere in her statements, both when she sticks her foot in her mouth and when she says that she didn't mean the offense that she caused and will learn not to do it again. I guess I have a higher opinion of her character than you do.... which is really weird in this context.

septimus 03-06-2019 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21522088)
Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus
She realized that her remarks gave some offense, and apologized so that the conversation could move on. Presumably she'll be less flippant in future. But to treat her apology as sincere shame is to misunderstand pragmatism in communication.

... when she says that she didn't mean the offense that she caused and will learn not to do it again. I guess I have a higher opinion of her character than you do.... which is really weird in this context.

If you contrast this view with my own, I think we're saying almost exactly the same, just changing the emphasis slightly. No? Do you think she feels "shame"? We're parsing the difference between degrees of contrition.

Left Hand of Dorkness 03-06-2019 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21522088)
She made comments on the Daily Show that further indicate to me that she was sincere in her apology.

I can't figure out why some posters here are so insistent that she lied when she said she was sorry. Really, is this the argument you want to embrace? That she's simultaneously an outspoken firebrand who will tell it like it is; but is also just a cowardly politician who will lie about being sorry just to avoid some flak?

My assumption is that she is sincere in her statements, both when she sticks her foot in her mouth and when she says that she didn't mean the offense that she caused and will learn not to do it again. I guess I have a higher opinion of her character than you do.... which is really weird in this context.

I don't have much of an opinion at all of her character, so any argument about her apology is not especially interesting to me. I'm much more interested in how conversation about the relationship between the United States and Israel is bounded, and whether those boundaries are appropriate.

In general, when someone from a minority group tells me that a particular turn of phrase is offensive, I'm inclined to believe them. AIPAC complicates this general principle; Waldman's column complicates this general principle. The fact that nobody seems to be addressing his central point (that "divided loyalties" in this case isn't antisemitic, since it's not solely, or even primarily, directed at Jews) complicates this general principle.

Ravenman 03-06-2019 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus (Post 21522101)
If you contrast this view with my own, I think we're saying almost exactly the same, just changing the emphasis slightly. No?

Yeah, re-reading your comments I agree that our opinions are probably not that different. When I first read them it sounded like you were using the words "sincere shame" is a slightly different way than I now understand you intended, so I probably didn't get your full meaning the first time I read your post.



Quote:

Originally Posted by LHoD
In general, when someone from a minority group tells me that a particular turn of phrase is offensive, I'm inclined to believe them. AIPAC complicates this general principle; Waldman's column complicates this general principle. The fact that nobody seems to be addressing his central point (that "divided loyalties" in this case isn't antisemitic, since it's not solely, or even primarily, directed at Jews) complicates this general principle.

Yeah, there's definitely a few things going on in relation to that divided loyalties comment.

1. Regardless of the racial issue, it's a pretty offensive statement, in the same spirit as others have mentioned about JFK being ultimately loyal to the Pope and not the US.
2. There's no doubt that extreme pro-Israeli people may jump on anything they disagree with as being a racial issue simply for purposes of attack.
3. It's also fair to view the "divided loyalties" comment alongside her other comments on Israeli and American support thereto. Since the comment about money was pretty obnoxious, so it isn't like she's making these comments with totally clean hands.

For me, it's a fine hair to split with regard to whether a person has a problem with the Jewish homeland or Jewish people when they make a lot of statements that are pretty offensive to begin with. It's hard to know what's in her heart, but it's pretty obvious she needs to listen and think more, and shoot from the hip less.

k9bfriender 03-06-2019 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21522088)
She made comments on the Daily Show that further indicate to me that she was sincere in her apology.

I can't figure out why some posters here are so insistent that she lied when she said she was sorry. Really, is this the argument you want to embrace? That she's simultaneously an outspoken firebrand who will tell it like it is; but is also just a cowardly politician who will lie about being sorry just to avoid some flak?

My assumption is that she is sincere in her statements, both when she sticks her foot in her mouth and when she says that she didn't mean the offense that she caused and will learn not to do it again. I guess I have a higher opinion of her character than you do.... which is really weird in this context.

She conceded that her comments were similar enough in scope and context that there were anti-semitic elements to them that she could not deny.

She did not concede to being anti-semitic, nor making the comments from a place of anti-semitism.

She learned to step carefully around, and maybe even completely avoid, any subject touching on Israel or Palestine, as any criticism of Israel is oft automatically labeled anti-semitic, and given her background, that label is much more gleefully applied by her opponents.

If you word something badly, and then you see how people may take offense at a valid interpretation of your poor word choice, do you apologize for wording it badly, or do you apologize for being what you were accused of due to the misunderstanding of your words?

Septimus did not say that the apology was not sincere. He said that it did not show sincere shame. that sincere shame would be if she had actually been apologizing for being anti-semitic, rather than a sincere apology for being a bit tone deaf when it comes to how sensitive people are about the subject of Israel relations.

k9bfriender 03-06-2019 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21522165)
Yeah, there's definitely a few things going on in relation to that divided loyalties comment.

1. Regardless of the racial issue, it's a pretty offensive statement, in the same spirit as others have mentioned about JFK being ultimately loyal to the Pope and not the US.

If I say a politician (as I have many times) is loyal to his donors, rather than the people he represents, it that anti-semitic?

Does that politician being jewish change that?

Does his donors being jewish change that?
Quote:

2. There's no doubt that extreme pro-Israeli people may jump on anything they disagree with as being a racial issue simply for purposes of attack.
And it is hard to see who is extreme sometimes. Do we define it as anyone who jumps on anything they disagree with as a being a racial issue?

If so, then I would say that a substantial amount of the outrage is due to that.

Asking her to modify her comments to be more sensitive is one thing. Outright accusing her of anti-semitism due to an interpretation of her comments is another.
Quote:

3. It's also fair to view the "divided loyalties" comment alongside her other comments on Israeli and American support thereto. Since the comment about money was pretty obnoxious, so it isn't like she's making these comments with totally clean hands.
Are there no people with divided loyalties? The example has been given a couple times in this thread of the Texas governor saying that they are loyal to Israel. I see that as an example of someone declaring that they have divided loyalties, so any general accusations of such are fully justified.
Quote:

For me, it's a fine hair to split with regard to whether a person has a problem with the Jewish homeland or Jewish people when they make a lot of statements that are pretty offensive to begin with.
If one has chosen that a lot of their statements are offensive to begin with, then their later statements will be held to that same unfair standard.
Quote:

It's hard to know what's in her heart,
But very easy to make assumptions.
Quote:

but it's pretty obvious she needs to listen and think more, and shoot from the hip less.
That's actually good advice for pretty much everyone who has ever lived.

NAF1138 03-06-2019 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21521986)
"A good Jew" doesn't enter into it at all, given that there are plenty of non-Jews that she disagrees with on the subject.

Right, but you don't have the governor of Texas saying, "Anti-Somalia policies are anti-Texas policies." That's where "dual loyalties" comes into play, right? And that's not a Jew saying that. It's a US conservative Christian.

And sure, when you strip everything of it's larger context I can see why it would seem that way. But it's not isolated and it is using the rhetoric of antisemitism for a millenia. It's a dog whistle, maybe (probably) an unintentional one, more emblematic of her mind set than deep seeded hate. As she herself said, it's systemic. But it's not really different than when Trump ran a campaign add talking about how Hillary was in the pocket of all those big wall street bankers like George Soros, and everyone knew he was playing on anti jewish canards to appeal to white supremacists, but because it's a dog whistle its easy to rationalize. Trump isn't antisemetic he's anti globalist. Omar isn't anti semetic, she's...I'm not sure. Anti Israel state? Anti Likud? Anti Netanyahu? Anti Evangelical Christian creepily supporting Israel to bring about the end times? You tell me.

Why is it ok to claim that any American puts the interests of another country before their own? Why is this claim not ever made against any country but Israel? Where is the widespread denunciation of Saudi Arabia by Omar? Where is the claim of dual loyalty when the president praises Duterte? Why is it Israel that is being singled out? America makes a lot of really shocking foreign policy decisions, especially right now, with countries who are horrific when it comes to human right. Why is Israel special?

Ravenman 03-06-2019 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9bfriender (Post 21522243)
If I say a politician (as I have many times) is loyal to his donors, rather than the people he represents, it that anti-semitic?

She has apologized for saying that a couple times, so I continue to be baffled as to why you and a few others insist there was nothing offensive about the statement.

Left Hand of Dorkness 03-06-2019 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21522165)
For me, it's a fine hair to split with regard to whether a person has a problem with the Jewish homeland or Jewish people when they make a lot of statements that are pretty offensive to begin with. It's hard to know what's in her heart, but it's pretty obvious she needs to listen and think more, and shoot from the hip less.

I don't think that's the hair being split. I think the hair being split is whether she has a problem with Israel or with the current right-wing government of Israel. And that's not a fine hair to split at all, IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NAF1138 (Post 21522264)
And sure, when you strip everything of it's larger context I can see why it would seem that way. But it's not isolated and it is using the rhetoric of antisemitism for a millenia. It's a dog whistle, maybe (probably) an unintentional one, more emblematic of her mind set than deep seeded hate.

