Straight Dope Message Board

[D'Anconia]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Jumping in late, here's my take:

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

She's said more than two, including this one:

"Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilhan_Omar 201

[The Tooth]

I agree with her. Convince me my point of view is based on religion and not the actions of the Israeli government. 202

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by D'Anconia

She's said more than two, including this one:

"Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilhan_Omar

Well, now we're up to two and a maybe in seven years. 203

[asahi]

Originally Posted by D'Anconia

She's said more than two, including this one:

"Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilhan_Omar

It's admittedly harsh criticism of Israel, but Israel has done some pretty harsh things. 204

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

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

That is NOT what I said and don't put words in my mouth. People seem to forget the fact that there are sins on BOTH sides. (Hamas IS a legit threat. Likewise, Israel needs to pull out of the West Bank)

And that requires exploration, not declaring it to be off-limits or based on bigotry.

Exactly. Which should then exclude things like "Jews hypnotise Congress" or "Those greedy Jews only care about the $$$$!" 205

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

That is NOT what I said and don't put words in my mouth.
...

Exactly. Which should then exclude things like "Jews hypnotise Congress" or "Those greedy Jews only care about the $$$$!"

While your request is certainly reasonable enough, your final paragraph kind of undercuts your moral authority in making it. 206

[PhillyGuy]

Originally Posted by drivekiller

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.

30 percent of the so-called pro-Israel money is from J Street, which wants to change U.S. foreign policy, towards Israel, in a leftist direction.

I haven't tried to check the political slant of the other pro-Israel contributors cited by opensecrets.org, but the fact they they generally donate to Democrats at a time when the ruling party of Israel is, to my distress, rather strongly associated with the Republican party in the U.S., tells me that pro-Israel, at OpenSecrets.org, doesn't mean pro-Israel-foreign-and-military-policy.

This isn't an attack on OpenSecrets! It would be unreasonable for them to try to categorize that long list of pro-Israel contributors because they have a range of views, right to left. 207

[D'Anconia]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Well, now we're up to two and a maybe in seven years.

What do you mean by "maybe"? 208

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

don't put words in my mouth.

Is that a fair expectation for others to have of you?

People seem to forget the fact that there are sins on BOTH sides.

The conduct, and rights and interests, of the Palestinians are not the subject of this thread. Bringing that up is indeed a diversion attempt, and that doesn't gain you any ground.

Exactly. Which should then exclude things like "Jews hypnotise Congress" or "Those greedy Jews only care about the $$$$!"

Please quote any poster, or politician, you see or hear doing so, then we can discuss it. Meanwhile, you're only telling us what you wish Rep. Omar had said so you could denounce it properly, aren't you? 209

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

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 "divided loyalty" (or "disloyalty") accusation was a tool used by Charles Lindbergh to suggest (most notoriously in his Des Moines speech of 1941) that American Jews were trying to push the U.S. into war to benefit their Jewish brethren abroad.

This anti-Semitic trope been used across the political spectrum.

"Bashing Jews for their supposed disloyalty to their nation is a crude maneuver that has been employed long before Israel existed. It has been a tactic of both the far-left and far-right, almost as though haters from both extremes come together on the dark side of the moon.

http://theatlantic.com/politics/arch...irster/251810/

Even the Pentagon seems to have gotten into the act, as in this bizarre example. 210

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by D'Anconia

What do you mean by "maybe"?

Evidently in your post #202, you responded to my post #201 without taking the trouble to read it. What I mean by that is fully explained there. 211

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

The "divided loyalty" (or "disloyalty") accusation was a tool used by Charles Lindbergh to suggest (most notoriously in his Des Moines speech of 1941) that American Jews were trying to push the U.S. into war to benefit their Jewish brethren abroad.

Wow. Self-own by AIPAC, then.

Because they (and white evangelicals too, but here that's beside the point) are pushing for anti-BDS laws to benefit their Jewish brethren abroad.

This is not a meme, this is not a trope. This is what they're actually doing, in perfect parallelism to what Lindbergh (who unquestionably was an anti-Semite) accused them of back in 1941. 212

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

This is what they're actually doing, in perfect parallelism to what Lindbergh (who unquestionably was an anti-Semite) accused them of back in 1941.

