Do you think that the “A” is for “Allegiance” perhaps?
Or do you not know what the word means?
Yeah that confused emoticon is right on - you are. At best.
No, there is nothing in the name “American Israel Public Affairs Committee” that implies a subservient obedience to Israel. No question that its mission is to advocate for positions that its members support regarding Israel, positions that they honestly feel are in both the United States and Israels’ best interests, which many of the rest of us believe is excessively permissive support that is actually not in either Israel’s or the United States best long term interests. To my mind they are wrong. But they are taking orders from no one.
As to the apology … it plays like this: “So I’m sorry that people were hurt that I wore Black face but absolutely not was my wearing Black face racist, either wittingly or unwittingly.”
Can’t recall if this has been mentioned in one of the Omar threads, but: the accusation she makes against those Jewish Americans she mentions in her speech, is reminiscent of the accusations made against JFK when he was running for the Presidency. It was said that his allegiance was to the Pope----not to the USA.
It wasn’t said that JFK was a supporter of the Pope, or that he hoped for a good relationship between the Vatican and the USA----it was said that he had, at best, dual loyalty. His loyalty, the accusation went, was not to his own nation, but to a foreign entity (the Papacy).
So that sort of thing hasn’t been used only against Jewish people. But it does get used a lot against Jewish people. It’s an old standby, so to speak.
And I think that “excessively permissive support” is precisely because they don’t honestly feel the positions are in both the United States and Israel’s best interests. They feel the positions are in Israel’s best interest, and that’s what mainly matters to them. (To clarify, I’m not saying they would take a pro-Israel position that they see as being super harmful to the U.S., only that they are cool with it being a suboptimal policy for the U.S. overall, as long as it is good for Israel.)
The difference is that Catholics don’t have a homeland to defend; Zionists, OTOH, are defending a “home” state with a military that violently oppresses people and influences American foreign policy. The same cannot be said of Roman Catholicism. So the analogy isn’t entirely valid.
Because I know and have debates with quite a few who would minimally be quite comfortable with AIPAC (more than likely a few donate)… and I do not know a one who does not honestly believe that a secure and strong Israel is in America’s best interests.
Do you think that the American politicians who have taken positions that I consider permissive and wrongheaded also do not honestly feel that these positions are in America’s best interests and that what matters mainly to them is what is in Israel’s best interests? (The question is not if they are right or not but what they honestly believe.)
If you think these American politicians are thinking of Israel’s interests as the main thing, over American interests, then why? Are you of the belief that AIPAC lobbyists pay them off with campaign donations or such? AIPAC doesn’t do that. Lobbying is simply making the case for why a position is “the right choice.” It is selling (the concepts and ideas) not buying (votes and support).
If you instead believe that they have been successfully sold on the idea that a strong and secure Israel is in America’s best interests, and honestly believe it, then why is it so hard for to believe that some Jewish Americans also come to that conclusion?
Really these are honestly held beliefs. And even many of us who are very critical of current Israeli administration policies and who would like to see more tough love brought to bear by America believe that a safe secure and strong Israel is in America’s best interests. Even the region’s and the world’s best interests. I just differ with the AIPAC position on how best to achieve that circumstance for the long term. I believe that a peace that gives the Palestinians of the OT a viable homeland with mutual shared interests and assures less discrimination for Israeli Arabs within the country is even better for the interests of all involved and see settlements and the current circumstances as obstacles to that end.
You are free to disagree or even to think I am lying about what I honestly believe, just as I am free to think of you … as I do. asahi- Catholicism also has more letters but no “z” or “n” so there’s that difference too! And fewer Israeli leaders are accused of covering up sexual abuse of minors! Another difference! Both about as relevant to the point being made as your post.
I’m not saying they aren’t. What I believe is that many Jewish Americans, especially conservative ones, place the existence of a homeland for the Jews, that is well defended militarily and diplomatically, as their #1 geopolitical goal. A strong alliance with the United States strengthens Israel’s defenses, so that is what they want–and they are not too concerned with whether that’s actually beneficial for the U.S. Maybe it’s mildly harmful to U.S. strategic interests, but it’s so helpful to Israel, that is the decisive factor.
If we’re honest, I don’t think this is–or should be at any rate–all that controversial. Nor is it the worst thing in the world, as it is quite understandable that these people would feel that way, even if I oppose them on the policy because I don’t like to see nation-states organized around a reactionary, misogynistic and genocidal Iron Age mythology.
Yep, and that’s why it’s a big problem. The excuses made for her by other Democrats compound the problem, as well as make Omar appear to be basically a stupid child who says the darndest things. I’m actually surprised in these woke times that the fact it’s all white Democrats diminishing her while defending her that isn’t drawing heat.
Which breaks down as “News Flash! Republicans hypocritical about anti-Semitism and hate speech!”
A position that is certainly true and already well known. Of course they not only consistently ignore and deny any hate speech from their own, hell they depend on stereotypes and tropes and stoking votes based upon fears and resentments resultant thereof.