To the extent that she's phrasing her concerns poorly, I think I can see that (although it's important for us to remember that she didn't use the "dual loyalties" phrase, and her complaint was that she perceived HERSELF, not a Jew, as being asked to "have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.") Partly she phrased it poorly, but partly people are deliberately paraphrasing her in a way that makes it sound a lot worse than what she actually said.

But to the extent that her concerns are unfounded, I disagree. I think there's something going on here that is unlike what happens with US relationships with other nations.

Again, I don't see governors saying, "Anti-China policies are anti-Texas policies." I don't see people who oppose Saudi Arabia's human rights record as facing Congressional sanctions for being anti-Arab. I don't see Austria's ruling coalition having a hugely influential PAC in the United States that is successful at mobilizing politicians toward their ends.

Quote:

Where is the widespread denunciation of Saudi Arabia by Omar?
Omar doesn't necessarily need to engage in widespread denunciation of Saudi Arabia--but as was pointed out earlier in the thread, she's very outspoken in denouncing them, and a few seconds on Twitter will show you that. But it doesn't gain news coverage when someone denounces Saudi Arabia. If everything were equal, her Tweet denouncing Saudi Arabia would've spawned a three-page thread about whether her comments were anti-Arab, yeah?
Quote:

Where is the claim of dual loyalty when the president praises Duterte?
Our president's an idiot, obviously. But he certainly faces claims of dual loyalty when he praises Putin. I think he doesn't face them with Duterte because it's obvious he just like murderous thugs as leaders and wishes he could be one, and it's no more complicated than that.

Quote:

Why is it Israel that is being singled out? America makes a lot of really shocking foreign policy decisions, especially right now, with countries who are horrific when it comes to human right. Why is Israel special?
Israel is special because, AFAICT, people face serious pushback when they criticize Israel's human rights record, in a way that they don't face when they criticize Sudan's, or China's, or France's, or Saudi Arabia's, or Belgium's.

Why do you think that is?

Jackmannii 03-06-2019 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus
A few years ago there was a thread in BBQ Pit related to the statistical fact that for many decades a large portion of Hollywood studio heads were Jewish. In California, Cambodians often operate doughnut shops; Indians often operate motels; Japanese used to operate plant nurseries. Why did Jews end up operating Hollywood studios? It seemed like an interesting question without any need for "judgment."

As I recall, there were commenters in that thread (including one Doper no longer with us who used to flog the "allegiance to a foreign power" line re Israel) intimating that there was something nefarious about the total number of Jews in Hollywood, who were evidently banding together to keep others out. Again:

Acceptable: A lot of Jews have had success in Hollywood and have risen to positions owning or being top executives in studios.

Not acceptable: Jews have banded together to dominate Hollywood, and that's why you don't see non-Jewish producers making movies showing Jews in a bad light or exploring oppression of Palestinians.
Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus (Post 21521959)
Because of their long-time persecutions, especially the Holocaust, I think Jewish sensitivities should be especially respected. But often political correctness becomes absurd.

As I've mentioned before, it's a losing proposition for non-members of ethnic/religious groups to lecture members of those groups about language a lot of them find offensive. "You Jews/black/Catholics/Muslims shouldn't be offended, you're just using innocent remarks to gain an advantage" doesn't come off well.

Ravenman 03-06-2019 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21522352)
I don't think that's the hair being split. I think the hair being split is whether she has a problem with Israel or with the current right-wing government of Israel. And that's not a fine hair to split at all, IMO.

I actually don’t know the answer to this - in any of her statements that have contributed to this controversy, has she ever made specific comments about the current government as opposed to Israel generally? All I recall is her talking about he influence of Israel in American politics.

Jackmannii 03-06-2019 02:11 PM

I should also mention the futility of quoting outliers in a religious or ethnic group who profess not to be offended by certain language or actions.

For instance, most Dopers would probably be :dubious: about the argument that black people shouldn't be offended about something based on what Clarence Thomas has said.

Guinastasia 03-06-2019 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21520777)
I don't think it was anti-Semitic. If Omar's criticisms are valid, then they are valid even if other people are making the same criticisms for bigoted reasons. I don't think they are valid, but that is not currently the question.

I don't think it was wrong to accuse Jonathan Pollard of divided loyalties, because other people have accused other people of having divided loyalties. Some people do have divided loyalties, others don't - one needs to figure it out in each case, on its own, and not just rule it out ab initio.

Regards,
Shodan

Pollard was convicted of espionage -- I think it's safe to say that anyone who's spying on their own country probably has "divided loyalties", to say the least. (If they have any kind of loyalty to begin with, except to himself)


Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem (Post 21520859)
Would it have been anti-Semitic if "all about the Benjamins" had been in reference to Congressmen taking cash from the NRA? If not, then why is pointing out the financial allegiance to the Israeli lobby offensive when pointing out the financial allegiance to other lobbies is not?

My two cents: if this had been a WASP making these comments, nobody would have gotten the vapors over it. But some want to use this to drum up anti-Muslim bigotry.

Except that WASPs DO say stuff like that, all the time. And if they're not getting shit about it, then they should.

You really think the "Jews manipulate people with money!" is a new thing?

There's nothing wrong with criticism of Israel. It IS wrong to assume that all Jews somehow have a connection to Israel, or that they MUST share their opinion on Israel, before you take them seriously.

It's not because she's a Muslim, or from the Middle East. It's because there's a LONG history of this kind of thing, accusing Jews of being greedy, of disloyalty, etc. It's like saying, "well, I didn't MEAN to be racist when I said that black guy looked like a monkey! It wasn't talking about ALL black people!"

Context matters.

Shodan 03-06-2019 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guinastasia (Post 21522764)
Pollard was convicted of espionage -- I think it's safe to say that anyone who's spying on their own country probably has "divided loyalties", to say the least. (If they have any kind of loyalty to begin with, except to himself)

Exactly. Therefore, it is not anti-Semitic to accuse Pollard of having divided loyalties, even though having divided loyalties is a common anti-Semitic trope.

The important thing about Omar's statements is that they aren't true. IMO they ought to be attacked on that ground.

Regards,
Shodan

NAF1138 03-06-2019 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21522352)



Israel is special because, AFAICT, people face serious pushback when they criticize Israel's human rights record, in a way that they don't face when they criticize Sudan's, or China's, or France's, or Saudi Arabia's, or Belgium's.

Why do you think that is?

When they question its human rights record or when they question the right of a Jewish state to exist?

I am not going to say that there exists no knee jerk pushback when the human rights record is questioned in a straightforward way. But there is a noted difference between the pushback against Israel that you might read in Haaretz and what you hear coming from Omar at the moment. (and to be fair, it comes from others on the left far more than from Omar, they are just better at not abusing antisemitic tropes when they do it.)

I say this fully recognizing, because I have been on Facebook today, that the right are using her remarks as an opportunity for Islamophobic screeds. It frankly sucks and, from a personal Jewish perspective, I see this as also making the world a less safe place for Jews and undermines all sorts of stuff. But I wish she would not give them these sorts of openings only slightly less than I wish the right weren't xenophobic assholes about her.

DrDeth 03-06-2019 07:26 PM

She said a couple things over the line, but I think her apology was sincere, I think that's enough, for now.

Let's give her a break.

k9bfriender 03-06-2019 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21522318)
She has apologized for saying that a couple times, so I continue to be baffled as to why you and a few others insist there was nothing offensive about the statement.

The bafflement is that you think that I am insisting that there was nothing that could be taken as offensive about the statement, when I specifically said that there could be. :confused:

What I said in this very thread, was that she was not coming from a place of anti-semitism, and was not apologizing for coming form a place of antisemitism, but that her words were tone deaf to the sensitivity of Israel relations.

The accusations against her is that she is anti-semitic, and that is what I am arguing against, not that some of her words were not anti-semitic.

If someone wears black face out of ignorance, they have performed a racist act, but that does not make them a racist.

By the same token, if someone says something that is perceived as anti-semitic out of ignorance, then they have said something anti-semitic, but that does not make them an anti-semite.

My question there was when does criticism of money in politics become anti semitic? A question that you evaded by making some inaccurate accusations against me, but did not bother to answer.

So, since that is cleared up, when does criticism of lobbying efforts become anti semitic? is it when the politician is jewish, or when the lobbyists are jewish, or something else?

Left Hand of Dorkness 03-06-2019 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NAF1138 (Post 21523055)
When they question its human rights record or when they question the right of a Jewish state to exist?

100% the former. I expect that someone questioning the right of China to exist would face much more pushback than someone questioning the right of Israel to exist, because antisemitism. I'm talking about questioning the human rights record.
Quote:

I am not going to say that there exists no knee jerk pushback when the human rights record is questioned in a straightforward way. But there is a noted difference between the pushback against Israel that you might read in Haaretz and what you hear coming from Omar at the moment.
That seems to me like you're begging the question. How is your first paragraph in any way connected to what Omar said?

kayT 03-06-2019 09:03 PM

And while we're at it, let's stop pretending that the current governor of Texas has anything intelligent to say about anything.

asahi 03-06-2019 09:13 PM

I'll put it this way, just so I'm clear: Israel's not the only country that tries to influence US politics. Obviously, Russia has done it. China has. Saudi Arabia has. I'd call out naturalized Russians, Chinese, and Saudis who appear to have "dual loyalties."

