(A) *Diddy *had the hit, and (B) It’s about wanting to get money. If you had any awareness at the time of Benjamin meaning Netanyahu instead of Franklin, do please enlighten us.
Please tell us more about this conspiracy idea.
Do you assert that any concerns about Likud’s political operations in the US are racist, and so should be dismissed and denounced? It looks that way.
A sample:
Acceptable (and a proposal I’ve made here): There should be a drastic curtailment of military aid to Israel by the U.S. unless Israel agrees to an indefinite halt to any settlement construction or building of additional housing units in territories likely to be negotiated as part of a Palestinian state, since such construction is regarded as a significant obstacle to peace.
Unacceptable: There should be a drastic curtailment of military aid to Israel by the U.S. unless Israel agrees to an indefinite halt to any settlement construction or building of additional housing units in territories likely to be negotiated as part of a Palestinian state, since such construction is regarded as a significant obstacle to peace. The reason such a measure hasn’t been taken is because of U.S. citizens who owe allegiance to Israel as well as politicians bought by AIPAC and Israeli cash who won’t allow it.
See? Not so hard.
Omar has crossed the line more than once. She gets cut no slack by me.
That slimy little traitor sold out his country for money and I suspect that if Israel had turned him down he would’ve happily sold secrets to the Russians.* In his case, it was all about the Benjamins.
*it came out that Pollard had passed classified information to South Africa and attempted to sell it to Pakistan.
For context, here’s the context for what she said about “allegiance to a foreign country:”
It seems to me that
- she’s questioning why AIPAC “can’t” be criticized when other lobbies can (this seems aimed at her fellow Democrats, given the lobbies she cites) and
- drawing a contrast between how her (and Tlaib’s) pro-Palestinian advocacy is treated versus how pro-Israel – and other pro-human-rights – advocacy is treated (this seems like a bipartisan critique).
All that said: I get why people sincerely dislike the way she’s talked about this, and the pragmatic thing would be to find another way to talk about it, since that sincere dislike gets coopted by people looking for any reason to tar her (and her party) as anti-Semitic. You live with the consequences of what you say, and the fact that many of your critics are bigoted/acting in bad faith/whatever doesn’t mean they’re all that way.
That’s going to happen anyway. Might as well forge ahead.
Maybe not. But the ones who aren’t are not very prominent.
If this was purely political, and not anti-semitic, we’d expect to find some muslim lawmaker supporting Israel and being anti-terrorist Palestine.
Is there such a thing? I have heard some Jewish politicians criticizing Israel , so *that *does happen. *
Omar supports “BDS”: ie boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel.
Michigan Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib questioned the loyalty of lawmakers who were pushing a bill that would protect states that penalize Israel boycotters.
*WASHINGTON - Two leading Jewish American members of Congress strongly criticized on Friday the political deal between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the far-right Otzma Yehudit party.
The condemnations from Capitol Hill came after three straight days of criticism from within the organized Jewish community, including a rare statement on the subject issued on Friday by AIPAC, the powerful lobby group supporting the Israeli government. *
The Nation article, written by Phyllis Bennis, who was there when Representative Omar made her comments, and who identifies as Jewish:
https://www.thenation.com/article/ilhan-omar-anti-semitism-democratic-party-aipac/
Paul Waldman writes in the Washington Post:
The whole article is worth reading, but I think the point he raises–that American Jews are less likely to support Israel’s current government than are American Evangelical Christians, and that the charge of “dual loyalty” is more accurately (and in this case is) directed at the religious right than at Jews–is a pretty significant point.
Yes… One group you can openly criticize (even the President), and then you have one group NO ONE can criticize.
Most Semites are Arab, but the term is nothing but a gimmick for the brainwashed sheep.
Not to you, maybe. Can you tell us why it’s “acceptable” to bring up a problem, while the possible reasons for it are off limits? You don’t *solve *problems that way. Or, how about telling us just what constitutes off limits for you, and how those limits came to be defined?
Many times, Israel has offered to do this if Palestine would stop with terrorist attacks. Until and when Palestine stops with the state sanctioned terrorism, I feel Israel can do anything they want.
You do know there’s only one other Muslim congressperson right? Are you trying to say that because 2 of 3 Muslims in congress Criticizing Israel, that it must be because of antisemitism?
