The issue has nothing to do with having sympathy for one side or the other or both. (Sign me for the last.)
It has to do with the use of anti-Semitic tropes. It has to do with the difference between criticizing behaviors and using those as a means of expressing hate speech. And hate speech expressed without conscious awareness but due to implicit acceptance of the tropes.
My impression is that those “tropes” are wielded far too broadly, as a shield against criticism.
Something I’ve long wondered: would people who are sensitive to these things consider it anti-Semitic if I honestly stated “Judaism is stupid and backward”? Would the answer change if they knew that I feel the same about Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.?
You were talking about “dual loyalties,” in a thread on Omar. Don’t fucking call me disingenuous.
You really should bother to read the conversations you are participating in.
Your failure to do so is not my concern.
I can only speak for myself. No I would not consider an ignorant statement about the religion to be anti-Semitic, even if was specific to the one belief system.
At the end of the day, you object to money being mentioned in reference to lobbying because it’s an Israeli lobby group. An objection I can’t imagine you’d offer on any other political lobby.
…and with that we’re done.
The original(remix) Puff Daddy & The Family - It’s All About The Benjamins and the trope it ran in on.
Neither your claim that Omar must have been talking about Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, nor the article author’s claim that Omar “was not actually hauling out the old dual loyalty trope” make sense in the light of Omar’s word choice.
She talked about people “in this country” pushing for “allegiance to a foreign country.”
She did not talk about people in this country pushing for support for a foreign country. She talked about people in this country pushing for allegiance to a foreign country.
Of course that’s “dual loyalty”—at best. Logically, Omar’s phrase must mean either loyalty to that foreign country plus one’s own (dual loyalty), or loyalty ONLY to the foreign country, and no loyalty to one’s own. There are no other logical possibilities.
That’s nothing to do with pledges to boycott or with pledges not to boycott. That’s allegiance to a foreign country. I don’t see how you can dance around it.
The problem with what Omar has been saying is not that it contains criticism of Israel or of Israel’s policies, or even criticism of those Americans who care about Israel and its policies (one way or the other).
The problem with what Omar has been saying–and refusing to genuinely apologize for—is that it characterizes an entire group of people in an insulting way. Omar asserts that these particular participants in government are “all about the Benjamins, baby,” and fail to be patriotic Americans.
As has been mentioned, these are old slurs.
Are we really supposed to defend the use of slurs against certain demographic groups? Really? What are, we, Republicans?
What, specifically, do you think she was talking about, then? Because there have absolutely been anti-BDS laws, but I’m unaware of anything else that remotely qualifies.
What group of people? Jews? Because that doesn’t make any sense.
If you can convince me that she’s talking specifically about Jews, I’ll change my tune. But I’m not at all convinced that’s the group she’s talking about here.
Simply no.
Very seriously, do you honestly think the phrases “dual loyalty” and the word “cunning” came to the minds of posters here total devoid of any even subconscious association of them with the very standard anti-Semitic bits of cunning and disloyal Jews controlling things with money, etc.?
You do understand that these negative stereotypes and beliefs routinely impact all of our speech and actions even when we are not consciously aware of them, don’t you?
I experience those as “fighting words” as do many other American Jews.
Criticism of Israeli actions and policy, the paired idiocy of BDS and requiring rejection of it are not offensive.
But if one wants to have that conversation one should be aware that you may hold more hateful stereotypes than you think and be aware that such can result in the use of words that in real life can result in others considering punching you in the face. Well thinking about it before taking the deep breath counting slowly and walking away. Not worth it at this point in my life.
Otherwise yeah done here is fine.
She was talking about
The specific context was discussion of stories of “Palestinians seeking safety and sanctuary” and Omar’s assertion that Jewish people she’s heard speaking about Palestinians, do not speak about a search for safety and sanctuary, but speak instead about the Palestinians not wanting safety or not being deserving.
I notice that you chose not to respond to this. Why is that?
What doesn’t make sense? That Omar was talking about Jews? She was; it’s right in the transcript.
Read the transcript. There’s no ambiguity.
Thank you for linking the transcript. I’d looked for it but had missed links to it before.
Although I disagree that there’s no ambiguity, I find her first couple of paragraphs more unsettling than anything else I’d read by her before. I gotta think about that.
And that’s was made me angry. I figured she got excited, misspoke, and so made a genuine heartfelt apology. So I said, sure, people screw up, they apologize, let’s drop it. But then she made it clear she didnt mean that apology at all. :mad:
Whereas it’s seemed clear to me all along that she was apologizing for using words that made people pissed off, even though she didn’t mean to. Her explanation of her apology–that she was apologizing for how she made people feel–is entirely in keeping with a genuine apology for inadvertently using language that pissed people off.
No, sorry*, “I am sorry about how you feel” is a bogus non-apology. She is laying the blame on those who felt hurt. *That makes it even worse. *
*not real apology
Isn’t the mission of AIPAC literally about allegiance to Israel? Like right in the name? 
I find myself softening to Omar, because I see nothing wrong with any of the Medium quotes. Except maybe the “endless war” bit, which reminds me of her rant against Obama and other mainstream Democrats, and then I get pissed off again.
Not at all:
https://www.aipac.org/about/mission
The mission of AIPAC is to strengthen, protect and promote the U.S.-Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of the United States and Israel.
They are a strong ally, who has really good local intel. They have helped the US too, altho no doubt they get the lion’s share.
There are similar groups for Korea, GB, Taiwan, etc.
Which would also involve dual allegiance.
I feel like the “tropes police” would object if someone called Bernie Madoff a greedy, dishonest banker.
“Allegiance to” is not the same as “support of.” Nowhere near.
Similarly, “support, protect, and promote” a relationship with a foreign nation is not the same thing as giving allegiance to a foreign nation. Again: nowhere near.