Anti-Semitism and the accusations agains Representative Ilhan Omar.

[thorny_locust]

“Three Jews, four opinions.”

Here’s mine: Not a race. A culture; or, more accurately, several cultures with a number of things in common (Ashkenazi and Sephardim primarily, but there are others.) Also a religion; but it’s possible to be culturally Jewish without being religiously Jewish. And it’s possible to identify as Jewish without being strongly culturally so.

And whether non-Jewish people in a given area at a given time identify Jews as a race is a different issue from whether the Jews do.

asahi: Why, in any case, would it make a difference to you? The boundary lines that societies distinguish between racial differences, plus what is and what isn’t identified as a racial difference, change over time and from place to place. There is no clear line dividing racial, ethnic, and religious bigotries. At any given time some of them may be doing much more harm than others; but which ones are isn’t a matter of whether they’re classed, either now or during the time being discussed, as racial, religious, ethnic, or something else.
While we’re at it: what do you mean by the word “Zionist”? Because it seems to me that you’re using it to cover a really wide range of positions. There are people who are Zionist in the sense that they believe God gave a particular chunk of land to be a religious state of Israel, and that they’re divinely appointed to claim all of that land. Such people exist. There are also people who believe (with some evidence) that Jews can’t trust any government that Jews aren’t in control of, and that the current state of Israel is the only hope of having such a state; they may not think God’s got anything to do with it at all, and may want the state to be secular. And there are also people who think that a whole lot of things went wrong in the 1940’s and maybe the political creation of a state of Israel was one of the things that went wrong, but it exists, it’s existed for over seventy years, and it’s full of people whose lives would be in serious danger if it disappeared; and therefore it shouldn’t disappear.

– there’s three opinions; I’m sure there are dozens more. Come to think of it I’ll throw in a couple more, not because they’re particularly Jewish positions – one of them rather the reverse – but because you’ve been discussing USA government support for Israel: there are probably people in the USA government who think Israel needs to exist in order that God can then destroy the world, Jews included; and I’m sure there are people in the USA government who just want to support a relatively reliable and/or relatively democratic ally.

[clairobscur]

@cmkeller

clairobscur:

If it was “my” country, I might have a right to have an issue with it, though of course if the government didn’t agree with me, I’d be SOL in my wishes.

Indeed you would be. Especially if, like in this case, the “government” was a foreign government who took decisions without regard for your interests or preferences.

I never said it wasn’t a colonial enterprise.

Maybe you didn’t, but a lot of other posters are totally opposed to qualifying it this way.

But that was the order of the day back then. The idea of native self-government as a universal ideal is a new one on the world scene. World history is full of empires and conquests, displacements and annexations. The winners controlled the land and doled it out to whomever they wished. Israel is hardly the only modern country created in this way.

There are definitely a number of countries that have been build around and for an immigrant population at the expense of the natives. To begin with, all American countries. But :

• Not many as recently as Israel, at a time when pushing the locals to make room for immigrants was already considered a bad thing.

-In pretty much all other cases, there’s no denial that the natives were wronged. In the case of Israel, there is such a denial.

Why just next door, the British set up a Saudi prince as absolute monarch of his own newly-minted country full of natives who were never consulted about who would rule over them.

Yes, but again :

-There’s a big difference between putting a guy in charge of the people and displacing said people.

-There’s hardly anybody who argues in support of the Saudi princes. I’m pretty sure I could open ten threads condemning the Saudis, and not read a single post defending them.

But there’s no reasonable way, nor is there any international will, to somehow rewind the clock of history until we can somehow tie every clan since Cro-Magnon wanderings to the virgin territory it was the first to occupy […] To single out Israel as the one exception to this rule, the one country whose existence is problematic because its presence was allowed by the most recent imperial/colonial power rather than by consultation of natives with no say over their political futures is not a valid line of reasoning.

And it so happens that I didn’t say that.

[thorny_locust]

@clairobscur

Maybe you didn’t, but a lot of other posters are totally opposed to qualifying it this way.

I don’t see people saying it wasn’t a colonial enterprise. I see people saying that the decisions were made by the governments of European nations and the USA, not by the Jews; and that Jewish settlers at the time had no better options than to accept that one.

@clairobscur

-In pretty much all other cases, there’s no denial that the natives were wronged. In the case of Israel, there is such a denial.

