Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 03-07-2019, 12:23 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
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.
  #152  
Old 03-07-2019, 12:33 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,680
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.

Last edited by asahi; 03-07-2019 at 12:34 PM.
  #153  
Old 03-07-2019, 12:49 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
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.
  #154  
Old 03-07-2019, 12:50 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by crucible View Post
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.
  #155  
Old 03-07-2019, 12:55 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
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 View Post
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.

Last edited by Ravenman; 03-07-2019 at 12:58 PM.
  #156  
Old 03-07-2019, 01:49 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
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.
  #157  
Old 03-07-2019, 02:00 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 291
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/
  #158  
Old 03-07-2019, 02:18 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
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.
  #159  
Old 03-07-2019, 02:28 PM
senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
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.'

Last edited by senoy; 03-07-2019 at 02:31 PM.
  #160  
Old 03-07-2019, 02:35 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
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.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 03-07-2019 at 02:37 PM.
  #161  
Old 03-07-2019, 02:36 PM
MortSahlFan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: US
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIick View Post
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>
  #162  
Old 03-07-2019, 02:37 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,032
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.

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.
  #163  
Old 03-07-2019, 02:54 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
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.

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.
  #164  
Old 03-07-2019, 03:09 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,857
Cynthia McKinney is a raving lunatic. I wouldn't take anything she says seriously.
  #165  
Old 03-07-2019, 03:18 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
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.

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.... Congresscitters are allergic to signing things like that. And of course Stone Mountain is the heart and soul of KKK country, so....
  #166  
Old 03-07-2019, 03:21 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post

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.
  #167  
Old 03-07-2019, 04:09 PM
fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
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
  #168  
Old 03-07-2019, 04:14 PM
fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
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?
  #169  
Old 03-07-2019, 04:18 PM
fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
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
  #170  
Old 03-07-2019, 04:37 PM
asterion is offline
Just Some Guy
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 11,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
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?
  #171  
Old 03-07-2019, 04:47 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by asterion View Post
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.)

Carry on.
  #172  
Old 03-07-2019, 04:49 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,303
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.
  #173  
Old 03-07-2019, 04:57 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
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.
  #174  
Old 03-07-2019, 05:01 PM
fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
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?
  #175  
Old 03-07-2019, 06:14 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,331
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.
  #176  
Old 03-07-2019, 06:17 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 291
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
  #177  
Old 03-07-2019, 06:24 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
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
  #178  
Old 03-07-2019, 06:44 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,857
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.

Last edited by Guinastasia; 03-07-2019 at 06:46 PM.
  #179  
Old 03-07-2019, 06:53 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,440
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 View Post
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.
  #180  
Old 03-07-2019, 07:17 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,857
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)

Last edited by Guinastasia; 03-07-2019 at 07:18 PM.
  #181  
Old 03-07-2019, 07:31 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
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.
  #182  
Old 03-07-2019, 08:13 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
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.
  #183  
Old 03-07-2019, 08:13 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
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.
  #184  
Old 03-07-2019, 09:38 PM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
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.
  #185  
Old 03-07-2019, 09:44 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
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.

Last edited by Guinastasia; 03-07-2019 at 09:45 PM.
  #186  
Old 03-07-2019, 09:50 PM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
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.
  #187  
Old 03-07-2019, 09:52 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
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.
  #188  
Old 03-07-2019, 10:30 PM
mitchm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 1

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.
  #189  
Old 03-07-2019, 11:26 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by fedman View Post
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.
  #190  
Old 03-07-2019, 11:41 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
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 View Post
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.
  #191  
Old 03-07-2019, 11:48 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 462
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
  #192  
Old 03-08-2019, 12:23 AM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
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?
  #193  
Old 03-08-2019, 12:23 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
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.
  #194  
Old 03-08-2019, 08:07 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
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.
  #195  
Old 03-08-2019, 02:02 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
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.
  #196  
Old 03-08-2019, 02:08 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
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 View Post
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.
  #197  
Old 03-08-2019, 02:15 PM
MortSahlFan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: US
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
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!

Last edited by MortSahlFan; 03-08-2019 at 02:16 PM.
  #198  
Old 03-08-2019, 03:31 PM
drivekiller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
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.
  #199  
Old 03-08-2019, 04:20 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
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 View Post
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.
  #200  
Old 03-08-2019, 04:51 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,422
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?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017