It’s a meme that Trump and the GOP are imbecilic (despite that Trump, Hannity, Ryan etc. probably all have 3-digit IQs). If I write that a Republican initiative is “stupid”, is that politically incorrect because it plays to the stereotype of GOP imbecility?
One needs to choose one’s battles wisely. She realized that her remarks gave some offense, and apologized so that the conversation could move on. Presumably she’ll be less flippant in future. But to treat her apology as sincere shame is to misunderstand pragmatism in communication.
Because of their long-time persecutions, especially the Holocaust, I think Jewish sensitivities should be especially respected. But often political correctness becomes absurd. A few years ago there was a thread in BBQ Pit related to the statistical fact that for many decades a large portion of Hollywood studio heads were Jewish. In California, Cambodians often operate doughnut shops; Indians often operate motels; Japanese used to operate plant nurseries. Why did Jews end up operating Hollywood studios? It seemed like an interesting question without any need for “judgment.”
I was pounced on from every direction, beginning with
And then Dopers acted dopey by not seeming to understand that those who founded the big studios almost a century ago would be VERY old now:
“A good Jew” doesn’t enter into it at all, given that there are plenty of non-Jews that she disagrees with on the subject.
Right, but you don’t have the governor of Texas saying, “Anti-Somalia policies are anti-Texas policies.” That’s where “dual loyalties” comes into play, right? And that’s not a Jew saying that. It’s a US conservative Christian.
She made comments on the Daily Show that further indicate to me that she was sincere in her apology.
I can’t figure out why some posters here are so insistent that she lied when she said she was sorry. Really, is this the argument you want to embrace? That she’s simultaneously an outspoken firebrand who will tell it like it is; but is also just a cowardly politician who will lie about being sorry just to avoid some flak?
My assumption is that she is sincere in her statements, both when she sticks her foot in her mouth and when she says that she didn’t mean the offense that she caused and will learn not to do it again. I guess I have a higher opinion of her character than you do… which is really weird in this context.
If you contrast this view with my own, I think we’re saying almost exactly the same, just changing the emphasis slightly. No? Do you think she feels “shame”? We’re parsing the difference between degrees of contrition.
I don’t have much of an opinion at all of her character, so any argument about her apology is not especially interesting to me. I’m much more interested in how conversation about the relationship between the United States and Israel is bounded, and whether those boundaries are appropriate.
In general, when someone from a minority group tells me that a particular turn of phrase is offensive, I’m inclined to believe them. AIPAC complicates this general principle; Waldman’s column complicates this general principle. The fact that nobody seems to be addressing his central point (that “divided loyalties” in this case isn’t antisemitic, since it’s not solely, or even primarily, directed at Jews) complicates this general principle.
Yeah, re-reading your comments I agree that our opinions are probably not that different. When I first read them it sounded like you were using the words “sincere shame” is a slightly different way than I now understand you intended, so I probably didn’t get your full meaning the first time I read your post.
Yeah, there’s definitely a few things going on in relation to that divided loyalties comment.
Regardless of the racial issue, it’s a pretty offensive statement, in the same spirit as others have mentioned about JFK being ultimately loyal to the Pope and not the US.
There’s no doubt that extreme pro-Israeli people may jump on anything they disagree with as being a racial issue simply for purposes of attack.
It’s also fair to view the “divided loyalties” comment alongside her other comments on Israeli and American support thereto. Since the comment about money was pretty obnoxious, so it isn’t like she’s making these comments with totally clean hands.
For me, it’s a fine hair to split with regard to whether a person has a problem with the Jewish homeland or Jewish people when they make a lot of statements that are pretty offensive to begin with. It’s hard to know what’s in her heart, but it’s pretty obvious she needs to listen and think more, and shoot from the hip less.
She conceded that her comments were similar enough in scope and context that there were anti-semitic elements to them that she could not deny.
She did not concede to being anti-semitic, nor making the comments from a place of anti-semitism.
She learned to step carefully around, and maybe even completely avoid, any subject touching on Israel or Palestine, as any criticism of Israel is oft automatically labeled anti-semitic, and given her background, that label is much more gleefully applied by her opponents.