First noting that I do not support anti-BDS laws, in what mental universe do you see them as an attempt to draw the U.S. into war to benefit foreigners (which is what Lindbergh was making accusations about)?

Also, using your criteria one could easily describe those promoting BDS policies as exhibiting a "dual (or divided) loyalty" towards and for the benefit of a foreign entity (which in this case is largely hostile towards America).

However, supporting or opposing BDS cannot be rationally described as demonstrating questionable loyalty.

Lots of people have views on foreign policy regarding a variety of nations (policies which can be debated as helping or harming American interests) without getting slammed as disloyal. An exclusive (or near-exclusive) focus on Israel in this regard has a bad odor. 213

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by PhillyGuy

This would play terribly in Russia.

I'll keep that in mind when russians can vote in the US elections.

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

I am anti-russian expansion, anti-russian aggression, I am for anti-russian cyber security, and anti-russian election protection.

I am still not against the people of russia, I am only against the actual actions that the Russian govt is taking.

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.

Not sure how that follows. You say that you are against what the govt is doing, then you say that you are not against what the govt is doing, then you say you are for what the govt is doing.

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.

If people in any country choose to take a stance that being against the actions of their govt is the same as being against the people of that country, then there is little we can do about that. People don't take criticism well, and often try to change that criticism into a flaw on the part of the critic, and feign outrage at their "misunderstanding" as to what the criticism is actually about. It is simply a way of preventing uncomfortable criticism.

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

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".

I hadn't actually even heard of that until this incident. If you had said "Jewish hypnosis" a week ago, I would have thought that it was a poorly named stage act.

In this context, yes, it did.

I can see how you can use this context to show that her words were poorly chosen, but I still don't see you can show that it was meant that way. Greed is greed, and the fact that historically jews have been accused of being greedy should not mean that you cannot accuse anyone of being greedy because it is in the context of Israel relations.

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.

Seem to be? I'm not anti-JEWISH or anti-ZIONIST, but I am against some of the actions that they have taken in regard to palestine, and I am also against legislators representing anyone because of the money of their lobbying organization, rather than the interests of their constituents.

How would you express that, in this context, without running afoul of anything that could possibly be linked to some historical stereotype and therefore be accused of being anti-semitic?

Surely if you disagreed with Russia, or China, or Canada, you wouldn't say, "well, they shouldn't have the right to exist!"

No, but who has said that? Israel doesn't have a right to the West Bank or Gaza Strip is not the same as Israel doesn't have a right to exist. Israel not having the right to use collective punishment, and use indiscriminate bombing of palestinian civilians in return for acts of terror against their citizens is not saying that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself.

Criticism of Israel is not being an anti-Zionist or anti-semitic. I criticize the US govt all the time, I think that our govt and agents of our government occasionally do some pretty terrible things, and would really like them to stop doing so. That doesn't mean that I hate America or the American people. That doesn't mean that I don't think that the US has a right to exist.

A lot of people feel that way about Israel.

I'm sure there are a lot of people that feel that way, but are any of them the ones that are in this thread or are subjects thereof? 214

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

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."

How does that even work? Do I have to turn in receipts from pro-Israel business to prove that I am frequenting them enough? What is the punishment if I don't meet my quota?

Originally Posted by D'Anconia

She's said more than two, including this one:

"Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilhan_Omar

And when was that? Was that as a representative? 215

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Is that a fair expectation for others to have of you?

The conduct, and rights and interests, of the Palestinians are not the subject of this thread. Bringing that up is indeed a diversion attempt, and that doesn't gain you any ground.

Please quote any poster, or politician, you see or hear doing so, then we can discuss it. Meanwhile, you're only telling us what you wish Rep. Omar had said so you could denounce it properly, aren't you?

I should have specified that I wasn't speaking of Elvis in particular, or really anyone here. I apologize for that.

I wasn't bringing up Palestine for any "diversion", hell I wasn't even the first one to bring it up! It's linked because it has a lot to do with Omar's position on Israel.

As for what I WISH she had said?


"All about the Benjamins, baby."

“Israel has hypnotized the world,” (Sorry, the world not Congress. But c'mon here.)

-Both of which were said by Omar. 216

[Corry El]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

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.
...
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.