Criticism of Israel and Israel's influence on American politics doesn't have to be anti-semitic, though I would concede that there is anti-semitism on both the right and the left. For the record, I believe in Israel's "right to exist" -- just as I believe in a Palestinian state (as was initially outlined in 1917).

Regardless, going back to the original post, I don't think Omar is anti-Jewish. She might be a little anti-Israel, but as long as she's pro-America, I don't see that as being a disqualifier. Not that I want her or anyone to be anti-Israeli. I think Israel in many regards is a *good* ally, especially in terms of technology and being a model for how the rest of the Middle-East can form a modern government (my problems with the Likud aside).

Left Hand of Dorkness 03-06-2019 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kayT (Post 21523240)
And while we're at it, let's stop pretending that the current governor of Texas has anything intelligent to say about anything.

FWIW I'm quoting him not for his wisdom, but as an example.

str8cashhomie 03-06-2019 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NAF1138 (Post 21522264)
Why is it ok to claim that any American puts the interests of another country before their own? Why is this claim not ever made against any country but Israel?

People claim US political figures are loyal to other countries all the time.

Some of the examples:

Clinton calls Trump Putin's puppet.

Sanders says about Saudi Arabia's donations to the Clinton Foundation: "If you asked me about the Clinton Foundation, do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of state and a foundation run by her husband collects many millions of dollars from foreign governments, governments which are dictatorships … yeah I do,"

Trump aide says "Our forefathers would have hung Obama and Clinton for treason"

Trump accuses Latino judge of bias due to "Mexican Heritage", La Raza membership

Duncan Hunter accuses opponent of being part of Muslim plot to "infiltrate Congress"

Rudy Guiliani claims Obama doesn't love America and implies he's a closet Muslim which clouds his views of Christians.

crucible 03-06-2019 11:27 PM

an anti semite, strictly speaking, is anti all people who speak or spoke historically, a semite language....including more arabs than jews.

Miller 03-07-2019 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crucible (Post 21523402)
an anti semite, strictly speaking, is anti all people who speak or spoke historically, a semite language....including more arabs than jews.

No. An anti-semite, "strictly speaking," is somebody who is prejudiced against Jews. The term was coined with that specific definition in mind, and has never been used to describe prejudice against "Semitic" people as a whole, or Arabs in particular.

Left Hand of Dorkness 03-07-2019 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miller (Post 21523528)
No. An anti-semite, "strictly speaking," is somebody who is prejudiced against Jews. The term was coined with that specific definition in mind, and has never been used to describe prejudice against "Semitic" people as a whole, or Arabs in particular.

It's funny how people trying to show off their superior knowledge of language end up showing off how little they understand language. It's like rain on your wedding day.

ElvisL1ves 03-07-2019 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guinastasia (Post 21522764)
There's nothing wrong with criticism of Israel. It IS wrong to assume that all Jews somehow have a connection to Israel, or that they MUST share their opinion on Israel, before you take them seriously.

But you see those attempts at enforced tribalism mostly from Jews themselves, don't you? Isn't the pressure not to criticize the conduct of Israel's current government strongest among Diaspora Jews?
Quote:

It's not because she's a Muslim, or from the Middle East.
Let's hope not. But I don't think you can dismiss it so absolutely, especially not when considering how so many others currently in office have been outwardly bigoted for years. And some, I'm sure, are good people. :rolleyes:

Quote:

It's because there's a LONG history of this kind of thing, accusing Jews of being greedy, of disloyalty, etc.
Omar's accusations, if you want to call them that, were of her colleagues, for being influenced to follow the interests of a foreign government that expresses them in the language said colleagues best understand. The history of previous generations in other countries should not provide a blanket excuse for that to be done, or to shout down any questioning of it. But that's what's happening, including in this thread.

Quote:

Context matters.
It does indeed. The context of Omar's statement was present-day politics in the US.

crucible 03-07-2019 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miller (Post 21523528)
No. An anti-semite, "strictly speaking," is somebody who is prejudiced against Jews. The term was coined with that specific definition in mind, and has never been used to describe prejudice against "Semitic" people as a whole, or Arabs in particular.

a very inaccurate neologism, if that is true.

Ravenman 03-07-2019 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9bfriender (Post 21523180)
So, since that is cleared up, when does criticism of lobbying efforts become anti semitic?

When a person states that Jewish lobbyists are buying politicians to split loyalties their to Israel, that person is being offensive.

ElvisL1ves 03-07-2019 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21523866)
When a person states that Jewish lobbyists are buying politicians to split loyalties their to Israel, that person is being offensive.

Why? Because it isn't true, or because of something else you're about to explain?

str8cashhomie 03-07-2019 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21523866)
When a person states that Jewish lobbyists are buying politicians to split loyalties their to Israel, that person is being offensive.

What if they specifically say AIPAC is?

ElvisL1ves 03-07-2019 10:24 AM

Or, more specifically, that a political party in a foreign country is influencing US policy to be favorable toward it by speaking the language that elected politicians most easily understand? Is that off-limits somehow?

iiandyiiii 03-07-2019 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21523875)
Why? Because it isn't true, or because of something else you're about to explain?

Because of the negative implications it attaches to the descriptor "Jewish". If they say "lobbyists are buying legislators for loyalty to X", then that's not offensive or anti-semitic. If they single out Jews (or blacks, or Muslims, etc.), then they're making an anti-semitic (or otherwise bigoted) assertion.

Ludovic 03-07-2019 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crucible (Post 21523833)
a very inaccurate neologism, if that is true.

It is true, and while inaccurate, it's not really a neologism now, having existed for around 1 1/2 centuries.

asahi 03-07-2019 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21523961)
Because of the negative implications it attaches to the descriptor "Jewish". If they say "lobbyists are buying legislators for loyalty to X", then that's not offensive or anti-semitic. If they single out Jews (or blacks, or Muslims, etc.), then they're making an anti-semitic (or otherwise bigoted) assertion.

What exactly has she said, and what was the context? I think that's what's important. I'm not necessarily saying that she can't be an anti-semite or that she can't say anti-semitic things, but I've yet to see any real evidence of anything that's patently, plausibly, incontrovertibly anti-semitic. She's stepped on political landmines for sure, and I *might* be able to understand how people with heightened sensitivities might have perceived her comments to be anti-semitic. But there's nothing so far that has convinced me that she's an outright anti-semite.

ElvisL1ves 03-07-2019 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21523961)
If they say "lobbyists are buying legislators for loyalty to X", then that's not offensive or anti-semitic. If they single out Jews (or blacks, or Muslims, etc.), then they're making an anti-semitic (or otherwise bigoted) assertion.

Is it OK to say "Israel" instead? How about "Likud" or "Bibi"? How much separation from "Jewish" do you require? Just trying to understand the rules of acceptability, and how they came to be.

Ravenman 03-07-2019 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21523875)
Why? Because it isn't true, or because of something else you're about to explain?

On the basis that the speaker of those words has apologized for her offense in raising the Jewish/money trope.

Royal Nonesutch 03-07-2019 11:25 AM

"The only reason you are upset at me for decrying those greedy, filthy, conniving, money-grubbing Jews is because you are a bigoted Islamophobe!"

ElvisL1ves 03-07-2019 11:27 AM

Bigoted Islamophobes do exist.
Quote:

... evidenced by a poster that appeared at an event sponsored by the West Virginia GOP. At the top of the poster is a photograph of the 9/11 terrorist attack, with the caption “‘Never forget’, you said”. Beneath that is a picture of Omar, with the caption “I am proof you have forgotten.”
Speaking of context, that is.

Ravenman, I'm still curious about the boundaries of "acceptability" in discussing Israel's policies and actions, especially since its very identity is tied to religion and ethnicity and makes blurring of the boundaries (by either the speaker or the listener) somewhat inevitable even if unintentional. Do you have any further thoughts on the subject?

k9bfriender 03-07-2019 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21523866)
When a person states that Jewish lobbyists are buying politicians to split loyalties their to Israel, that person is being offensive.

If a person states that NRA lobbyists are buying politicians to split their loyalties to gun manufacturers, is that person being offensive?

iiandyiiii 03-07-2019 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21523984)
Is it OK to say "Israel" instead? How about "Likud" or "Bibi"? How much separation from "Jewish" do you require? Just trying to understand the rules of acceptability, and how they came to be.

How they came to be? The same way as any sort of ethnic slur, racist phrase/allusion/association, etc., came to be -- significant usage with bigoted intent.

IMO, criticize Likud and Bibi all you want -- they really, really suck, and I think they're doing very significant long-term damage to Israel's security. I would recommend avoiding assigning collective blame for the entire state of Israel (any more than collective blame for Palestine or Palestinians as a whole is appropriate).

It's really not that hard to be specific when making criticisms.

ElvisL1ves 03-07-2019 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21524121)
It's really not that hard to be specific when making criticisms.

And it's really not that hard to deflect criticisms by declaring them to be made out of bigotry, regardless of wording. That's what we're seeing here.

iiandyiiii 03-07-2019 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21524130)
And it's really not that hard to deflect criticisms by declaring them to be made out of bigotry, regardless of wording. That's what we're seeing here.

