Straight Dope Message Board

[septimus]

Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue

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?

Originally Posted by Ravenman

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."

Originally Posted by septimus

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

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:

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

Ooookay. 101

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by NAF1138

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.

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. 102

[Alessan]

Personally, my reaction to the statement, "Jews founded and still dominate Hollywood" is, "You're welcome." 103

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by septimus

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. 104

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

... 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. 105

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

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. 106

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by septimus

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.

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. 107

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

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. 108

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

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?

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.

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.

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.

It's hard to know what's in her heart,

But very easy to make assumptions.

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. 109

[NAF1138]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

"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? 110

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

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. 111

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

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.

Originally Posted by NAF1138

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.

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?

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.

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? 112

[Jackmannii]

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.

Originally Posted by septimus

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. 113

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

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. 114

[Jackmannii]

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 about the argument that black people shouldn't be offended about something based on what Clarence Thomas has said. 115

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Shodan

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)

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

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. 116

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

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 117

[NAF1138]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

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. 118

[DrDeth]

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. 119

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

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.

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? 120

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by NAF1138

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.

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? 121

[kayT]

And while we're at it, let's stop pretending that the current governor of Texas has anything intelligent to say about anything. 122

[asahi]

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). 123

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by kayT

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. 124

[str8cashhomie]

Originally Posted by NAF1138

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. 125

[crucible]

an anti semite, strictly speaking, is anti all people who speak or spoke historically, a semite language....including more arabs than jews. 126

[Miller]

Originally Posted by crucible

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. 127

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Miller

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. 128

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

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?

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.

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.

Context matters.

It does indeed. The context of Omar's statement was present-day politics in the US. 129

[crucible]

Originally Posted by Miller

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. 130

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

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. 131

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

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? 132

[str8cashhomie]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

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? 133

[ElvisL1ves]

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? 134

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

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. 135

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by crucible

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. 136

[asahi]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

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. 137

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

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. 138

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

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. 139

[Royal Nonesutch]

"The only reason you are upset at me for decrying those greedy, filthy, conniving, money-grubbing Jews is because you are a bigoted Islamophobe!" 140

[ElvisL1ves]

Bigoted Islamophobes do exist.

... 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? 141

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

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? 142

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

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. 143

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

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. 144

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

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. 145

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

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? 146

[str8cashhomie]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

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.” 147

[The Tooth]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

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. 148

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

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. 149

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

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. 150