I would attribute any slight confusion in the meaning there to speaking off the cuff, AFAIK it's a quote from an audio of an apparently extemporaneous talk. The meaning most people reasonably took was simply 'dual allegiance by Jews'. Although technically one could interpret it as people of various faiths promoting 'allegiance' to Israel or forcing others' 'allegiance' to Israel. But even the latter interpretation wouldn't be entirely at odds with a traditional anti-Semitic trope: an accusations that Jews force the US body politic as a whole to have a subservient relationship to Israel via the Jews' 'benjamins' and 'excessive influence' in general.

If somebody without the same history made that one remark indeed others might be more willing to say 'huh, what do you mean by that exactly?' But with Rep Omar there is a history.

And that particular statement has zero to do with criticizing Israel, as do her other most criticized statements. She happens to be critical of the govt (at least) of Israel. But statements of hers in the vein of the one quoted are more heavily criticized *because* they are clearly not about Israeli policy, but the supposed excessive influence and/or dual loyalty of American Jews.

Omar isn't just critical of Israeli govt policy. She's anti-Israel, pretty obsessed with it (nothing like equal time for all the various wrongs of other govts overseas) and it seems reasonable to infer based on a series of incidents at least somewhat of an anti-Semite. Say at the level at which Pat Buchanan was dubbed a 'constructive anti-Semite' in a piece by William F. Buckley. The people of her district can elect whom they choose. And the Democratic Party can accommodate that choice and this Rep. how they choose. But it's more hypocritical IMO to try to defend her using arguments that would be laughed off if the speaker were on the right than to just admit, a high degree of anti-Israeli govt feeling even if it crosses over into anti-Israel feeling or further into constructive antisemitism (things which *can* be different, but not necessarily, and statements like this suggest Omar is all three) is now part of the Democratic 'big tent'. 217

[Lamoral]

I try to look at this issue (and all issues relating to Israel) from the perspective of both sides. I really do. Here's how it breaks down for me:

1. On one hand, pretty much all Jews in America are only one or two generations removed from the Holocaust. It's impossible to separate the issue of Israel from the Holocaust, in a "big picture" sense. The Holocaust was the culmination of a very long history of persecution, and it happened in living memory. There was a gigantic orgy of death and destruction, and peoples' collective cultural memory of it is still vivid, thanks to the endless photos that virtually everyone in America grows up seeing.

Millions of human beings were just sent to die - all their accomplishments and aspirations and identities completely disregarded, tossed aside...some of them were highly educated and successful scholars and scientists, some of them were decorated war heroes who had fought and bled for what they thought was their country in WWI, some of them were great musicians or artists, some of them were just average people of modest means, some were poor peasants, old men, young children....and they all shared the same fate: being treated like nothing. Nothing about who they did or who they were made any difference, they were all stripped naked, starved, and mechanically killed in the same method that people use to kill insects. How do you think the experience of all of this collectively traumatized a culture? The answer is, a lot. When that culture gets a piece of territory they can call their own - and we can endlessly debate the circumstances under which they got that territory - ONE place in the world where they know that they will NOT suffer that same fate again - they are going to be fiercely protective of it. Why wouldn't they? It's just common sense, right?

2. On the other hand, everyone in the world is only a few generations away from people who suffered. Why should Israel get treated with kid gloves? Why is it that when Israel causes people to suffer, it's so goddamn hard to call them out without being accused of bigotry against Jews? Israel receives a colossal amount of money from the United States - this is a country that's supposedly a first-world nation and a scientific powerhouse that is constantly developing innovative technology, why do they need billions and billions of dollars given to them by the United States? They have, for decades now, continued an occupation of Palestinians - which includes not only Muslims but also Christians - with an "out of sight, out of mind" approach, basically just building a giant wall and saying "fuck everyone on the other side." If you have Jewish friends on Facebook, you've probably seen pictures of young American Jews taking trips to Israel, partying and camping and riding camels and doing all this fun touristy shit, while on the other side of that wall, people are living in complete misery. How can that not seem disturbing?