In many cases, yes. Much or even most of the criticism of Omar is bullshit. But some of it is reasonable and legitimate -- and she seems to agree, based on the solid apology she made.

Left Hand of Dorkness 03-07-2019 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21524121)
IMO, criticize Likud and Bibi all you want -- they really, really suck, and I think they're doing very significant long-term damage to Israel's security. I would recommend avoiding assigning collective blame for the entire state of Israel (any more than collective blame for Palestine or Palestinians as a whole is appropriate).

I've not read everything Omar said, and I don't remember everything that I read, granted--but I don't remember reading anything she said that assigned collective blame for the entire state of Israel. Am I forgetting/missing some specific thing?

str8cashhomie 03-07-2019 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21524200)
I've not read everything Omar said, and I don't remember everything that I read, granted--but I don't remember reading anything she said that assigned collective blame for the entire state of Israel. Am I forgetting/missing some specific thing?

Not any of her quotes from the past month, but a few years ago she did say “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”

The Tooth 03-07-2019 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21524159)
In many cases, yes. Much or even most of the criticism of Omar is bullshit. But some of it is reasonable and legitimate -- and she seems to agree, based on the solid apology she made.

I doubt her sincerity, and that's not a criticism. She did it so the crybabies on the right would shut up and stick their thumbs back in their mouths is all.

iiandyiiii 03-07-2019 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21524200)
I've not read everything Omar said, and I don't remember everything that I read, granted--but I don't remember reading anything she said that assigned collective blame for the entire state of Israel. Am I forgetting/missing some specific thing?

I don't think so -- this seems to have expanded into a broader discussion of appropriate vs inappropriate language to use when criticizing Israeli policies and actions.

Jackmannii 03-07-2019 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21523984)
Is it OK to say "Israel" instead? How about "Likud" or "Bibi"? How much separation from "Jewish" do you require? Just trying to understand the rules of acceptability, and how they came to be.

Darn those rules anyway, they're so hard to follow.

I'm reminded of a long-ago Dope thread in which a poster* was piteously moaning about how you just can't criticize Israel without being called anti-Semitic, citing the uproar over this cartoon which appeared in The Independent and which some oversensitive types (no doubt with Agendas) saw as having grotesque anti-Semitic overtones.

And indeed, when trenchant, biting satire like that is condemned unfairly, we find ourselves sinking deeper into the morass of political correctness in which Dopers dare not allude to perfidious Jewish- American divided loyalties over Israel, Little Black Sambo or other innocent remarks and symbols.

*that poster as I recall departed the SD in a huff not long after it was found that he'd listed a series of tropes in one of his commentaries that turned out to be lifted nearly verbatim from a Stormfront-style website. It was a sad day for free, unfettered speech. :(

k9bfriender 03-07-2019 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21524159)
In many cases, yes. Much or even most of the criticism of Omar is bullshit. But some of it is reasonable and legitimate -- and she seems to agree, based on the solid apology she made.

Some of the criticism of her word choice is reasonable. She did apologize for her word choice.

The criticism of her is not. She did not apologize for who she is.

And, if any criticism is necessary, I think that she has already had more than she deserves.

asahi 03-07-2019 01:33 PM

The Vox website has a commentary written by Zack Beauchamp, who identifies as Jewish, that I found to be pretty measured and thoughtful.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-semitism-jews

The article actually contains the full text of what she said and it's clear that she wasn't coming from a place of anti-semitism when she made her remarks. It wasn't another thoughtless tweet, but it did include the now-infamous reference, which appears at the end of the quote/cite.

The conclusion I come to after reading the quote is that Omar has the same problem that a lot of people who aren't born and raised in the United States have, and that they're not always fully acculturated. Omar reminds me of other foreign-born Americans in that she sometimes seems unaware of how to approach sensitive cultural topics like antisemitism. She, like many non-natives, doesn't always know how to be PC. She sees Israel through her own cultural lens, which is understandable. Yet there are Jews in America today who are old enough to remember and even have experienced the Holocaust. And there are countless people who are children and grandchildren of those survivors who've heard those stories, which is probably a perspective she doesn't appreciate. There's also a long and complicated history of periodic antisemitism in the United States, which even predates the Nazi Germany era.

My conclusion is that a group of mostly veteran and perhaps a few of the newly-elected Democrats in the House need to come to some kind of understanding about how they're going to address Israel in public going forward. And they probably need to take Omar aside and explain that she might not be the best representative to talk so openly about the Israeli-American relationship -- let someone else talk who can advocate for more accountability from Israel and its supporters but in a way that's more sensitive and constructive than what we've seen.

Ravenman 03-07-2019 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21524080)
Ravenman, I'm still curious about the boundaries of "acceptability" in discussing Israel's policies and actions, especially since its very identity is tied to religion and ethnicity and makes blurring of the boundaries (by either the speaker or the listener) somewhat inevitable even if unintentional. Do you have any further thoughts on the subject?

See post 107, particularly the last paragraph in which I state that it is hard to know what's really in her heart, versus her bungling something because she appears to have a lesser command of the Israeli-Palestinian issues than the average poster in this thread.

Miller 03-07-2019 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crucible (Post 21523833)
a very inaccurate neologism, if that is true.

It's English usage dates back to 1880, so not a "neologism" by any stretch. Also, there's nothing "inaccurate" about it. There's no requirement that a word maintain its specific meaning when it's broken down into its root components.

Ravenman 03-07-2019 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9bfriender (Post 21524113)
If a person states that NRA lobbyists are buying politicians to split their loyalties to gun manufacturers, is that person being offensive?

I'm sure you realize that's a silly question. But to answer it anyway:
a) I'm personally not fond of ad hominems, so to the extent that someone attacks anyone as doing something for the money, rather than attacking the substance of what they say, sure, to a degree such a statement is offensive.
b) Interchanging comments that can be interpreted as offensive to a racial group with comments that can be offensive to non-racial groups isn't exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. Of course comments that touch on centuries old tropes are more sensitive and ill-advised, as Rep. Omar herself has stated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Tooth (Post 21524229)
I doubt her sincerity, and that's not a criticism. She did it so the crybabies on the right would shut up and stick their thumbs back in their mouths is all.

Oh, I strongly disagree. If anything, she apologized because of the blowback from her party, not because of blowback from Republicans. Which should be totally obvious.
Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi
The Vox website has a commentary written by Zack Beauchamp, who identifies as Jewish, that I found to be pretty measured and thoughtful.

Snipped the rest of your post, but I very strongly agree with those points. I think clumsiness is probably a pretty good explanation, as opposed to arguing that she never said anything wrong.

DrDeth 03-07-2019 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9bfriender (Post 21524113)
If a person states that NRA lobbyists are buying politicians to split their loyalties to gun manufacturers, is that person being offensive?

Congresscritters must be loyal to America. However, it's perfectly Ok to be loyal to a local company based on 'what's good for xxxx, is good for America". I would have any issue with a Congressman representing Detroit to support the automobile industry there. Jobs, you know.

Senator Scoop Jackson was known as "the senator from Boeing", and no one thought that was all that bad.

And FYI, the NRA doesn't really lobby that much on behalf of gun manufacturers. It's gun owners, - maybe around a third of all Citizens.

LAZombie 03-07-2019 03:00 PM

Here's an interview of African American former Congresswoman Cynthia Mckinney. It shines light on the current situation.

McKinney: Well, every candidate for Congress at that time had a pledge. They were given a pledge to sign and I was new on the scene and the pledge had Jerusalem as the capital city, the military superiority of Israel,...

Press TV: American Congress people have to sign this pledge?

McKinney: Yes, you sign the pledge. If you do not sign the pledge, you do not get money.....

Press TV: I just want to get into this pledge a little bit more. So this is basically something that is mandatory, that every Congressperson has to sign saying that what Jerusalem as you said is the capital of Israel, and what else?

McKinney: You make a commitment that you would vote to support the military superiority of Israel that the economic assistant that Israel wants that you would vote to provide that.

Press TV: ...they are supposed to be representing the people of the United States not a foreign country and yet they have to pledge allegiance to a foreign state? No one questions this? My bolding.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...n-iran/239298/

k9bfriender 03-07-2019 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21524437)
I'm sure you realize that's a silly question. But to answer it anyway:

No, I do not think it's a silly question. It is a question that I do not know the answer to, which is why I asked it.
Quote:

a) I'm personally not fond of ad hominems, so to the extent that someone attacks anyone as doing something for the money, rather than attacking the substance of what they say, sure, to a degree such a statement is offensive.
I can agree that discounting someone's statement solely due to them taking money from a lobby that may encourage them to make that statement can qualify as an ad hominem, and I can see how that is not that far from what she did.

However, it is a logical fallacy at worst, not offensive.
Quote:


b) Interchanging comments that can be interpreted as offensive to a racial group with comments that can be offensive to non-racial groups isn't exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. Of course comments that touch on centuries old tropes are more sensitive and ill-advised, as Rep. Omar herself has stated.
That's why I asked when it becomes offensive.

senoy 03-07-2019 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAZombie (Post 21524555)
Here's an interview of African American former Congresswoman Cynthia Mckinney. It shines light on the current situation.

