I read it as her saying that people support Israel because of cash incentives. One’s opponents supporting x because of cash incentives is the universal cry of the wingnut. I mean anti-semitism was not my first conclusion, I’m not sure if in this global war of Israel vs. Palestinians it is fair to assign an anti-Jewish prejudice to a pro-Palestinian activist. But she’s clearly biased, and the numerous takes on her “bold stance” and standing up to moneyed interests in politics can’t hide that. But they’re trying.
I’ve read this thread (so far) and I still don’t see what she said that can legitimately be criticized as anti-semitic.
To me, it boils down to this comparison. If someone complained that the NRA has an oversized influence on American politics, and she replied that it was “all about the money,” that’s not racist, even though the vast majority of NRA members are white folks. The NRA does have an oversized influence.
However, I think she’s wrong about the money. The problem with the NRA isn’t as much the money they contribute, it’s about how rabid their members are about their one narrow issue. This is exactly parallel to AIPAC (which I had never heard of before today).
There’s a long-established anti-semitic trope of Jews controlling/manipulating people and world events with money and other nefarious means. Whether on purpose or not, she touched on this trope.
When there are long-standing bigoted and hateful tropes out there, folks should be careful to avoid them, IMO, to avoid contributing in any way to that bigotry and hate. If someone is criticizing a black person, they should avoid reinforcing any long-standing white supremacist/anti-black tropes (i.e. “ape”, “monkey”, and even descriptors like “lazy” and “savage”), IMO.
If we had a completely stereotype/bigoted-trope-free society, then this would be unnecessary. I think it’s a very small price to pay to avoid assisting bigotry and hate, since there are plenty of ways to criticize someone or some organization without reinforcing these sorts of tropes and stereotypes.
This is the problem I’m having, and perhaps other people are, too. I understand that there are antisemitic stereotypes around Jews and money. I would label someone’s statements as antisemitic if they claimed that a Jewish person or group’s only motivation was money. I would agree “well what do you expect from Jews” is antisemitic if used on a person or group who was motivated by money.
However, and this is where my problem lies, PACs use money to influence politics. That’s kind of their thing. Does that have to be ignored if the PAC is advocating about Jewish or Israeli issues?
Would a better tweet have been something like, “AIPAC is a well funded lobbyist group, and because of the influence money can bring to politics, they are often able to succeed in getting the US government to follow their agenda, even when that agenda is, in my opinion, damaging to other groups who do not have well funded lobbyists groups advocating for them.”
I don’t think such a tweet would have been considered problematic. It’s much more in depth, serious, and factual, rather than appearing off the cuff, and thus IMO much less likely to be confused or associated with those negative tropes.
Which is really the lesson, I think – if one wants to make sure to avoid tweeting stuff some might reasonably see as bigoted, don’t just tweet off-the-cuff things about serious and potentially fraught topics without making sure you’re not playing around with, or reinforcing, bigotry.
An underestimate, seeing that AIPAC doesn’t make campaign contributions. J Street, which does, is seen as a moderate group, and strongly supports a two-state solution.
What then do you expect to happen to all the majority Jewish inhabitants under Palestinian rule? Do they live happily ever after :dubious:, or just “go back where they came from” (a bit difficult, seeing that for most it’s the only country they’ve ever known in a land to which Jewish people have ancient ties).
I see this as the Fallacy of the Malign Lobby.
According to this fallacy, the nirvana outcome for certain policy disputes is constantly being thwarted by a lobby group (AIPAC, the NRA, AARP etc.) which defies the Will of the People due to some magical chokehold on lawmakers. This viewpoint blissfully ignores the large and committed constituencies that make possible the perceived disproportionate success of the lobby group. One also wonders why competing interests are seemingly unable to organize and fund adversarial lobby groups that would wield equal or more power.
I’m half-Jewish and nearly always end up on the Israel side of any Israel vs. Palestine debate, and I think it’s a stretch to call her comment anti-semitic, and a ludicrous stretch to decry it as savagely as some have done (ie, “virulent”).
As for sincerity of apologies, there are a TON of shades…
So, suppose some public figure is discussing choosing between one of various black people in some otherwise innocent context, and uses the phrase “eenie meenie miney moe”, and a bunch of people point out that it didn’t used to be “catch a tiger by the toe”, and claim that that comment is racist, and the person who said it issues a fairly sincere-sounding apology saying “I understand how hurtful this can be, and unreservedly apologize” or something like that.
Was that apology sincere?
Here are some possibilities:
(1) The public figure had never before heard that connection, and they’re thinking “gee-ZUS these PC idiots are stretching, because that’s some BS”, but they know that it’s de rigeur to apologize, so they apologize
(2) The public figure had never before heard that connection, and they’re thinking “huh, I did not know that, and frankly it seems like a weak connection to me, but I know these people are sincere, and I do regret causing them pain, so I will apologize”
(3) The public figure had never before heard that connection, and they’re thinking “wow, learn something new every day, I can totally see how inappropriate and hurtful that was, I will do my best never to use that phrasing again”
(4) The public figure had heard that connection at some point, but it had slipped their mind, but now they remember, and their reaction is any of (1) or (2) or (3)
(5) The public figure is chuckling inwardly because they know that they successfully dog whistled some racism to their racist supporters, but is apologizing anyhow in order to appease the SJWs
And a zillion shades in between.