In my opinion, which I realize doesn't count for very much, I think the concept of founding Israel was a good idea, but it should have been founded somewhere else. Almost ANYWHERE else, actually. Israel is a small country. A territory of that size could probably have been carved out of existing land in another area of the world that was not 1. already occupied by other people, and 2. surrounded by hostile nations. There was a lot of uninhabited land at the time that Israel was created. The same way the British set aside the Mandate of Palestine, they could have presumably done the same thing somewhere else (Australia?)

But there's no point in dwelling on what COULD have been. The fact is, Israel exists, where it is, right NOW, and it's not going anywhere. So how do we discuss it, as it pertains to politics, with the greatest likelihood of 1. not pissing off lots of Jews, and 2. actually achieving something resembling progress?

My own opinion (again, not counting for much) :

1. Avoid use of the word "Zionist." It flat out IS used as an anti-Semitic dog whistle a lot. Zionism was a political movement that originated in the late 19th century. As an ideology it has little relation to current day Jews and Israelis. The word "Zionist" just sounds antiquated and outdated to me, like "Mohammedan" or "Oriental."

2. Spin the foreign-aid issue as "Israel shouldn't need to be dependent on the US, they're a solid country and can stand on their own". I'm not saying that ALL money to Israel should be shut off - America gives money to a lot of other countries - but the amount could be reduced incrementally. And instead of making it seem like a punitive measure, it could be spun as "helping them help themselves" - shit, isn't that what America is supposed to be all about? 218

[str8cashhomie]

Originally Posted by Lamoral

In my opinion, which I realize doesn't count for very much, I think the concept of founding Israel was a good idea, but it should have been founded somewhere else. Almost ANYWHERE else, actually. Israel is a small country. A territory of that size could probably have been carved out of existing land in another area of the world that was not 1. already occupied by other people, and 2. surrounded by hostile nations. There was a lot of uninhabited land at the time that Israel was created. The same way the British set aside the Mandate of Palestine, they could have presumably done the same thing somewhere else (Australia?)

I think this is wrong for the right reasons - fundamentally the problem is that for most populated parts of the world, there are far more ethnic groups than states. Supposedly there are over a hundred ethnic groups in Myanmar, for example. If you try to give a state to every ethnic group, you either balkanize the world and create even more situations where people can no longer move around in areas they are used to doing so, or about 1000 ethnic groups have to all agree to move to Siberia (or Australia).

In the case of Jews post-WWII, Palestine was a place that had a significant Jewish population already, many Jews were migrating to Palestine, and it was a British territorial holding so they had a lot of reign to do what they wanted with it. One of the biggest mistakes the Brits made was promising it to both Jews and Arabs. Obviously the religious significance both created a stronger motivation for Jews to move there, and caused Muslims to view it as something they weren't going to compromise on.

But there's no point in dwelling on what COULD have been. The fact is, Israel exists, where it is, right NOW, and it's not going anywhere. So how do we discuss it, as it pertains to politics, with the greatest likelihood of 1. not pissing off lots of Jews, and 2. actually achieving something resembling progress?

I strongly agree with this. I sort of understand not recognizing a state you feel was established illegitimately, but several generations onward when almost the entire country was born after it's founding, Arab states and pro-Palestinian groups really need to accept reality, recognize Israel as a state and not call for it's destruction.

1. Avoid use of the word "Zionist." It flat out IS used as an anti-Semitic dog whistle a lot. Zionism was a political movement that originated in the late 19th century. As an ideology it has little relation to current day Jews and Israelis. The word "Zionist" just sounds antiquated and outdated to me, like "Mohammedan" or "Oriental."

The problem here is that Zionism is an actual ideology, and it is one of the reasons for Israel's settlement policy, and some of Israel's policies concerning religion. It's used by some people as a code word for Jew, but if the word was no longer used we would need another word for "Believers in establishing Eretz Ysrael".

2. Spin the foreign-aid issue as "Israel shouldn't need to be dependent on the US, they're a solid country and can stand on their own". I'm not saying that ALL money to Israel should be shut off - America gives money to a lot of other countries - but the amount could be reduced incrementally. And instead of making it seem like a punitive measure, it could be spun as "helping them help themselves" - shit, isn't that what America is supposed to be all about?

I generally agree with this, although it clearly has a political motivation besides just "Israel should stand on it's own." I think people would see through that and still debate all the political questions underlying this type of decision. 219

[D'Anconia]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Evidently in your post #202, you responded to my post #201 without taking the trouble to read it. What I mean by that is fully explained there.