Their outrage can and should be simply ignored. And on the D side we can have discussions about difficult subjects that we disagree about.
But we need to have those discussions with an awareness that the GOP (and the Russian trolls that work on their behalf) will try to do their best to divide Ds into warring factions. Their hypocrisy is immaterial to that.
This bit in Vox, (written before she clarified that she was not really sorry for what she said, just that some were offended by it) gives I think an actually more informed look. I’ll skip the parts about anti-Semitism on the Right and hypocrisy of GOP criticism of her as a given.
Those who don’t already know what is being referenced with that Britain comment can read the article for details. Bottom line is though that anti-Semitism in the British Left has become overt to the degree that
A white person may think they are just paying homage to a rapper they admire but they should not wear Black face and their apology has to not include any defense about how it was absolutely not racist. And those who want to criticize what they see as the impact of AIPAC and advocate for pressuring Israel on settlements, on movement to real peace solutions, on a host of items, shouldn’t wear the rhetoric of overt anti-Semitism (even if it is what comes out due to implicit beliefs that they would deny even to themselves).
The word “cunning”, the phrases “dual loyalty” and “divided allegiance”, implications of Jewish “control” in a discussion involving Jewish issues, will offend and divide. Use them only if that is goal you want to achieve. And take a private minute to consider how those specific words, concepts, and phrases, ones long associated with the most virulent Jew hating, *just happened *to be the ones to pop out.
The group labelled as “the super-Progressives” by 538 wants to call out more mainstream Ds on a wide variety of issues, including policies of Obama’s years. (How’s that pulling this back Dr.Deth?) There will be strong disagreements between them and many others in the party and even some of them with others of them depending on the specific issue. The necessary trick is to disagree with each other in ways that respect each other and not do the trolls work for them.
That last paragraph is well stated. As for the rest of it: I can’t stand Corbyn, and worry the “super progressives” here will kneecap Dems’ chances like they have Labour’s; but like Omar, it may be the case that his stance on Israel is not where my bones of contention lie.
That’s a very good point. The defenses of Omar have been painfully off-target, but also, as you point out, rather patronizing.
Omar could have criticized the policies of the current Israeli government without implying that American Jews are unpatriotic, or manipulative. But that wasn’t her choice.
Omar could have criticized Obama’s authorizing of drone strikes without implying that he is literally a murderer. But that wasn’t her choice.
Democrats who wanted to defend her could have said ‘there are other ways she could have worded these ideas about Israel’s policies and Obama’s policies, that would not have carried bigoted and hateful insinuations.’ Instead the defenses have basically been ‘she didn’t mean any of those bigoted and hateful insinuations because she didn’t understand what she was saying’—which, as you remark, makes her look like a stupid child.
What should have happened was a clear announcement that it’s always legitimate to criticize the policies of Israel’s government or Obama’s foreign policy—so long as the criticism doesn’t depend for its headline-grabbing ability on ugly inferences fueled by unwarranted and underhanded insults.
I just learned that Omar deleted the tweet I was holding up for derision, so Andy: if you’re still trying to defend the stance that Omar was misquoted or misrepresented, you are really out on a limb now, because even she has given up on that defense. Credit to her for at least realizing she was just digging herself in deeper.
The criticism in your OP was what I was challenging – it doesn’t mean everything Omar has said is perfect with nothing worth criticizing. I just thought most of your criticism was ridiculous. And I still do. It’s reasonable to challenge the issues she was challenging. It’s even okay to imply that Obama wasn’t perfect.
And I took into account your history in how you speak about black people, and black women in particular (and such discussion probably fits better in the Pit thread).
:rolleyes: Nice “gotcha”, but no: I certainly don’t endorse those quotes. In fact, I emphatically denounce them. But were they said by Corbyn? I don’t get that impression. If you have damning quotes that are actually from him, please share them—because I am tired of hearing from left-wing friends and family about how great he is, and it would be nice to have this kind of ammo in my back pocket.
ETA: When first posting, I did not notice how truly weak that gotcha was. I said I don’t mind Corbyn’s stance on Israel, and you gave me quotes from people who are not Corbyn and which—this is the part I didn’t catch at first glance—are not in fact about Israel. Other than that, you have me dead to rights.
Boy, ain’t it the truth! I have a wide array of leftish friends and acquaintances, and they simply will not shut up about Corbyn! Corbyn, Corbyn, Corbyn, day in, day out! Probably even worse in Greater Metropolitan Fargo/Moorhead…
The context is a post about how short the slope is from careless criticism of Israel, mindless (at best) of how they reference the tropes, to ugly overt anti-Semitism, and how that has occurred in Britain today.
The response was meh I don’t mind he criticizes Israel.
To be clear, I am not calling you an overt anti-Semite. I suspect you are not even consciously aware of how your implicit beliefs inform what you say. But yeah, someone who uses those tropes and reacts to a post that is about how being so mindless emboldens the explicit with “don’t mind that” informs.