McKinney: Well, every candidate for Congress at that time had a pledge. They were given a pledge to sign and I was new on the scene and the pledge had Jerusalem as the capital city, the military superiority of Israel,...

Press TV: American Congress people have to sign this pledge?

McKinney: Yes, you sign the pledge. If you do not sign the pledge, you do not get money.....

Press TV: I just want to get into this pledge a little bit more. So this is basically something that is mandatory, that every Congressperson has to sign saying that what Jerusalem as you said is the capital of Israel, and what else?

McKinney: You make a commitment that you would vote to support the military superiority of Israel that the economic assistant that Israel wants that you would vote to provide that.

Press TV: ...they are supposed to be representing the people of the United States not a foreign country and yet they have to pledge allegiance to a foreign state? No one questions this? My bolding.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...n-iran/239298/

Yes, it does shed light on it. This is typical anti-Semitic rhetoric that frequently makes its rounds on anti-Jewish websites. The fact that Omar believes it is exactly what makes her anti-Semitic.

Cynthia McKinney - while indeed a former Congresswoman - is also known for embracing conspiracy theories and particularly anti-Jewish ones such as believing that Israel initiated the Nice and Munich terror attacks and the 'Dancing Israelis' conspiracy theory that posited that Jews were behind 9/11. She has also blamed 'Zionists' for her failure to be reelected and has pushed the story that Jews own the '12 banks that control the world money supply.'

k9bfriender 03-07-2019 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21524534)
Congresscritters must be loyal to America.

They should be loyal to their constituents.
Quote:

However, it's perfectly Ok to be loyal to a local company based on 'what's good for xxxx, is good for America". I would have any issue with a Congressman representing Detroit to support the automobile industry there. Jobs, you know.
Detroit and the american automobile industry in general, sure. Ford at the expense of Chrysler, no.
Quote:

Senator Scoop Jackson was known as "the senator from Boeing", and no one thought that was all that bad.
I hadn't heard of that, and now that I have, I do consider it to be bad. I didn't like when the CEO of Boeing got to be deputy of the DOJ, and I liked it even less when he became acting AG.

Hmmm, having not heard of "scoop jackson" I google, and wikipedia tells me that he was a senator in the 40's and early 50's.

Is that relevant?
Quote:

And FYI, the NRA doesn't really lobby that much on behalf of gun manufacturers. It's gun owners, - maybe around a third of all Citizens.
We're not getting into this here. Whether or not it was a "correct" statement, the question was whether it was offensive.

MortSahlFan 03-07-2019 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIick (Post 21524312)
Why is anti-Semitic any worse than Israelis being anti-Palestinian?

Have you seen the way the Israelis treat the Palestinians?

Somebody says something bad about Palestinians and no one bats an eye.

I agree and would add most Semites are Arab. <hands over ears and eyes>

Jackmannii 03-07-2019 03:37 PM

I tried to locate this Pledge that Cynthia McKinney and all other Congresspeople supposedly had to sign, but all I could find were references to McKinney's "bombshell" comment, plus one site that said the Pledge was Top Sekrut and they couldn't reproduce it, but instead posted an alleged U.K. version which lawmakers over there were similarly compelled to sign and are lying to their constituents about having supported. :dubious:

My favorite part of the linked McKinney interview:

McKinney: "So, yes I first handedly and also frontally was assaulted by the presence of the pro Israeli lobby.

Press TV: Were you physically assaulted?

McKinney: Well, politically assaulted to such an extent that my father had to ask the question publically, 'what does stoned mountain Georgia have to do with Israel? What I was doing was servicing the needs of my constituents and I was not allowed to do that because I did not toe the line on US policy for Israel. "


McKinney appears to have spent way too much time on Stoned Mountain. :)

Guinastasia 03-07-2019 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21523787)
But you see those attempts at enforced tribalism mostly from Jews themselves, don't you? Isn't the pressure not to criticize the conduct of Israel's current government strongest among Diaspora Jews?

Dude, do you even know what you sound like?

Quote:

Let's hope not. But I don't think you can dismiss it so absolutely, especially not when considering how so many others currently in office have been outwardly bigoted for years. And some, I'm sure, are good people. :rolleyes:

I'll grant you that plenty of people are probably using this as an opportunity wave their Islamophobia around and get away with it. But I think a good many people are rightly pissed about a legit issue.


Quote:

Omar's accusations, if you want to call them that, were of her colleagues, for being influenced to follow the interests of a foreign government that expresses them in the language said colleagues best understand. The history of previous generations in other countries should not provide a blanket excuse for that to be done, or to shout down any questioning of it. But that's what's happening, including in this thread.
Maybe, maybe not.


Quote:

It does indeed. The context of Omar's statement was present-day politics in the US.
Not quite.

Guinastasia 03-07-2019 04:09 PM

Cynthia McKinney is a raving lunatic. I wouldn't take anything she says seriously.

DrDeth 03-07-2019 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackmannii (Post 21524627)
I tried to locate this Pledge that Cynthia McKinney and all other Congresspeople supposedly had to sign, but all I could find were references to McKinney's "bombshell" comment, plus one site that said the Pledge was Top Sekrut and they couldn't reproduce it, but instead posted an alleged U.K. version which lawmakers over there were similarly compelled to sign and are lying to their constituents about having supported. :dubious:

My favorite part of the linked McKinney interview:

McKinney: "So, yes I first handedly and also frontally was assaulted by the presence of the pro Israeli lobby.

Press TV: Were you physically assaulted?

McKinney: Well, politically assaulted to such an extent that my father had to ask the question publically, 'what does stoned mountain Georgia have to do with Israel? What I was doing was servicing the needs of my constituents and I was not allowed to do that because I did not toe the line on US policy for Israel. "


McKinney appears to have spent way too much time on Stoned Mountain. :)

Yeah, without seeing this so-called "pledge" I have grave doubts..:dubious:.. Congresscitters are allergic to signing things like that. And of course Stone Mountain is the heart and soul of KKK country, so....

DrDeth 03-07-2019 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9bfriender (Post 21524622)

Hmmm, having not heard of "scoop jackson" I google, and wikipedia tells me that he was a senator in the 40's and early 50's.

Is that relevant?
....

He was a Senator from Wash state until 1983, and the second place Dem candidate from Prez vs Carter. I knew him personally.

fedman 03-07-2019 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21520039)
It's also fair to note how Netanyahu, and the Israel jingo lobby, have an effective tool to shout down any questioning of his government's actions - the accusation of antisemitism. It shouldn't, but does, need to be pointed out regularly that Jewry, Israel, and Likud are not synonyms.

to show how language gets highjacked, Arabs are semitic just like Jews, so how can she be "anti-Semitic? Anti-Israel is not same as anti-Semitic, even though Israel and American Jews throw that around loosely

fedman 03-07-2019 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alessan (Post 21520041)
Except that's not entirely accurate.

First of all, the pro-Israel donors are Americans, not "American-Israeli". Just because someone happens to be Jewish and pro-Israel does not make them any less American. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, the Israeli government does not donate to American politicians.

Second of all, she hasn't accused them of supporting a (minor, local) foreign power; instead, she has accused them of “allegiance to a foreign country.” Support is one thing; allegiance is something completely different, which feeds into the classic antisemitic canard of dual loyalty. After all, an American can advocate that the U.S. support another country and still be a patriotic American, but own who gives "allegiance" - a claim that she does not support in any way - cannot.

And who she is has nothing to do with the fact that people are criticizing her - she'd get exactly as much heat if she were a white dude. In fact, I'm personally inclined to cut her some slack because of her background.

remember the Pollard spy case? The number of American Jews stealing secrets? Israel criticizing Andrew Young for meeting with Palestinians, like they control our politics?

fedman 03-07-2019 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 21520068)
What you leave out in calling Israel a "foreign power" is that they are an ally of the United States, not an enemy. "Foreign power" invokes the idea of a country working against US interests. But, if we're allies, we kinda have to try and work within the interests of both countries.

So treating this like a bad thing invokes a historical issue: that of claiming that people of Jewish descent have too much power in our government. She's even specifically referencing monetary power. She's just invoking all of the tropes against Jewish people.

It would be different if her argument was that we shouldn't be allied with Israel. There's no reason to bring up money and other trappings, or to imply Israel is a "foreign power" working against our interests, or that people of a Jewish decent have an allegiance to that foreign power. There's no reason for her to be touching the antisemitic tropes with 10-foot pole, but she keeps doing it.

And, seeing as the pro-Israel lobbyists are part of the coalition of the Democratic party, it's entirely understandable that the Democratic Party is wanting to do something to distance themselves from this person who is treating them like the enemy. It makes sense to reiterate that, while it's okay to not agree with Israel, it's not okay to be antisemitic. Because this new representative is starting the precedent of antisemitic adjacent rhetoric.