Um, I didn't make post #202, and you didn't make post # 201. Seriously, are you OK? 220

[D'Anconia]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

How does that even work? Do I have to turn in receipts from pro-Israel business to prove that I am frequenting them enough? What is the punishment if I don't meet my quota?



And when was that? Was that as a representative?

Did you actually read the link that was provided? It would answer both of your questions. 221

[septimus]

Originally Posted by fedman

did American Jews criticize Israel when they massacred American sailors on USS Liberty?

I don't know, did they? And does any serious person think the Israeli military willfully and knowingly targeted an American ship?

And did American Christians and American atheists criticize the U.S. when it downed Iran Air Flight 655? I may have forgotten to do so; let me do so now.
The U.S. also killed nine British soldiers during the Gulf War; will you denounce that, fedman? 222

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by str8cashhomie

The problem here is that Zionism is an actual ideology, and it is one of the reasons for Israel's settlement policy, and some of Israel's policies concerning religion. It's used by some people as a code word for Jew, but if the word was no longer used we would need another word for "Believers in establishing Eretz Ysrael".

Be that as it may, the word itself has too much baggage. The whole, "I'm not anti-Jewish, I'm anti-Zionist" simply smacks of "I'm not a bigot, BUT...".


(Traditionally, didn't "Zionist" simply mean a supporter of Israel?) 223

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

(Traditionally, didn't "Zionist" simply mean a supporter of Israel?)

It depends when you ask. Prior to 1948, Zionist meant a Jewish supporter of the establishment of a Jewish state. Nowadays, for most Israelis it's just the local word for "patriot", with the added wrinkle of supporting Jewish immigration to Israel.

That said, like patriotism, Zionism can have different meanings dependent on a person's political leanings. To the far right, settling the West Bank is an essential part of what they define as their Zionism. I consider myself a Zionist too, and I think the whole settlement enterprise was a huge mistake. Like anywhere else, a great deal of the political debate in this country is defining what exactly it means to love your country. 224

[orcenio]

Originally Posted by Corry El

Omar isn't just critical of Israeli govt policy. She's anti-Israel, pretty obsessed with it (nothing like equal time for all the various wrongs of other govts overseas) and it seems reasonable to infer based on a series of incidents at least somewhat of an anti-Semite.

I'm starting to come around to the idea that Omar is becoming a "whipping boy" for American conservatives (à la AOC). She has said some pretty harsh things about other countries too.

Somalia

Why is every peak of hope dashed in Somalia? Is it because we are peace hating, violence prone malignant society. #MogadishuBlast

Saudi Arabia

Stories like these should cause Muslims all over the world to boycott Hajj this year! Sri Lankan maid beheaded in Saudi

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

Women are not your property! Women are not your property!
Women are not your property!

So why are @Apple and @Google hosting an app that allows men to track and control women’s movement in Saudi Arabia?

This insanity needs to end!

I hope Omar continues to speak her mind and not be bullied into silence. 225

[crucible]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

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

Well, you are correct. I actually never realized it was restricted to Jews.

All that said, whoever says it and for whatever reason, it is not unreasonable to say that Israel might well be buying off American politicians. If we can accuse Trump and his congressional minions of taking Russian, or Saudi, or Omani, or Ukrainian or whoever money and being thereby influenced, there seems no reason why we can't (if evidence exists) accuse some lawmakers of being likely to be under the influence of Israeli or Jewish contributors.

The NRA is a lobby that encourages the use of devices that kill by homicide over 10000 Americans every year, three or four times what the toll was on 9/11, yet we have a clear political and moral divide between Americans whether that is a problem worthy of calling out politicians who take NRA money.

One could even go to an extreme and say that Warren or Sanders, asking for small donations only, could be accused of then being influenced to take money from wealthy Americans and give it to poor ones. Some folks think that is a great idea, others, not so much. 226

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by D'Anconia

Did you actually read the link that was provided? It would answer both of your questions.

Yes, I did, I was looking to see if those who had made the respective claims had actually read or understood the links that they had provided, as the claims that they had made were not supported by the information contained in those links.