How about this, changing the parts I underlined:
There should be a drastic curtailment of military aid to Israel by the U.S. unless Israel agrees to an indefinite halt to any settlement construction or building of additional housing units in territories likely to be negotiated as part of a Palestinian state, since such construction is regarded as a significant obstacle to peace. The reason such a measure hasn’t been taken is because of U.S. citizens who support Israel because of their evangelical faith, as well as politicians unduly influenced by AIPAC and its conservative followers, who won’t allow such curtailment.
As Waldman points out, AIPAC has very strong support among US conservative Christians, for complicated reasons.
My point is that it is OK IMO to say “it’s all about the Benjamins” in Pollard’s case even though he’s Jewish. A Jewish guy who sells out his country for money is acting out a Jewish stereotype. But selling out your country is still worthy of criticism.
A criticism is valid if it’s true, even if others make it falsely.
Omar’s criticism is not valid IMO, but it is not anti-Semitic for that reason.
Regards,
Shodan
Three cheers for collective blame!
Omar has made valid criticism of Israel, but she is also an anti semite. She doesn’t think she is, she doesn’t want to be, but she is victim of and a perpetuater of systemic anti semitism that is pervasive in our society. But that it’s even a question if this is antisemitism is surprising to me, because it really super obviously is.
-
on its face claiming that Jews are controlling American politicians with their money and buying favor is blatantly anti semetic. I see no claims that it’s all about the Benjamins when discussing trade deals with China or Saudi Arabia or any other ally or trade partner that has a history of human rights abuses. Israel is not in the right in term of human rights at the moment, but that doesn’t make this a bizarre double standard and it doesn’t make it not playing into old terrible tropes.
-
I would posit that it’s equally anti semetic to say that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to America. Flip it around. If anyone claimed that Omar was displaying dual loyalty to ANY Islamic group let alone another nation, there would be actual protests in the streets. But she’s just claiming that American Jews aren’t really Americans unless they stop supporting Israel, then they are the good kind of Jew and its okay.
Does she realize that this is what her words mean? I genuinely don’t think she does. I think we have already seen evidence that she had begun to realize that she has more baked in prejudice than she though she had in the aftermath of the All about the Benjamins comment, but then the right pounced and she made the dual loyalty comment and now she’s in a defensive posture and poare crying Islamophobia rather than takeing a breath and recognizing that a person can be right and Antisemitic at the same time. That these biases and prejudices are, just like all prejudices, largely systemic and I unexamined in by the holder of the prejudice. Holding these views doesn’t make her a bad person, how she responds now that she has been shown the error of her ways will tell us that.
No. The Lox had the hit. That’s why Puff jacked it.
A joke.
Arguments about wicked Jews pulling the strings of world politics with their money, or having dual loyalty, are generally not worth refuting, for the same reason as anti-vaccine conspiracies or holocaust denial. People who push those arguments won’t listen to reason and even engaging with it makes you feel slightly dirty.
But in any case, it’s already been pointed out that AIPAC does not actually give much in the way of campaign donations. There is no evidence that anyone in Congress has switched their position to pro-Israel based on a financial donation, or that anybody on this issue is in any way lacking loyalty to the US because of their Jewishness. None. So what’s to be addressed?
Let’s look at it this way. She implied that the only reason anyone would support Israel is because of the money. Well, I know much better reasons for supporting Israel. (1) Because Israel is a nation founded as a homeland for refugees and immigrants driven from other countries by violence and prejudice. (2) Because Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has maintained a robust democracy for the past 70 years, and has defended western values such as women’s rights and freedom of religion. (3) Because Israel has persevered through almost constant warfare and terrorism from some of its neighbors. (4) Because throughout all that warfare, Israel tries as hard as possible to minimize civilian casualties, while Hamas and friends instead aim for mass slaughter of any Jews that they can kill.
Heck, what reason is there why any civilized person wouldn’t want Israel to prevail in its conflict against Islamic terrorist groups?
If by “prevail” you mean “continue taking over the occupied territories as Jewish-controlled municipal and residential areas while squeezing out the millions of indigenous non-Jewish residents who are kept under Israeli domination on Israeli-controlled land while being denied the rights of Israeli citizens”, I can think of several reasons why a civilized person would object to that outcome.
It’s also been pointed out that AIPAC coordinates PAC donations by drawing attention to politicians friendly to Likud, and by drawing attention to those who oppose Likud. Why are you leaving that out?
It’s also been pointed out that the dual loyalty charge is now leveled primarily at conservative evangelical Christans, who say things like, “Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies.” Why are you leaving that out?
I don’t see that implication. Where do you see it?