Her ethnicity is only relevant in that it is one that has traditionally been antisemitic. On its own, it means nothing. But, when someone keeps on invoking antisemitic tropes, one starts to wonder if it's because of her culture. At the very least, it seems to have not prepared her for the acceptable and unacceptable ways to voice disapproval with the US allyship with Israel--the way that doesn't come off as antisemitic.

really?? There is evidence that Israel sold US secrets to Russia after independence in exchange for Russian Jews exit

asterion 03-07-2019 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guinastasia (Post 21522764)
It's not because she's a Muslim, or from the Middle East.

When did the Horn of Africa become part of the Middle East?

Guinastasia 03-07-2019 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asterion (Post 21524856)
When did the Horn of Africa become part of the Middle East?

That's right, she's from Somalia. I was mixing her up with Linda Sarsour's family. (I know Sarsour was born in the U.S.) :smack:

Carry on.

iiandyiiii 03-07-2019 05:49 PM

So based on the news, the Democrats crafted the bill to be a refutation/condemnation of anti-semitism as well as other forms of bigotry, and all Democrats voted for it (including Omar!), while several Republicans voted against it.

k9bfriender 03-07-2019 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21524701)
He was a Senator from Wash state until 1983, and the second place Dem candidate from Prez vs Carter. I knew him personally.

Ah, sorry, I skimmed too quickly, he was a rep until 1951 and then a senator till his death in 1983.

Still, that's 35 years ago when he was no longer a senator, and nearly 70 years since he was elected to that position.

Not overly relevant to today.

And if what you are saying is that he was representing boeing, rather than his constituents, then I still think that that is wrong.

fedman 03-07-2019 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alessan (Post 21520079)
Really, it's not so much a matter of allegiance to foreign countries as it is lack of allegiance to their own countries. "Dual loyalty" is another way of saying "not fully loyal". Jews have always been accused of being loyal to themselves only, as traitors hiding among loyal patriots, ready to stab their country in the back in the name of "international Jewry". It's why Jews weren't allowed full citizenship anywhere in Europe until the 19th Century.

did American Jews criticize Israel when they massacred American sailors on USS Liberty? Did they criticize Israel when a Hasidic Jew murdered 2 innocent Black kids in Crown Heights and ran away to Israel? Did they criticize Israel when our so-called ally defied US sanctions and sold arms to aparteit South Africa?

Left Hand of Dorkness 03-07-2019 07:14 PM

This is such a gross problem, because when one argues against an overbroad interpretation of "antisemitism," inevitably someone comes along and chimes in with genuinely antisemitic nonsense.

Fedman, stop doing that.

LAZombie 03-07-2019 07:17 PM

These senators want to make it illegal to organize boycotts against Israel. So many people on this board think it's perfectly fine to destroy a small business because the owners hold a belief contrary to theirs. Actions have consequences don't you know? It's free speech. I guess free speech is not allowed for critics of Israel.

https://www.cardin.senate.gov/newsro...ti-boycott-act

DrDeth 03-07-2019 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAZombie (Post 21525034)
These senators want to make it illegal to organize boycotts against Israel. So many people on this board think it's perfectly fine to destroy a small business because the owners hold a belief contrary to theirs. Actions have consequences don't you know? It's free speech. I guess free speech is not allowed for critics of Israel.

https://www.cardin.senate.gov/newsro...ti-boycott-act

That's not what anti-BDS laws do:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ates-explained

Guinastasia 03-07-2019 07:44 PM

What I want to know -- do people here find Palestinians innocent? I am NOT saying that Israel is either. But there are attrocities on both sides -- HAMAS, for example, is hardly an organization of charity.

The whole region is a mess. It's not a case of "one side good, one side bad." So why is it "I support Side X, that means I hate Side Y?"

Saying, "hey, Israel has a right to exist doesn't mean that Palestinians should be shit on, nor does it give Israel free reign, or make them free from criticism. It's the fact that some people use it as an excuse to let their antisemitism freak flags fly. Just like people do so after 9-11, using it as an excuse to go around and spew all kinds of Islamophobic bullshit.

PhillyGuy 03-07-2019 07:53 PM

When I Google:

Ilhan Abdullahi Omar nationality

I get:

American Somali

So she owns loyalty to two governments, one of which is AFAIK the most pro-Israel of any in the world, and one of which does not recognize Israel as a nation-state.

Two of my three children are dual citizens. My daughter is officially loyal to both the United States, and the country it rebelled against, the United Kingdom. So if she favors a trade deal to help Britain weather Brexit, where does her loyalty lie?

I don't have a problem with divided loyalty. Having pure and undivided loyalty may well lead to worse policy decisions. I'd have a little less distrust of Ted Cruz if he hadn't renounced his Canadian citizenship.

It is entirely possible that having a deep understanding of Somali viewpoints helps you better understand the Palestinian narrative. You could say something comparable about any Israeli-American dual citizens in Congress. I don't think there are any, but I'd be glad to see a few.

So Somalis in Congress are fine with me. As a Jew, I do have a problem with having dual loyalty charges thrown up to dismiss my views.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21524386)
The conclusion I come to after reading the quote is that Omar has the same problem that a lot of people who aren't born and raised in the United States have, and that they're not always fully acculturated.

I find it a stretch that she got "it's all about the Benjamins" from Somali culture. And I think the idea that Jews have some unique dual loyalty problem comes out of European culture. As for hypnotism, I googled:

somalia hypnosis

and limited the response to prior to 2018. It just doesn't seem that hypnotism has much to do with Somali culture. I don't know where she got her animus against my religion from, but would want to see actual evidence she grew up with those memes before blaming Somali culture.

I fear that this does have something to do with Trump having lowered standards for what counts as unacceptable ethnic demagoguery.

Guinastasia 03-07-2019 08:17 PM

Google "Jewish hypnosis" and you might find something a little different.

"All about the Benjamins" -- it has to do with the stereotype of greedy Jews.


I have no idea what that has to do with Omar's upbringing, unless ashai is trying to imply that because she's from Somalia, that she was raised antisemtic or something of that nature.

Also, from what I've gathered is that "Zionist" tends to be used as an antisemtic dogwhistle nowadays. Or "I'm not anti-Jewish, I'm anti-Israel!" Which strikes me as saying, "I'm not anti-Mexican, I'm anti-Mexico!" "I'm not anti-Polish, I'm anti-Poland!" Doesn't quite work -- you'd get torn to pieces if you said the latter and rightly so.


(I don't know what Omar's stance is on how to work things out in Israel/Palestine, whether she believes in a one or two state solution)

k9bfriender 03-07-2019 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guinastasia (Post 21525115)
Google "Jewish hypnosis" and you might find something a little different.

What would I find that is relevant? I mean there is abunch of stupid conspiracy theory out there, but if I go googling about any conspiracy, I'm gonna find some kooky results.
Quote:

"All about the Benjamins" -- it has to do with the stereotype of greedy Jews.
I never knew that it had anything to do with Jews. I had always heard it as, and used it as, talking about $100 bills, as in lots of money. It has to do with greed, sure, but nothing about jews.
Quote:


I have no idea what that has to do with Omar's upbringing, unless ashai is trying to imply that because she's from Somalia, that she was raised antisemtic or something of that nature.

Also, from what I've gathered is that "Zionist" tends to be used as an antisemtic dogwhistle nowadays. Or "I'm not anti-Jewish, I'm anti-Israel!" Which strikes me as saying, "I'm not anti-Mexican, I'm anti-Mexico!" "I'm not anti-Polish, I'm anti-Poland!" Doesn't quite work -- you'd get torn to pieces if you said the latter and rightly so.
How so? If the govt of Poland were to pass a law that I disagreed with, and I criticized that law, then you could take my stance to be against the govt of Poland, but it would be a pretty disingenuous stretch to say that I am against the people of Poland.

To use a more relevant and realistic example, when I criticize russia's expansion efforts into it's neighbors, I'm not anti-Russian, but I am anti-Russia
Quote:


(I don't know what Omar's stance is on how to work things out in Israel/Palestine, whether she believes in a one or two state solution)
I'm not sure if many people even know their own stance on that one.

PhillyGuy 03-07-2019 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9bfriender (Post 21525136)
To use a more relevant and realistic example, when I criticize russia's expansion efforts into it's neighbors, I'm not anti-Russian, but I am anti-Russia.

This would play terribly in Russia.

I don't agree with Russian expansion, but I'm not anti-Russia.

I don't agree with the Chinese government locking up many hundreds of thousands of Muslims in re-education camps, but not I'm not anti-China. I'm pro-China.

If people in these countries think that we are against the country, rather than against various policies, that is going to help cement in excessive nationalism. I'm not saying it's the main factor that causes countries to have a bellicose foreign policy, or even the second most important factor, but it does push things in that direction.

Guinastasia 03-07-2019 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9bfriender (Post 21525136)
What would I find that is relevant? I mean there is abunch of stupid conspiracy theory out there, but if I go googling about any conspiracy, I'm gonna find some kooky results.

To point out WHY it's such a big deal. The poster said he never heard of a link between "Somalia" and "hypnosis" and there probably isn't. But there IS a long one between "Jews" and "hypnosis".

Quote:

I never knew that it had anything to do with Jews. I had always heard it as, and used it as, talking about $100 bills, as in lots of money. It has to do with greed, sure, but nothing about jews.
In this context, yes, it did.