Who’s denying it?

There might be somebody someplace denying it; but again, I don’t see that in this thread.

@clairobscur

-There’s hardly anybody who argues in support of the Saudi princes. I’m pretty sure I could open ten threads condemning the Saudis, and not read a single post defending them.

And yet, they’re considered valued allies of the USA government; which supplies them with lots and lots of weapons.

[clairobscur]

@QuickSilver

Nobody has disputed this. It started well before WWII and it increased dramatically post WWII.

You were the one bringing up the UN.

Israel is the most recent such example, but hardly unique in history.

Sure, but as I wrote above, what is unique is the refusal to acknowledge it. If I had been posting about the USA, or Rhodesia, or whatever, would it have occurred to you to argue about every detail in favor of the immigrants? And it’s not like you’re the only one. Israel is pretty much the only country for which you’ll face such a denial.

It’s fair to criticize Israel on multiple fronts. It not fair to perpetuate a one sided view of that history.

Precisely, I agree. But I disagree abut the direction of this one sided view. At least on this board.

Without a doubt, Palestinians got the short end of the stick in a deal which was imposed on them by their colonial rulers. I suppose that grievance must extend back to their Ottoman rulers as well as forward to their Israeli rulers. They are justified in their grievances.

Fine, then we’re in agreement.

So what are we talking about if we want to address those grievances? Dismantling of the state of Israel? Reparations? I know! How about a two state solution?

Acknowledging it would be a good first step. And reparations would be a good idea too. Especially since some of the people who were wronged (in particular who lost property in 1948) are still around.

Two states doesn’t address grievances for the past. It just tries to address the situation in the present. But anyway, can you come up with a two states (or one, or three) “solution” that it going to receive the support of the majority of both the Palestinians and Israelis? There are many issues, but to take the first one : what status for Jerusalem will receive the support of both side?

It makes it human. No different than any other migratory event in history. No more, no less.

I wrote that it was human. And indeed it’s not different from a number of other migratory events. Except, once again, for the fact that there is a large number of people who say that it is, in fact, totally different, since in this case, the migrants were entirely justified, and the natives had absolutely no valid grievances.

Wrong analogy. Your colonialist landlord is the one forcing you to share your home with a new family.

Quite similar in spirit. And if we go into the details, your analogy is equally wrong.

Zionism predates WWII. Early immigrants, prior to the formal formation of the state of Israel, moved there in part for religious reasons and in part because of the persistent anti-semitic European history. Zionism, seems to me, was largely based on a premise that if Jews had their own homeland, they would at least be safe there. Also, generational religious teachings and texts lead them to believe Israel (Palestine) was their god granted homeland. Many, not just Jews, believe it to this day. History does not dispute this.

That Judaism was born in what is now Palestine is pretty much undisputed, indeed. But the idea that you have the right to get back what belonged to your ancestors 2500 years ago is pretty dubious. Talk about rewinding history. Anyway, Zionism wasn’t a very religious movement, to say the least.

The part about being safe was certainly important, but I think that nationalism, which was in full steam at the time in Europe, played a big part. Especially since at the time when Zionism was born, a lot of European Jews were quite optimistic wrt the possibility to integrate in western societies that were becoming more and more liberal and more and more tolerant. Not even them envisioned that such a thing as Nazism could happen in western Europe.

It’s not as simple as Jews capriciously deciding one day that moving to some dusty rocks in the Middle East might be a nice place to settle down. The fact that there was already an indigenous population living there (some of whom were Jews as well) is not in dispute. The fact that colonialism and tragic circumstances of that time combined and resulted in the migration of Jews and the formation of the State of Israel is also not in dispute.

I didn’t exactly say that they threw a dart at the map and it randomly landed in Palestine. Nor that they didn’t have any good reason to want to move somewhere, and there in particular. But regardless of their reasons, the result for the locals was the same and they were equally wronged. If instead of Jews wanting to settle in the promised land, it had been Scotsmen who thought that the climate was perfect to raise sheep, the effect would have been the same for the Palestinians.

Jean Valjean needing bread for his children doesn’t make taking it not a theft. And especially not if the bread is taken from someone who also has hungry children.

