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)
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.
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.
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’m not sure if many people even know their own stance on that one.
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.
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”.
In this context, yes, it did.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-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.
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.
What I’m saying is that being a naturalized American from Somalia, there are two things that come to mind:
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”
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Yet that is exactly what you’re doing to Rep. Omar. :rolleyes:
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!
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.
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:
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.