And the answer is: apparently not. 227

[str8cashhomie]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Be that as it may, the word itself has too much baggage. The whole, "I'm not anti-Jewish, I'm anti-Zionist" simply smacks of "I'm not a bigot, BUT...".


(Traditionally, didn't "Zionist" simply mean a supporter of Israel?)

It does mean a supporter of Israel, but it traditionally means a supporter of a state in Eretz Ysrael (the land of Israel) which includes all of Israel and Palestine, as well as parts of Sinai, Jordan and Lebanon. The modern state of Israel doesn't have ambitions on any of Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt (and actually ceded Sinai to Egypt in a peace agreement), but the idea that Palestine shouldn't be a state is still rooted in the original concept. 228

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by str8cashhomie

It does mean a supporter of Israel, but it traditionally means a supporter of a state in Eretz Ysrael (the land of Israel) which includes all of Israel and Palestine, as well as parts of Sinai, Jordan and Lebanon. The modern state of Israel doesn't have ambitions on any of Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt (and actually ceded Sinai to Egypt in a peace agreement), but the idea that Palestine shouldn't be a state is still rooted in the original concept.

Sorry, but that's just not true. The "whole Israel" policy was never a base tenet of Zionism. Israel's founding fathers and mothers - most of whom were left-wing, BTW -were willing to accept a Jewish state in part, not all, of the historic Land of Israel (although admittedly it wasn't their first preference). Claiming that a two-state solution is anti-Zionist is just another piece of right-wing bullshit. 229

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by crucible

...
The NRA is a lobby that encourages the use of devices that kill by homicide over 10000 Americans every year, three or four times what the toll was on 9/11, yet we have a clear political and moral divide between Americans whether that is a problem worthy of calling out politicians who take NRA money. ....

Obviously that's not the purpose of the NRA, but they actually spend very little on lobbying, comparatively, they are not in the Top 50 lobby groups. They dont need to, they have millions of single issue voters.


https://thehill.com/business-a-lobby...s-spending-big
Fifty companies and industry groups shelled out more than $716 million to lobby the federal government and Congress last year, according to data provided to The Hill by the Center for Responsive Politics.
The five biggest spenders in lobbying last year, in descending order, were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Realtors, Blue Cross Blue Shield, the American Hospital Association and the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America.

Rounding out the top 10 were the American Medical Association, Boeing, the National Association of Broadcasters, AT&T and Business Roundtable. 230

[str8cashhomie]

Originally Posted by Alessan

Sorry, but that's just not true. The "whole Israel" policy was never a base tenet of Zionism. Israel's founding fathers and mothers - most of whom were left-wing, BTW -were willing to accept a Jewish state in part, not all, of the historic Land of Israel (although admittedly it wasn't their first preference). Claiming that a two-state solution is anti-Zionist is just another piece of right-wing bullshit.

Zionism originally is the belief in greater Israel. The modern state of Israel was founded as a compromise, and the two state solution (which is not something Israeli policy has ever been in favor of) isn't anti-Zionist; it's a pragmatic compromise position that achieves some of the goals of Zionism but isn't a complete victory. 231

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by str8cashhomie

Zionism originally is the belief in greater Israel. The modern state of Israel was founded as a compromise, and the two state solution (which is not something Israeli policy has ever been in favor of) isn't anti-Zionist; it's a pragmatic compromise position that achieves some of the goals of Zionism but isn't a complete victory.

This isn't my understanding of Zionism -- my understanding that is that it's merely the belief that there should be a Jewish state to serve as a safe place for Jews, in a world that's largely been hostile to their (our) existence. Like many philosophies and ideologies, there are many sects, factions, and "flavors" within the larger philosophy/ideology, but I consider myself a Zionist based on this definition, purely because history has demonstrated that the Jews so often are not safe as a minority in other countries. 232

[Lamoral]

To me the word has connotations of "believing in a religious mandate to occupy the land." But it's problematic then if it's mis-applied to people who are secular, because it then misrepresents their motivations. That's leaving aside the (large) number of anti-Semitic cranks who have simply been using the term as a shorthand for "Jews" and then trying to claim plausible deniability (David Duke comes to mind.) I just don't see the word Zionist as being conducive to discussions about America's relations with Israel in most cases. 233

[str8cashhomie]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

This isn't my understanding of Zionism -- my understanding that is that it's merely the belief that there should be a Jewish state to serve as a safe place for Jews, in a world that's largely been hostile to their (our) existence. Like many philosophies and ideologies, there are many sects, factions, and "flavors" within the larger philosophy/ideology, but I consider myself a Zionist based on this definition, purely because history has demonstrated that the Jews so often are not safe as a minority in other countries.

