100% the former. I expect that someone questioning the right of China to exist would face much more pushback than someone questioning the right of Israel to exist, because antisemitism. I’m talking about questioning the human rights record.
That seems to me like you’re begging the question. How is your first paragraph in any way connected to what Omar said?
And while we’re at it, let’s stop pretending that the current governor of Texas has anything intelligent to say about anything.
I’ll put it this way, just so I’m clear: Israel’s not the only country that tries to influence US politics. Obviously, Russia has done it. China has. Saudi Arabia has. I’d call out naturalized Russians, Chinese, and Saudis who appear to have “dual loyalties.”
Criticism of Israel and Israel’s influence on American politics doesn’t have to be anti-semitic, though I would concede that there is anti-semitism on both the right and the left. For the record, I believe in Israel’s “right to exist” – just as I believe in a Palestinian state (as was initially outlined in 1917).
Regardless, going back to the original post, I don’t think Omar is anti-Jewish. She might be a little anti-Israel, but as long as she’s pro-America, I don’t see that as being a disqualifier. Not that I want her or anyone to be anti-Israeli. I think Israel in many regards is a good ally, especially in terms of technology and being a model for how the rest of the Middle-East can form a modern government (my problems with the Likud aside).
FWIW I’m quoting him not for his wisdom, but as an example.
People claim US political figures are loyal to other countries all the time.
Some of the examples:
Clinton calls Trump Putin’s puppet.
Trump aide says “Our forefathers would have hung Obama and Clinton for treason”
Trump accuses Latino judge of bias due to “Mexican Heritage”, La Raza membership
Duncan Hunter accuses opponent of being part of Muslim plot to “infiltrate Congress”
an anti semite, strictly speaking, is anti all people who speak or spoke historically, a semite language…including more arabs than jews.
No. An anti-semite, “strictly speaking,” is somebody who is prejudiced against Jews. The term was coined with that specific definition in mind, and has never been used to describe prejudice against “Semitic” people as a whole, or Arabs in particular.
It’s funny how people trying to show off their superior knowledge of language end up showing off how little they understand language. It’s like rain on your wedding day.
But you see those attempts at enforced tribalism mostly from Jews themselves, don’t you? Isn’t the pressure not to criticize the conduct of Israel’s current government strongest among Diaspora Jews?
Let’s hope not. But I don’t think you can dismiss it so absolutely, especially not when considering how so many others currently in office have been outwardly bigoted for years. And some, I’m sure, are good people. :rolleyes:
Omar’s accusations, if you want to call them that, were of her colleagues, for being influenced to follow the interests of a foreign government that expresses them in the language said colleagues best understand. The history of previous generations in other countries *should *not provide a blanket excuse for that to be done, or to shout down any questioning of it. But that’s what’s happening, including in this thread.
It does indeed. The context of Omar’s statement was present-day politics in the US.
a very inaccurate neologism, if that is true.
When a person states that Jewish lobbyists are buying politicians to split loyalties their to Israel, that person is being offensive.
Why? Because it isn’t true, or because of something else you’re about to explain?
What if they specifically say AIPAC is?
Or, more specifically, that a political party in a foreign country is influencing US policy to be favorable toward it by speaking the language that elected politicians most easily understand? Is *that *off-limits somehow?
Because of the negative implications it attaches to the descriptor “Jewish”. If they say “lobbyists are buying legislators for loyalty to X”, then that’s not offensive or anti-semitic. If they single out Jews (or blacks, or Muslims, etc.), then they’re making an anti-semitic (or otherwise bigoted) assertion.
It is true, and while inaccurate, it’s not really a neologism now, having existed for around 1 1/2 centuries.
What exactly has she said, and what was the context? I think that’s what’s important. I’m not necessarily saying that she can’t be an anti-semite or that she can’t say anti-semitic things, but I’ve yet to see any real evidence of anything that’s patently, plausibly, incontrovertibly anti-semitic. She’s stepped on political landmines for sure, and I might be able to understand how people with heightened sensitivities might have perceived her comments to be anti-semitic. But there’s nothing so far that has convinced me that she’s an outright anti-semite.
Is it OK to say “Israel” instead? How about “Likud” or “Bibi”? How much separation from “Jewish” do you require? Just trying to understand the rules of acceptability, and how they came to be.
On the basis that the speaker of those words has apologized for her offense in raising the Jewish/money trope.
“The only reason you are upset at me for decrying those greedy, filthy, conniving, money-grubbing Jews is because you are a bigoted Islamophobe!”