If you word something badly, and then you see how people may take offense at a valid interpretation of your poor word choice, do you apologize for wording it badly, or do you apologize for being what you were accused of due to the misunderstanding of your words?
Septimus did not say that the apology was not sincere. He said that it did not show sincere shame. that sincere shame would be if she had actually been apologizing for being anti-semitic, rather than a sincere apology for being a bit tone deaf when it comes to how sensitive people are about the subject of Israel relations.
If I say a politician (as I have many times) is loyal to his donors, rather than the people he represents, it that anti-semitic?
Does that politician being jewish change that?
Does his donors being jewish change that?
And it is hard to see who is extreme sometimes. Do we define it as anyone who jumps on anything they disagree with as a being a racial issue?
If so, then I would say that a substantial amount of the outrage is due to that.
Asking her to modify her comments to be more sensitive is one thing. Outright accusing her of anti-semitism due to an interpretation of her comments is another.
Are there no people with divided loyalties? The example has been given a couple times in this thread of the Texas governor saying that they are loyal to Israel. I see that as an example of someone declaring that they have divided loyalties, so any general accusations of such are fully justified.
If one has chosen that a lot of their statements are offensive to begin with, then their later statements will be held to that same unfair standard.
But very easy to make assumptions.
That’s actually good advice for pretty much everyone who has ever lived.
And sure, when you strip everything of it’s larger context I can see why it would seem that way. But it’s not isolated and it is using the rhetoric of antisemitism for a millenia. It’s a dog whistle, maybe (probably) an unintentional one, more emblematic of her mind set than deep seeded hate. As she herself said, it’s systemic. But it’s not really different than when Trump ran a campaign add talking about how Hillary was in the pocket of all those big wall street bankers like George Soros, and everyone knew he was playing on anti jewish canards to appeal to white supremacists, but because it’s a dog whistle its easy to rationalize. Trump isn’t antisemetic he’s anti globalist. Omar isn’t anti semetic, she’s…I’m not sure. Anti Israel state? Anti Likud? Anti Netanyahu? Anti Evangelical Christian creepily supporting Israel to bring about the end times? You tell me.
Why is it ok to claim that any American puts the interests of another country before their own? Why is this claim not ever made against any country but Israel? Where is the widespread denunciation of Saudi Arabia by Omar? Where is the claim of dual loyalty when the president praises Duterte? Why is it Israel that is being singled out? America makes a lot of really shocking foreign policy decisions, especially right now, with countries who are horrific when it comes to human right. Why is Israel special?
She has apologized for saying that a couple times, so I continue to be baffled as to why you and a few others insist there was nothing offensive about the statement.
I don’t think that’s the hair being split. I think the hair being split is whether she has a problem with Israel or with the current right-wing government of Israel. And that’s not a fine hair to split at all, IMO.
To the extent that she’s phrasing her concerns poorly, I think I can see that (although it’s important for us to remember that she didn’t use the “dual loyalties” phrase, and her complaint was that she perceived HERSELF, not a Jew, as being asked to “have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.”) Partly she phrased it poorly, but partly people are deliberately paraphrasing her in a way that makes it sound a lot worse than what she actually said.
But to the extent that her concerns are unfounded, I disagree. I think there’s something going on here that is unlike what happens with US relationships with other nations.
Again, I don’t see governors saying, “Anti-China policies are anti-Texas policies.” I don’t see people who oppose Saudi Arabia’s human rights record as facing Congressional sanctions for being anti-Arab. I don’t see Austria’s ruling coalition having a hugely influential PAC in the United States that is successful at mobilizing politicians toward their ends.
Omar doesn’t necessarily need to engage in widespread denunciation of Saudi Arabia–but as was pointed out earlier in the thread, she’s very outspoken in denouncing them, and a few seconds on Twitter will show you that. But it doesn’t gain news coverage when someone denounces Saudi Arabia. If everything were equal, her Tweet denouncing Saudi Arabia would’ve spawned a three-page thread about whether her comments were anti-Arab, yeah?
Our president’s an idiot, obviously. But he certainly faces claims of dual loyalty when he praises Putin. I think he doesn’t face them with Duterte because it’s obvious he just like murderous thugs as leaders and wishes he could be one, and it’s no more complicated than that.