Quote:

How so? If the govt of Poland were to pass a law that I disagreed with, and I criticized that law, then you could take my stance to be against the govt of Poland, but it would be a pretty disingenuous stretch to say that I am against the people of Poland.

To use a more relevant and realistic example, when I criticize russia's expansion efforts into it's neighbors, I'm not anti-Russian, but I am anti-Russia
I should've been more clear. Plenty of people seem to be against Israel's right to even EXIST, and then say, "Well, I'm not anti-JEWISH, just anti-ZIONIST!" Traditionally, that's been used by antisemites. Once again, context matters.

Surely if you disagreed with Russia, or China, or Canada, you wouldn't say, "well, they shouldn't have the right to exist!" A lot of people feel that way about Israel. :(

Quote:

I'm not sure if many people even know their own stance on that one.
Agreed.

str8cashhomie 03-07-2019 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guinastasia (Post 21525072)
What I want to know -- do people here find Palestinians innocent? I am NOT saying that Israel is either. But there are attrocities on both sides -- HAMAS, for example, is hardly an organization of charity.

The whole region is a mess. It's not a case of "one side good, one side bad." So why is it "I support Side X, that means I hate Side Y?"

Saying, "hey, Israel has a right to exist doesn't mean that Palestinians should be shit on, nor does it give Israel free reign, or make them free from criticism. It's the fact that some people use it as an excuse to let their antisemitism freak flags fly. Just like people do so after 9-11, using it as an excuse to go around and spew all kinds of Islamophobic bullshit.

While I generally agree that this is a goal worth striving for, it's tough situation because Israel has fundamentally conflicting goals to Hamas and Fatah, and for a sizeable chunk of Israelis and Palestinians, these are goals they don't believe in compromising on. Israel's Likud government doesn't believe that a state of Palestine should exist, and Hamas and Fatah don't believe that a state of Israel should exist.

I don't think Palestinians are innocent, and Hamas and the PLO are the absolute worst offenders in the conflict, but it's a mistake to just look at either of the two sides as pursuing pragmatic goals and resorting to violence when there is peaceful options are insufficient to ensure security or national interest. The problem is that on an ideological level, they don't believe the other side should exist, so just looking at atrocities and opposing the atrocities is not sufficient - people need to acknowledge the core motivations.

Guinastasia 03-07-2019 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by str8cashhomie (Post 21525282)
While I generally agree that this is a goal worth striving for, it's tough situation because Israel has fundamentally conflicting goals to Hamas and Fatah, and for a sizeable chunk of Israelis and Palestinians, these are goals they don't believe in compromising on. Israel's Likud government doesn't believe that a state of Palestine should exist, and Hamas and Fatah don't believe that a state of Israel should exist.

I don't think Palestinians are innocent, and Hamas and the PLO are the absolute worst offenders in the conflict, but it's a mistake to just look at either of the two sides as pursuing pragmatic goals and resorting to violence when there is peaceful options are insufficient to ensure security or national interest. The problem is that on an ideological level, they don't believe the other side should exist, so just looking at atrocities and opposing the atrocities is not sufficient - people need to acknowledge the core motivations.


Well no shit. That's kinda the problem isn't it? ;) It's just that some people seem to think it's all on one side, but it's not. It's more complicated than that. It won't be solved in my life time, that's for damned sure.

str8cashhomie 03-07-2019 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guinastasia (Post 21525288)
Well no shit. That's kinda the problem isn't it? ;) It's just that some people seem to think it's all on one side, but it's not. It's more complicated than that. It won't be solved in my life time, that's for damned sure.

It is, but the consequence of it is that outside observers shouldn't just criticize individual atrocities. They have to look at overall goals. It's similar to looking at a Russian pilot performing dangerous maneuvers near a NATO pilot and criticizing them for not having safety trainings. Obviuosly the pilot was trying to do that with the express reason of preventing NATO from performing it's core mission.

Left Hand of Dorkness 03-07-2019 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guinastasia (Post 21525072)
What I want to know -- do people here find Palestinians innocent?

Which Palestinians? All of them? Hamas members? All the ones killed in the conflict? Palestinian toddlers?

The very framing of this question is an enormous problem, in the same way that it'd be an enormous problem to ask the similar question: "Do people here find Jews innocent?"

That's why it's so crucial to talk not about nationalities nor ethnicities, but about political groups. Generalizing about Likud and AIPAC can be done coherently. Generalizing about Israeli citizens or Jews cannot be.

mitchm 03-07-2019 11:30 PM

Are Jew a Minority? Is there a history of Jew hatred and oppression, and does it still exist?
 
-Jewish Americans are roughly 1.4% of US population, or about 10% of the African Americans population. They are not called a minority only because they have been statistically successful.

-Jews have been the objects of hatred and oppression by the two dominant Western Reglions and their followers over the last two millennia. There is no reading of the history of Israel which does not involve the modern racial hatred of Jew in the West.

-Criticism of Israel is not anti-semitic. Talking about Israel, the only national home for Jews, as an illgetimate entity that has no right to exist, that is uniquely hateful in its oppression of the local Arab population is expressive of the long history of Jew hatred.

The American congresswoman is either ignorant of that history, or a particpant in it. She has certainly been well informed by now.

If white Americans were invoking the old charnges of the racial hatred of blacks or demonizing black nations, the Democrats, and all liberals, and many American of every political persuasion, would assume the person was a racist. Perhaps they would accept an apology once? It's now been twice. At a certain point in the future, no apology will suffice.

I really don't have an opionion on the Congresswoman. Let's see how many more ignorant things she says.

That most people can't understand what all the fuss is about, all she did was criticize a nation for its (in my opinion) unjustifiable politicies, does not surpse me in the least. Blacks are used to this. Jews are used to this. It comes with being a small minority. Most whites can admit to racism all they want, they fundamentally don't get it. Same thing with most non Jews about anti-Semitism. Much of it is innocent in the way we all are. Some of it most certainly is not.

asahi 03-08-2019 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fedman (Post 21524890)
did American Jews criticize Israel when they massacred American sailors on USS Liberty? Did they criticize Israel when a Hasidic Jew murdered 2 innocent Black kids in Crown Heights and ran away to Israel? Did they criticize Israel when our so-called ally defied US sanctions and sold arms to aparteit South Africa?

As Alessan will attest, I'm not a blind lover of Israel, but sorry, this post is just crap. Military accidents happen -- the US shot down an Iranian passenger jet. And what the hell does the murder of black children in America have to do with foreign policy? Find better examples, or look dumb.

asahi 03-08-2019 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guinastasia (Post 21525115)
Google "Jewish hypnosis" and you might find something a little different.

"All about the Benjamins" -- it has to do with the stereotype of greedy Jews.


I have no idea what that has to do with Omar's upbringing, unless ashai is trying to imply that because she's from Somalia, that she was raised antisemtic or something of that nature.

What I'm saying is that being a naturalized American from Somalia, there are two things that come to mind:

1) She doesn't view Israel as the ally in the same way that Americans are taught to believe that Israel is an ally. But if you spend any appreciable time outside the United States, you'd find that this is not at all unique. American viewpoints and attitudes toward Israel tend to be exceptional, not the standard. Most people outside the US believe that Israel has a right to exist, but simultaneously find Israel to be manipulative. So while Omar's rhetoric and attitudes might be offensive by American standards, by global standards, they're not necessarily offensive at all. And I'll just put it this way: Americans are extremely ignorant of history and that includes the history of "Trans-Jordan"

2) My other point was that, having lived with and worked with non-native speakers of English and the foreign-born population in America (citizens, permanent residents, or long-term H1B visa holders), I have observed numerous cases in which non-natives have advanced language skills, obvious acculturation, and yet still fail acculturation in key aspects. One thing that a lot of foreign-born Americans struggle with is in knowing and failing to know what the taboo subjects are, and how to talk about them. I once had a student write an essay, much of which was well-composed, but there was one section in which he wrote "We Chinese are like the Jews of Asia, very resourceful and efficient with money." I had to explain to him why that one line, out of what was an otherwise, wonderful bit of prose was fatally problematic and why he needed another draft. He was stunned and embarrassed because he had never thought of himself of being anti-semitic or anti-anything.

I think Omar is a combination of the two: she's someone who has an inherently stronger bias against Israel than Americans do, which in and of itself is not wrong. However, I think the real problem is that she lacks the ability, the acculturation to engage in productive discourse about some of these topics without triggering perceptions that she's deliberately using tropes to troll her followers. That's why, while I'm not in favor of censures per se, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to have some senior leadership give her some, shall we say, "counseling" on these issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guinastasia (Post 21525115)
Also, from what I've gathered is that "Zionist" tends to be used as an antisemtic dogwhistle nowadays. Or "I'm not anti-Jewish, I'm anti-Israel!" Which strikes me as saying, "I'm not anti-Mexican, I'm anti-Mexico!" "I'm not anti-Polish, I'm anti-Poland!" Doesn't quite work -- you'd get torn to pieces if you said the latter and rightly so.

I just don't see it that way. You should be able to make a distinction between Zionism and Judaism, just like you should be able to make a distinction between Netanyahu and, say, Shimon Peres. I think that to suggest otherwise is actually an insult to Jews.