I’ve not seem much disagreement from anyone on the above. What I find disingenuous in these discussions, which happen frequently enough, is the criticism and accusatory finger pointing without perspective and the vitriolic accusations of “AIPAC rubber stampers”, “Zionists”, and “Holocaust shaming/guilting”. Hard to view that as anything other than anti-semitic stereotyping, whether it’s intentional or not.

You realize that on the other hand accusations of antisemitism are used to stamp out criticism of Israel, do you?

[asahi]

@QuickSilver

Fair enough. I’ll try to overlook your questionable choice of beer.

I was young…once. More of an IPA guy now.

[NAF1138]

Here’s the other thing. These conversations, for me, are always filtered through the lense that stuff like this is still actively happening. (articles details AJ+ quasi Holocaust denial). It’s hard for me to not know this propoganda is floating around and, in some circles, seems to be getting accepted, bit by bit.

Note that the article is in Haaretz a paper which is regularly critical of Israeli policies.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

So, not to necro this, but if anyone is still denying that these attacks were blatant bad faith, here’s the president of the united states:

Five years ago, the concept of even talking about this - even three years ago - of cutting off aid to Israel because of two people that hate Israel and hate Jewish people - I can’t believe we’re even having this conversation. Where has the Democratic Party gone? Where have they gone where they’re defending these two people over the State of Israel?

And I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.

Man, remember when people were giving Ilhan Omar shit because she said something about some people caring more about Israel? I remember. Those voices are strangely silent now that the president is flat-out saying that all jews should be loyal to Israel over their own congresspeople, and is approvingly quoting an antisemitic conspiracy theorist calling him “King of the jews”.

If, by now, your internal model when faced with right-wing criticism isn’t: “It’s blatantly bad-faith bullshit. They don’t actually care, they just use it because it might hurt the other side.”… Time to recalibrate.

[NAF1138]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

So, not to necro this, but if anyone is still denying that these attacks were blatant bad faith, here’s the president of the united states:

Man, remember when people were giving Ilhan Omar shit because she said something about some people caring more about Israel? I remember. Those voices are strangely silent now that the president is flat-out saying that all jews should be loyal to Israel over their own congresspeople, and is approvingly quoting an antisemitic conspiracy theorist calling him “King of the jews”.

If, by now, your internal model when faced with right-wing criticism isn’t: “It’s blatantly bad-faith bullshit. They don’t actually care, they just use it because it might hurt the other side.”… Time to recalibrate.

I don’t feel like people are being silent, at least not jewish people. There has been uproar in my corner of the jewish world over what the President has recently said. Unfortunately, this is just the kind of stuff he says and so uproar is largely met with a shrug.

The world is pretty well fucked. I’m not sure what the solution is.

[Kearsen1]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

So, not to necro this, but if anyone is still denying that these attacks were blatant bad faith, here’s the president of the united states:

Man, remember when people were giving Ilhan Omar shit because she said something about some people caring more about Israel? I remember. Those voices are strangely silent now that the president is flat-out saying that all jews should be loyal to Israel over their own congresspeople, and is approvingly quoting an antisemitic conspiracy theorist calling him “King of the jews”.

If, by now, your internal model when faced with right-wing criticism isn’t: “It’s blatantly bad-faith bullshit. They don’t actually care, they just use it because it might hurt the other side.”… Time to recalibrate.

To play devil’s advocate, I don’t think he was saying they need to be loyal to Israel, the country but that they should be loyal to Jews as a whole (remember Jews self identify as a people), so this would mean that he is saying that they should be loyal to themselves. Why on earth would they offer more loyalty to a congressperson when that loyalty goes against yourself?

[iiandyiiii]

@Kearsen1

To play devil’s advocate, I don’t think he was saying they need to be loyal to Israel, the country but that they should be loyal to Jews as a whole (remember Jews self identify as a people), so this would mean that he is saying that they should be loyal to themselves. Why on earth would they offer more loyalty to a congressperson when that loyalty goes against yourself?

He specifically said Israel:

Andrew Feinberg

I’m not surprised by Trump piling on anti-Semitism (which he’s not a stranger to) on top of all his other bigoted and hateful statements. And I’m not surprised to see so many Republicans in office defending and justifying this anti-Semitism, or gas-lighting by trying to pretend it’s benign.