Israel is special because, AFAICT, people face serious pushback when they criticize Israel’s human rights record, in a way that they don’t face when they criticize Sudan’s, or China’s, or France’s, or Saudi Arabia’s, or Belgium’s.
As I recall, there were commenters in that thread (including one Doper no longer with us who used to flog the “allegiance to a foreign power” line re Israel) intimating that there was something nefarious about the total number of Jews in Hollywood, who were evidently banding together to keep others out. Again:
Acceptable: A lot of Jews have had success in Hollywood and have risen to positions owning or being top executives in studios.
Not acceptable: Jews have banded together to dominate Hollywood, and that’s why you don’t see non-Jewish producers making movies showing Jews in a bad light or exploring oppression of Palestinians.
As I’ve mentioned before, it’s a losing proposition for non-members of ethnic/religious groups to lecture members of those groups about language a lot of them find offensive. “You Jews/black/Catholics/Muslims shouldn’t be offended, you’re just using innocent remarks to gain an advantage” doesn’t come off well.
I actually don’t know the answer to this - in any of her statements that have contributed to this controversy, has she ever made specific comments about the current government as opposed to Israel generally? All I recall is her talking about he influence of Israel in American politics.
I should also mention the futility of quoting outliers in a religious or ethnic group who profess not to be offended by certain language or actions.
For instance, most Dopers would probably be :dubious: about the argument that black people shouldn’t be offended about something based on what Clarence Thomas has said.
Pollard was convicted of espionage – I think it’s safe to say that anyone who’s spying on their own country probably has “divided loyalties”, to say the least. (If they have any kind of loyalty to begin with, except to himself)
Except that WASPs DO say stuff like that, all the time. And if they’re not getting shit about it, then they should.
You really think the “Jews manipulate people with money!” is a new thing?
There’s nothing wrong with criticism of Israel. It IS wrong to assume that all Jews somehow have a connection to Israel, or that they MUST share their opinion on Israel, before you take them seriously.
It’s not because she’s a Muslim, or from the Middle East. It’s because there’s a LONG history of this kind of thing, accusing Jews of being greedy, of disloyalty, etc. It’s like saying, “well, I didn’t MEAN to be racist when I said that black guy looked like a monkey! It wasn’t talking about ALL black people!”
Exactly. Therefore, it is not anti-Semitic to accuse Pollard of having divided loyalties, even though having divided loyalties is a common anti-Semitic trope.
The important thing about Omar’s statements is that they aren’t true. IMO they ought to be attacked on that ground.
When they question its human rights record or when they question the right of a Jewish state to exist?
I am not going to say that there exists no knee jerk pushback when the human rights record is questioned in a straightforward way. But there is a noted difference between the pushback against Israel that you might read in Haaretz and what you hear coming from Omar at the moment. (and to be fair, it comes from others on the left far more than from Omar, they are just better at not abusing antisemitic tropes when they do it.)
I say this fully recognizing, because I have been on Facebook today, that the right are using her remarks as an opportunity for Islamophobic screeds. It frankly sucks and, from a personal Jewish perspective, I see this as also making the world a less safe place for Jews and undermines all sorts of stuff. But I wish she would not give them these sorts of openings only slightly less than I wish the right weren’t xenophobic assholes about her.
The bafflement is that you think that I am insisting that there was nothing that could be taken as offensive about the statement, when I specifically said that there could be.
What I said in this very thread, was that she was not coming from a place of anti-semitism, and was not apologizing for coming form a place of antisemitism, but that her words were tone deaf to the sensitivity of Israel relations.
The accusations against her is that she is anti-semitic, and that is what I am arguing against, not that some of her words were not anti-semitic.
If someone wears black face out of ignorance, they have performed a racist act, but that does not make them a racist.
By the same token, if someone says something that is perceived as anti-semitic out of ignorance, then they have said something anti-semitic, but that does not make them an anti-semite.
My question there was when does criticism of money in politics become anti semitic? A question that you evaded by making some inaccurate accusations against me, but did not bother to answer.
So, since that is cleared up, when does criticism of lobbying efforts become anti semitic? is it when the politician is jewish, or when the lobbyists are jewish, or something else?
