Uh, no they’re not. We’re looking at whether a comment that sounds like “divided loyalties” is antisemitic. It’s directly on-point if the people it’s directed at aren’t Jewish.
Meanwhile, your evidence that “she implied that the only reason anyone would support Israel is because of the money” is this:
The problem is, of course, the word “only.” Had you said, “She implied that many people support Israel because of AIPAC’s ability to direct political donations,” then the evidence you offered would be on point.
This may seem like hairsplitting to you. Me, I tend to think it’s important to paraphrase one’s cites accurately.
I honestly believe that AIPAC buys political influence for a pro-Israel agenda in the US. As has been mentioned in this thread, they don’t literally bribe politicians with money, but they, like many special interest groups, spend a lot of money lobbying with the goal of advancing a pro-Israel agenda in US politics, and this is one of the factors in America’s policy when it comes to Israel/Palestine. I also think in the post-Citizen’s United US, this is a distinction without a difference. The criteria laid out above gives no room for this opinion to be expressed without being antisemitic.
No, she implied that the only reason anyone would try to deny free speech to a critic of Israel is because of the money.
The context of her “It’s all about the Benjamins” tweet was a Glenn Greenwald tweet linking an article about GOP leadership planning on pushing for punishment for Omar and Rashida Tlaib, and making the conjecture that it was related to anti-BDS legislation: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1094727576013193216
Yes, both can be true but stop jerking us around and provide evidence where it actually is true incontrovertibly, or does she even get that chance?
The question is rhetorical - I realize the answer is, no, she doesn’t get that chance. But why not? Especially when Steve King can go on for decades being racist before finally being reprimanded.
IMO the existence of a terrorist faction or terrorist acts is irrelevant to whether Palestinians are intrinsically entitled to citizens’ rights and/or national sovereignty in their ancestral homeland. Their basic rights should not be treated like a good-conduct prize that Israel is entitled to withhold or bestow as it pleases. Terrorism is always bad, but it’s not a sufficient excuse for keeping an entire people stateless and rightsless indefinitely.
And it’s not as though “stop the terrorism” is even believable as a good-faith condition for obtaining sovereignty or rights for the Palestinians. On the contrary, the Israeli right wing is making no secret of the fact that it’s independently committed to perpetual dominance of so-called “Greater Israel” and all its environmental resources, and has been for decades. A significant proportion of Israelis have no intention of relinquishing their control of the occupied territories under any circumstances, or of accepting the Palestinian population either as fellow-citizens or as citizens of their own independent nation under any circumstances, terrorism or no terrorism.
Moreover, the right wing of Israel is engaging in terroristic collective warfare against Palestinians, which it then turns around to justify collective punishment against Palestinians. The very same victimization complex that Nazis used to drive Jews out of Germany, if they didn’t work them to the bone and bake them in ovens first.
This is not a Warning.
However, it is a note that including extremely antagonistic adjectives that are generally used of people rather than ideas makes this look like a personal attack.
Dial it back. Further employment of such tactics may garner one a Warning.
I didnt do that. “She crossed the line at least once in using the term “allegiance to a foreign country.”. The “All About The Benjamins” was a maybe, but taken in context, it also appears anti-semitic."
Here’s what needs to be remembered: when people call out Saudi Arabia for its over attempts to influence American (and global foreign affairs) with its oil money and petroleum blackmail, nobody says “OMG! You’re anti-Muslim!” And sorry, but the relationship between the Israeli lobby and Washington is transactional and necessarily involves money, so that’s not a ‘trope’ - that’s just political reality.
The fact that there’s a resolution on the floor, the fact that we’re having this conversation is proof of the degree to which Zionists have brainwashed post-WWII guilt-laden Americans into believing that criticism of Israel and the attempt of Likudists to corrupt American foreign policy equates to being an anti-semite. It’s really bizarre how Americans care so much for a country that most of them have never been to, and the amount of space that Israel occupies in American media coverage and in our political culture is extraordinary. Lobbies like AIPAC have convinced a generation or two that Israel needs to illegally occupy and occupy territory in contravention to international law for its own self-preservation. And we don’t question it.
Back to the original issue here, Omar said nothing that was derogatory about Jews per se; she simply called out Israel’s political influence in our political system and she called out American politicians. That’s it, and nothing more.
Odd how charges of racism cannot be laid on Netanyahu supporters, isn’t it? They’re declared out of bounds, antisemitic, and other deplorable words, but can never be discussed.
You *inferred *it (and that’s being kind to you). The question is why you did so.
AIPAC is an agent of Likud and represents its policies in Washington. It isn’t a hijack to point that out.
You are assuming facts not in evidence. I quite like Omar and was quite impressed with her after the All About the Benjamins incident. But then she went and claimed that Jews aren’t real Americans. But her words are the evidence. I don’t claim know her heart, but I know that she traffics repeatedly in tropes that are antisemitic. That she doesn’t have hate doesn’t mean she isn’t racist.
Steve King should be impeached. Is a fucking travesty that the right are dick less cowards who won’t confront him.
That said, whataboutism looks just as bad on you as it does on the right.
She never said Jews are not real Americans, nor did she imply it. Once again, we have people taking what she said and making whatever conclusions they want to with her words.
As I said, politically, it’s not wise for her to talk about Israel so openly for precisely this reason. But that doesn’t make her anti-Jewish.
But putting aside her intended meaning for a moment, the fact is that there probably are some Jews with dual-loyalty to both the US and Israel. There are American-born Jews who maintain Israeli citizenship, and there are American-born Jews who serve in the IDF. That doesn’t mean they’re anti-American, but suffice it to say, they have dual loyalty. Is that an unreasonable conclusion?
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.
Again, if anyone claimed Omar had dual loyalty to, say Somalia, it would be insane the reaction. Or maybe if people made claims that Obama was born in Kenya. To me, one of the people she is talking about (and someone who donated to the DCCC to help elect her) it feels the same. That actually does matter. How Jew view this.
In particular I like the Tablet article because it’s from a Jewish perspective and has her own reactions and realization that she was being antisemitic, but that she is actually trying.
Again, I like Omar, I think she is prejudiced, but I think she, at one point, had started to realize that. I think the debate over if she is predjuced further entrecnches the prejudice because, it’s pretty obvious.
I like the Atlantic article because it deals with the flip side and lays out that she is, perhaps unintentionally, using dog whistles. Both were written before this became “a thing” which I also think is important.
I think you are overlooking substantial support for Israel in the U.S. that does not come from either of those two groups.
Many times people blame lobbying groups for “undue influence”, ignoring the fact that a major reason for their influence is that their views are substantially represented in the general population.*
*one wonders why opposing lobbying groups which are often very well funded seem unable to counter this “undue influence”, whether it applies to Israel, gun laws, Social Security etc.
Could it be that these other Unduly Influential lobby groups also have substantial support among Americans as a whole?