There are many types of Zionism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_Zionism), but the advocacy for what is now the modern state of Israel were originally pragmatic forms that did believe in creating a Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael, but saw a partition as a positive compromise step. Immediately prior to 1948, the main factions were David Ben Gurion's "Practical Zionism" and the Irgun's "Revisionist Zionism".

David Ben Gurion advocated for the partition in the 30's saying, "This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole. The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country."

-citatoins for the exert and full letter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greate...e_of_Palestine
http://www.palestineremembered.com/d...ranslation.pdf 234

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by str8cashhomie

http://www.palestineremembered.com/d...ranslation.pdf

Da'hell kind of website is that? "The Spartan Jew"? "Biblical and Holocaust Exploitation"?



Jesus Christ.


(I am NOT saying there are not aggressive, imperialistic Zionists, such as Netanyahu.) 235

[str8cashhomie]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Da'hell kind of website is that? "The Spartan Jew"? "Biblical and Holocaust Exploitation"?



Jesus Christ.


(I am NOT saying there are not aggressive, imperialistic Zionists, such as Netanyahu.)

Not going to pretend it isn't a biased website lol. Wikipedia did have two other cites for that exerpt (possibly because that website is not particularly trustworthy. The other online cite seemed like it was just as biased, and the paper one I'm obviously not going to find. 236

[Lamoral]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

(I am NOT saying there are not aggressive, imperialistic Zionists, such as Netanyahu.)

I'm actually not sure what Netanyahu's real motivation is. I think it's likely that it's simply to remain in power at all costs. 237

[asahi]

“There are three things in life that are certain: death, taxes (unless you’re Donald Trump), and persistence of anti-Semitism. But only one brand of antisemitism scares me — and it’s not on the left,”

-- Paul Krugman 238

[Larry Borgia]

Originally Posted by D'Anconia

Um, I didn't make post #202, and you didn't make post # 201. Seriously, are you OK?

He meant post 2oo and post 201. He made a simple slip-up.

You...you seriously needed this explained to you? 239

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by Lamoral

I'm actually not sure what Netanyahu's real motivation is. I think it's likely that it's simply to remain in power at all costs.

Yeah, that's what people don't get about Bibi - under all the polished, thunderous speeches, the man's a milquetoast who's exactly as right-wing as he needs to be in order to stay in power. That's why he'll never do something radical like annex the Territories or conversely, make peace with the Palestinians. Taking bold, decisive action is anathema to him, which is why after over a decade into his administration, his actual positive achievements - things he'd actually done, as opposed to things he's claimed he prevented from happening - are basically nonexistent.

You'll see it in the coming election. He'll beat the right-wing drum to get votes, but if he wins (which seems likely at this point), he'll angle sharply to the left and try to put together a center-right coalition, because that will ensure a nice, cozy deadlock in which he won't have to fulfill any of his campaign promises. 240

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by asahi

-- Paul Krugman

It's nice that Paul Krugman can detect which forms of anti-Semitism are dangerous and which are harmless.

Maybe next he can tell us which types of racism are to be abhorred and which to ignore. 241

[sps49sd]

Originally Posted by septimus

...And does any serious person think the Israeli military willfully and knowingly targeted an American ship?

...

Yes. There is NO WAY those pilots did not recognize an American ship.

This is probably no tthe thread, but may I suggest you look somewhere besides Israel's statement? Maybe even the website of the USS Liberty's veterans, some of whom include American Jews? 242

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by sps49sd

Yes. There is NO WAY those pilots did not recognize an American ship.

Right, because if there's one thing that Israeli pilots receive extensive training in, it's naval warfare. Because most of Israel's wars are fought on the high seas.