So… who knows?
Another possibility is that the public figure has so internalized the stereotype that they no longer recognize it as a problem, but merely assume it’s truth.
American politicians are required to publicly support a foreign country. Anyone who criticizes that country risks being labeled a bigot. I’m risking being labeled a bigot for suggesting that there’s something wrong with this arrangement.
Ultimately, bigotry is about “otherness”. The group you’re bigoted against are different from everybody else, which makes them scary, dangerous, or inferior. Suggesting that a group is using money to influence American politics isn’t different, it’s exactly what everybody does.
Suggesting that Jews use money and lobbyists to influence our politicians doesn’t mean they’re a secret cabal pulling the puppet strings of the world, it means they’re exactly like every other group trying to get the things they want.
One would have to be blithely unaware of modern history and the vast array of conspiracy theories dependent upon this trope to not see a special significance in such accusations.
First of all, speaking as someone who was born and raised Jewish, being critical of Israel is not the same as being anti-semitic. Bigotry is about treating all people of a specific group as if they are the same, whether it is Jews, Israelis, or Americans. If I disagree with a specific action or actions of Israel, everyone should understand that I’m being critical of their government, and it doesn’t rise to the level of bigotry. If I criticise Israeli lobbyists, again, that does not rise to the level of bigotry.
There are people who support Israel for their own religious reasons, and that’s simply superstition. I’m talking specifically about certain evangelicals who see Israel as part of Christian prophecy: US Jerusalem embassy: why American evangelicals love Trump’s Israel policy - Vox This is nothing new – I first learned about it during during the rise to power of the religious right. This has very little to do with money. That said, not everyone understands this link between Israel and evangelicals, so I can understand the mistake.
Not all Jews support Israel. Not all Israeli Jews support the actions of the Israeli government.
It’s this sort of conflation of American Jews (or Jews in general) with Israel, the Israeli government, and/or certain Israeli government policies; along with the singling out of Jews as especially worthy of some sort of criticism in terms of using money and lobbyists to influence politicians and events, that slots very cleanly into the various anti-semitic tropes and conspiracy theories that have thrived for decades and even centuries.
The thing is, I don’t see that accusing a group of people of using money to lobby politicians can be described as “special” “singling out” or “especially worthy”. It’s just what people do.
If you want to accuse a person who happens to be Jewish of doing something nefarious, go right ahead. But if you accuse “Jews” in general of doing so, then you’re right smack in the middle of anti-semitic territory.
FWIW I think there is another broad context to keep in mind, keeping a bunch of different cats all herded in the same tent, through 2020 at least, is going require some sensitivity to each others’ fears and sensitivities. American Jews are fairly small in numbers but are still of importance to a Democratic campaign, and far beyond a few of them donating the Benjamins baby. As a group they are (and speaking as one, I am) very willing to entertain criticism of the current government in Israel and its policies. And there are anti-Semitic tropes with deep history and harms. One may have been ignorant that Black face was hurtful and one can be ignorant of anti-Semitic tropes, excusable maybe for the common Joe, but once one is a politician you have to reduce that ignorance fast and deal with your past ignorance well. Jewish-American Democrats, many if not most anyway, will be fine with criticisms of Israeli policies that steer away from the tropes.
For all the areas that we may or may not disagree with each other, have the debates with respect for each other and in ways that do not undermine circling our wagons together at the end of the day.
I give kudos to this politician for owning up to her ignorance quickly. She will continue to a voice criticizing Israeli policies and American policies that she (and many others) feel is akin to giving a drunk Israeli government keys to the car, and she should. And from here she will likely do so more effectively.
I don’t think her comment was antisemitic at all, and Americans should be more critical of Israel than we usually are. However, Twitter is not the best medium for that purpose, and that’s especially true for a Somali-born freshman congresswoman.
I think Muslim Congresswoman, Ilhan Omar is, was, and will be anti-Semitic. People like Ilhan Omar can be as critical of Israel, and Jews, as much as they chose to be. Maybe the voters will take notice next time? Of course, she will always have the opportunity to apologize for her statements when it’s politically expedient for her to do so. Her apology would have been more believable if Ilhan Omar had just said that she was sorry she had been caught being anti-Semitic.
And here we see a demonstration of the desire of those of the Right (and the Russian trolls will too) to stoke anything that may be divisive among Ds.
We must be prepared to for many more attempts to fracture us. Preventing it will require conscious effort to not take the bait that will be put out again and again.
Well said. It would be sad if Dems lost much-needed votes due to valid (if careless) criticism of Israel’s government by individual D lawmakers being perceived as party-wide animus toward Jews in general. Fortunately, most of us don’t automatically equate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism.
Hehehehe. The biggest problem faced by the Democrat Party in 2020 will be corralling all of the yellow dog democrats, hate groups, socialists, left-wing loonies, independents, race-based identity bigots, and whoever else is out there, behind one Presidential candidate. The current list of potential Democrat Party contenders doesn’t seem to be drawing all that much interest.