Barack Obama 03-08-2019 12:48 AM

So people like steve king can be blatantly racist, people like Trump can literally call for violence against others, and the dems have no problem with that? But once one of the progressive members asserts their position on israel the whole party explodes.

This is the fault people voting in establishment characters and not looking into peoples voting record or financial history. This is the kind of shit you get when you vote for republican muppets placed in the democratic party

Guinastasia 03-08-2019 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barack Obama (Post 21525390)
So people like steve king can be blatantly racist, people like Trump can literally call for violence against others, and the dems have no problem with that?

Who said they did?

Quote:

But once one of the progressive members asserts their position on israel the whole party explodes.

This is the fault people voting in establishment characters and not looking into peoples voting record or financial history. This is the kind of shit you get when you vote for republican muppets placed in the democratic party
Maybe it's easier having control over your own party, than that of the other side?

UltraVires 03-08-2019 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21521069)
My point is that it is OK IMO to say "it's all about the Benjamins" in Pollard's case even though he's Jewish. A Jewish guy who sells out his country for money is acting out a Jewish stereotype. But selling out your country is still worthy of criticism.

A criticism is valid if it's true, even if others make it falsely.

Omar's criticism is not valid IMO, but it is not anti-Semitic for that reason.

Regards,
Shodan

I agree. Further, although the left is guilty of this type of attribution all of the time, our side shouldn't do it just because we have this chance. I known that labeling people as racist, bigoted, or anti-semetic is the new fashion, but it does nothing for reasoned debate.

I support Israel, but if someone wants to say that they are a powerful lobby spending money to curry favor with some of our politicians, then let's look at that issue and have that debate instead of just hurling insults at people.

asahi 03-08-2019 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barack Obama (Post 21525390)
So people like steve king can be blatantly racist, people like Trump can literally call for violence against others, and the dems have no problem with that? But once one of the progressive members asserts their position on israel the whole party explodes.

This is the fault people voting in establishment characters and not looking into peoples voting record or financial history. This is the kind of shit you get when you vote for republican muppets placed in the democratic party

I believe there was a resolution in response to Steve King's comments recently, no? I'm guessing most Democrats supported that resolution. And who says the Dems have no problem with the president or his remarks?

The Democrats wanted to police their own, and it was probably the right move, even though I would totally concur that we're way too sensitive when it comes to Israel. The problem is that Omar doesn't seem to understand how to talk about Israel in a constructive way, without causing controversy. It's not unreasonable to ask her to dial it back until she does.

ElvisL1ves 03-08-2019 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guinastasia (Post 21524654)
Dude, do you even know what you sound like?

I know what you think I sound like, yes - but that reflects on you. As does your "But the Palestinians!" deflection attempt later on.

Quote:

I'll grant you that plenty of people are probably using this as an opportunity wave their Islamophobia around and get away with it. But I think a good many people are rightly pissed about a legit issue.
And that requires exploration, not declaring it to be off-limits or based on bigotry.

ElvisL1ves 03-08-2019 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barack Obama (Post 21525390)
So people like steve king can be blatantly racist, people like Trump can literally call for violence against others, and the dems have no problem with that?

Oh, they do - but if you're looking for a party to deplore, look at the deplorable party that has done nothing to rein them in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyGuy (Post 21525087)
So she owns loyalty to two governments

Is that true of any naturalized citizen, even one chosen to be a Representative? Or is it only people from countries or ethnicities that can easily be stereotyped as holding certain views?

Quote:

Two of my three children are dual citizens. My daughter is officially loyal to both the United States, and the country it rebelled against, the United Kingdom.
First, tell us which agency or person is "officially" in charge of deciding loyalties. If the question is which country she would fight for in case of a war, maybe you should ask her. If it's something more complex, involving being a citizen of the world, well, maybe you should ask her that too - it might be illuminating.

Quote:

As a Jew, I do have a problem with having dual loyalty charges thrown up to dismiss my views.
Yet that is exactly what you're doing to Rep. Omar. :rolleyes:

MortSahlFan 03-08-2019 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAZombie (Post 21525034)
These senators want to make it illegal to organize boycotts against Israel. So many people on this board think it's perfectly fine to destroy a small business because the owners hold a belief contrary to theirs. Actions have consequences don't you know? It's free speech. I guess free speech is not allowed for critics of Israel.

https://www.cardin.senate.gov/newsro...ti-boycott-act

THIS is scary, Megan McCain, you fake. If your daddy didn't go to a far-away country and kill people, you would have no job.

Free speech is the FIRST amendment for a reason. I'm afraid of the thought-control, and the self-censorship people already engage in. Of course, people only notice this once its too late!

drivekiller 03-08-2019 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21520032)
One question I have, and I genuinely don't know the answer: does the American Israel Public Affairs Committee have analogous organizations that promote the relationship between the US and other nations?

Is there some organization that's basically the American Spain Public Affairs Committee? The American Mexico Public Affairs Committee? The American South Africa Public Affairs Committee?

If so, do any of them have the staffing, budget, or political pull that AIPAC has?

If AIPAC is unique, either in existence or in reach, then it's fair to examine their influence. If they're not unique, then someone who zeroes in on them ought to have their motives examined.

OpenSecrets.org tracks single-issue campaign contributions and pro-Israel is the only nation-based category. I infer that other foreign interest campaign donations are quite small or wrapped up in other categories like trade perhaps.
https://www.opensecrets.org/industri....php?ind=Q05++

But, to the extent that she was talking about AIPAC, Omar's statement is factually incorrect. On the one hand pro-Israel lobbying expenditures are increasing, and AIPAC is by far the biggest pro-Israel lobbyist ($5 Million in 2017 I think). On the other hand, AIPAC doesn't contribute directly to candidates, which is what I inferred from her remark.

The big offense that brought out all the howling, is that she’s embarrassing congress by calling out the political contributions that attempt to influence relations with a foreign power. Browsing around OpenSecrets.org we note that $4.25 million in campaign contributions were single-issue pro-gun, $6.25 million were for environmental issues, and nearly 15 million are pro-Israel contributions. It’s also possible to drill down by recipients, where we see that Democrats are the big beneficiaries of pro-Israel funds.

So yeah, Omar may well be anti-semitic, but she's got a point -- pro-Israel campaign contributions almost 4 times pro-gun contributions!!! and IIRC they approach 8 x anti-abortion campaign contributions. Support for Israel is a great way to fund a campaign.

RTFirefly 03-08-2019 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAZombie (Post 21525034)
These senators want to make it illegal to organize boycotts against Israel. So many people on this board think it's perfectly fine to destroy a small business because the owners hold a belief contrary to theirs. Actions have consequences don't you know? It's free speech. I guess free speech is not allowed for critics of Israel.

https://www.cardin.senate.gov/newsro...ti-boycott-act

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21525052)

You're right! What LAZombie should have said is that "These senators want to" enable states to punish individuals and businesses which participate in "boycotts against Israel."

A difference of degree rather than kind. From your link:
Quote:

Consider the case of Bahia Amawi, a speech therapist in Texas who had chosen to personally boycott Israeli-made goods. Amawi is not a state employee but an independent contractor who signed an annual agreement with the school district in the city of Pflugerville. Because Amawi was a contractor, her agreement with the state was subject to the state’s anti-boycott legislation, just as a contract with a major corporation would be.

This meant that Amawi — as the sole proprietor of her contracting business — was forced to pledge not to “take any action” that was “intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with Israel.” Amawi did not want to sign away her right to boycott Israel, and she did not renew her contract with the Pflugerville schools. In essence, she was being forced to choose between her free expression and her livelihood. That, civil liberties advocates say, is a clear restriction on free speech.

RTFirefly 03-08-2019 05:51 PM

Jumping in late, here's my take:

Rep. Omar has said two things that are allegedly anti-Semitic tropes.

1) The "all about the benjamins" remark. If it had been any other lobby she was talking about, it would have been the ever-popular and mostly true trope about lobbyists buying influence. But it was AIPAC, and yeah, that does make a difference, because the anti-Semitic trope about Jews and money has been around even longer.

That one worked out pretty much as it should have. She realized she needed to be careful not to say things that had a history of being anti-Semitic slurs, she apologized, and her critics by and large gave her the benefit of the doubt as far as intent. Kumbaya and all that.

2) Then there was her remark that "I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country."

I still need this one explained to me.

I am aware that there is a longstanding trope about Jews being persons of dubious allegiance. In the present day that takes the form of an accusation of divided loyalty between Israel and the country they reside in.

It actually goes well back before the creation of Israel, when Jews were allegedly "rootless cosmopolitans" and the like, without loyalty to any country - like they had much choice, when pogroms forced them from one country to another, resulting eventually in my father's ancestors finding their way to America.

The part that I'm missing is the part about laws that would force Americans in general - Jew and Gentile alike - to give up a portion of their rights in submission to Israel and its supporters in the U.S. When has that been an anti-Semitic trope? It wasn't and isn't, AFAICT; it's just something that's happening IRL, right now.

Maybe the use of 'allegiance' in place of 'up a portion of their rights in submission' in the above phrase is over the top, but the trope is about Jews having dual allegiance, not Gentiles being forced into it. Those are two very different things.

Any help here?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.