Seriously, though: if Israel had wanted to sink the Liberty for some nefarious political reason, they would have sent planes armed with anti-ship weapons instead of AT rockets and napalm, or even better, they would have sent a submarine. And they would have found a way to make it look like the Egyptians did it. 243

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by Alessan

Right, because if there's one thing that Israeli pilots receive extensive training in, it's naval warfare. Because most of Israel's wars are fought on the high seas.

Seriously, though: if Israel had wanted to sink the Liberty for some nefarious political reason, they would have sent planes armed with anti-ship weapons instead of AT rockets and napalm, or even better, they would have sent a submarine. And they would have found a way to make it look like the Egyptians did it. (bolding added)

Like Israel's stunning success in the Lavon Affair? *

In a WSJ column today by Elliot Kaufman, it's noted that Omar was interviewed on a podcast by the left-wing Intercept website on Feb. 28, leading to this exchange:

"Was it a badly worded tweet (on Feb. 11) that you were apologizing for, or was it for being anti-Semitic, wittingly or unwittingly?"

Omar: "Absolutely not. I apologized for the way that my words made people feel."

So much for an "unequivocal apology".

*yeah I know, old news, and another example of how difficult it is to run a successful conspiracy. 244

[LAZombie]

If only our politicians cared about American citizens as much as they do Israelis. Cynthia McKinney and Ilhan Omar, women of color, are silenced for advocating for Americans.

Nancy Pelosi:

"I have said to people when they ask me, if this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain would be our commitment to our aid, I don’t even call it our aid, our cooperation with Israel. That’s fundamental to who we are."


https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1...s-to-israel%2F 245

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

L...
In a WSJ column today by Elliot Kaufman, it's noted that Omar was interviewed on a podcast by the left-wing Intercept website on Feb. 28, leading to this exchange:

"Was it a badly worded tweet (on Feb. 11) that you were apologizing for, or was it for being anti-Semitic, wittingly or unwittingly?"

Omar: "Absolutely not. I apologized for the way that my words made people feel."

So much for an "unequivocal apology".

.....

I take back what I said then. If she's not really apologizing then she needs to go. That's first class weaseling there. 246

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

I take back what I said then. If she's not really apologizing then she needs to go. That's first class weaseling there.

I don't think she needs "to go," but I totally agree with the rest of your comments. I got suckered by what seemed like a sincere apology, and unless there's some additional context here, it's disgraceful.

I also apologize for my criticism directed at a handful of members on this board, who essentially argued that she didn't actually regret her remarks. You all were right and I was wrong. 247

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by LAZombie

If only our politicians cared about American citizens as much as they do Israelis. Cynthia McKinney and Ilhan Omar, women of color, are silenced for advocating for Americans.

Nancy Pelosi:

"I have said to people when they ask me, if this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain would be our commitment to our aid, I don’t even call it our aid, our cooperation with Israel. That’s fundamental to who we are."


https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1...s-to-israel%2F

McKinney is a goddamned wackjob. 248

[asahi]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

It's nice that Paul Krugman can detect which forms of anti-Semitism are dangerous and which are harmless.

Maybe next he can tell us which types of racism are to be abhorred and which to ignore.

The point is that, speaking as a Jew, Paul Krugman can sniff out the difference between antisemitism and "antisemitism".

I can't speak for Krugman, but the right wing in the United States is embracing policies that, over the long term, endanger Israel, favoring policies of aggression and hostilities over that of peace and compromise. Their policies of genocide and apartheid are going to inspire another generation of reprisals.

Explain how an ally can get away with a policy that establishes religious tests for citizenship and essentially debases the citizenship of non-Jews?

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/11/70226...and-them-alone

See, this is what Zionism has become in practice, regardless of however people here or elsewhere want to define it. Zionism has become an ideology of violent oppression of non-Jews to establish a Jewish homeland, and this homeland exists not just anywhere, but in a so-called holy land, which has also been home to two other major religions. Moreover, it's an ideology that depends in no small part of the participation of Jewish activists worldwide, many of whom occupy positions of power, economically, socially, and politically. And it's simply dishonest to believe otherwise. 249

[asahi]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

McKinney is a goddamned wackjob.

Yet there's a lot of truth in what she says. I'm sure that McKinney has her own faults, but this is also the same 'wackjob" who, from the beginning, opposed the invasion of Iraq as an elected member of congress when few others had the spine or integrity to do so. 250