[Kearsen1]

@iiandyiiii

He specifically said Israel:

https://twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1164204228883230722

I’m not surprised by Trump piling on anti-Semitism (which he’s not a stranger to) on top of all his other bigoted and hateful statements. And I’m not surprised to see so many Republicans in office defending and justifying this anti-Semitism, or gas-lighting by trying to pretend it’s benign.

We all know Trump says what Trump (he’s a dumbass) says. I am saying , I can read into him saying Israel, that he means Jews.

If then follows.

If that is true, then yes, the loyalty that he is describing is a correct valuation.

[iiandyiiii]

@Kearsen1

We all know Trump says what Trump (he’s a dumbass) says. I am saying , I can read into him saying Israel, that he means Jews.

If then follows.

If that is true, then yes, the loyalty that he is describing is a correct valuation.

No, it’s a bullshit valuation. Total bullshit. There’s no contradiction between supporting the Democratic party and supporting Israel or supporting Jews in general.

[Kearsen1]

@iiandyiiii

No, it’s a bullshit valuation. Total bullshit. There’s no contradiction between supporting the Democratic party and supporting Israel or supporting Jews in general.

You are conflating Democratic party with one or two congress people? Can you not be a Democrat but support a different candidate? So you are partially correct, since I never said it was a contradiction to be a Democrat and supporting Israel, or Jews.

[Kimstu]

@iiandyiiii

There’s no contradiction between supporting the Democratic party and supporting Israel or supporting Jews in general.

It is true that supporting Democrats as opposed to Republicans is marginally more likely to mean not supporting the oppressive and antidemocratic policies of the current Israeli government. But where Trump has his head up his ass (one of many ways, in fact) is in trying to equate support for the oppressive and antidemocratic policies of the current Israeli government with support for Israel as a national entity or for Jews in general.

[iiandyiiii]

@Kearsen1

You are conflating Democratic party with one or two congress people? Can you not be a Democrat but support a different candidate? So you are partially correct, since I never said it was a contradiction to be a Democrat and supporting Israel, or Jews.

You didn’t, but Trump did. Trump’s valuation was entirely bullshit. Not only is there no contradiction between voting Democratic and supporting Israel or supporting Jews in general, but there’s no contradiction in supporting Ilhan Omar or Rashida Tlaib and supporting Israel, or supporting Jews in general. There’s a contradiction between supporting Omar and Tlaib and supporting Netanyahu, or many policies of the current Israeli government, but that’s entirely separate from supporting Israel as a whole, or supporting Jews in general.

[Kearsen1]

@iiandyiiii

You didn’t, but Trump did. Trump’s valuation was entirely bullshit. Not only is there no contradiction between voting Democratic and supporting Israel or supporting Jews in general, but there’s no contradiction in supporting Ilhan Omar or Rashida Tlaib and supporting Israel, or supporting Jews in general. There’s a contradiction between supporting Omar and Tlaib and supporting Netanyahu, or many policies of the current Israeli government, but that’s entirely separate from supporting Israel as a whole, or supporting Jews in general.

If the people see the leader of Israel as Israel and the Jewish people are a pretty lock step group, then yes I can see those Jewish people NOT supporting people whom they feel are anti-Semitic. In this case, the congress people (even though they still support Democratic policies)

If all you are doing here is calling out Trump for trying to be political, then I surrender. You have won that battle long ago.

[iiandyiiii]

@Kearsen1

If the people see the leader of Israel as Israel and the Jewish people are a pretty lock step group, then yes I can see those Jewish people NOT supporting people whom they feel are anti-Semitic. In this case, the congress people (even though they still support Democratic policies)

If you’re talking about Jews, then in my experience, most of “the people” (i.e. Jews like me) do NOT “see the leader of Israel as Israel”. Perhaps some do, but in my experience the vast majority do not.

The second part is correct – Jews generally don’t support people who they feel are anti-Semitic. A big part of my opposition to Trump is the hatred and bigotry he’s spouted, including anti-Semitic stuff (as well as tolerance/support for the anti-Semitism of others).

If all you are doing here is calling out Trump for trying to be political, then I surrender. You have won that battle long ago.

I’m not calling him out for being political, but for being anti-Semitic. What he said was anti-Semitic on multiple levels.

I’m not aware of anything anti-Semitic from Tlaib. Omar gave a solid (IMO) apology for the anti-Semtic statement she made a while back. Trump has never apologized for the many hateful and bigoted things he’s said.