Was Rep. Ilhan Omar being anti-semitic?
paulsurovell said:
The focus on Abrams should also be on his current leadership in the Trump-Bolton coup attempt in Venezuela. It's appropriate that a war criminal was chosen for that role.
By the way, Abrams was involved in the 2002 coup against Venezuelan Pres. Hugo Chavez, that was successful for a couple of days.
Good learning.
ctrzaska said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/opinion/ilhan-omar-anti-semitism.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fbret-stephens&action=click&contentCollection=undefined®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
That is one awful column. Sometimes Stephens lets the mask slip.
MaryGee said:
I agree with this op-ed by WAPO's Paul Waldman.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/05/dishonest-smearing-ilhan-omar/?utm_term=.141d5ebbc357&wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1
Me too. It's excellent, with a great discussion of "dual loyalty."
paulsurovell said:
MaryGee said:Me too. It's excellent, with a great discussion of "dual loyalty."
I agree with this op-ed by WAPO's Paul Waldman.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/05/dishonest-smearing-ilhan-omar/?utm_term=.141d5ebbc357&wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1
I think you're a member of J Street. J Street thought Omar's language "echoed long-standing stereotypes and anti-Semitic tropes." (It didn't mention Omar by name but the reference is clear.)
"J Street is dismayed by some of the rhetoric and imagery used by some critics of Israeli policy. Harmful language that echoes long-standing stereotypes and anti-Semitic tropes concern us deeply"
MaryGee said:
I agree with this op-ed by WAPO's Paul Waldman.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/05/dishonest-smearing-ilhan-omar/?utm_term=.141d5ebbc357&wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1
Except the premise laid out in his first paragraph appears to have inaccuracies:
Nancy Pelosi has decided that the time has come for the House of Representatives to rebuke Rep. Ilhan Omar for things she didn't actually say and ideas she didn't actually express.
Nancy Pelosi instead stated this:
REPORTER: Do you think that Ilhan Omar understands why her comments were problematic? And what happens if this happens again?
SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: First of all, thank you for the question. I don't think the congresswoman is -- perhaps appreciated the full weight of how it's heard by other people. I don't believe it was intended in an anti-Semitic way.
But the fact is that's how it was interpreted. We have to remove all doubt, as we have done over and over again. We're working now on a resolution on the floor that will, again, speak out against anti-Semitism, anti-Islamophobia, anti-white supremacy and all the forms it takes, that our country has no place for this.
[...]
After I spoke to her, members had different tacks they wanted to take. Some wanted to make individual statements, some thinking we should have a resolution. I thought the resolution should enlarge the issue to anti-Semitism, anti-Islamophobia, anti-white supremacy -- and it should not mention her name, and that's what we're working on, something that is one resolution addressing all those forms of hatred and not mentioning her name. Because it's not about her. It's about these forms of hatred.
------------------------------
Interestingly, an op-ed in the Washington examiner describes the same actions from the opposite perspective:
Nancy Pelosi's disgusting excuses for Ilhan Omar have thrown Jews under the bus
-----------------------------
So, two opposite views of the same event. Do you decide to 'pick a side' and dig in to defend it no matter what? Is there no better option?
Jaytee said:
If she looked like Mc Cullum, we wouldn't be having this thread.
And this really gets to the heart of it.
MaryGee said:
I agree with this op-ed by WAPO's Paul Waldman.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/05/dishonest-smearing-ilhan-omar/?utm_term=.141d5ebbc357&wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1
It blocks me from reading it unless I subscribe.
lord_pabulum said:
The resolution is all well and good for the House of ne'er do wells. How about congress address the influence of special interests and the money in general. Some words of advice though, when giving examples of lobbyists or special interests, don't mention certain ones.
You go to War with the Congress you have not the one you would like to have.
Is it not interesting that the young Congresswoman is being attacked for not being "Politically correct"?
STANV said:
Is it not interesting that the young Congresswoman is being attacked for not being "Politically correct"?
Is J Street attacking her for not being politically correct? I don't think so and J Street is to the left.
STANV said:MaryGee said:It blocks me from reading it unless I subscribe.
I agree with this op-ed by WAPO's Paul Waldman.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/05/dishonest-smearing-ilhan-omar/?utm_term=.141d5ebbc357&wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1
Here are some key excerpts:
The dishonest smearing of Ilhan Omar By Paul Waldman Opinion writer
[ . . . ] In the latest round of controversy, Omar said during a town hall, regarding U.S. policy toward Israel, “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” This comment was roundly condemned by members of Congress and many others for being anti-Semitic. Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.) called her statement “a vile anti-Semitic slur” and accused her of questioning "the loyalty of fellow American citizens.”
Pelosi then announced that the House would vote on a resolution which, while not mentioning Omar by name, is clearly meant as a condemnation of her. It contains multiple “whereas” statements about the danger of accusing Jews of “dual loyalty.”
So let’s talk about this idea of “dual loyalty,” and how it does and doesn’t relate to Omar’s comments. For many years, Jews were routinely accused of having dual loyalty, to both the United States and Israel, as a way of questioning whether they were truly American and could be trusted to do things such as serve in sensitive national security positions.
That charge was anti-Semitic, because it was used to allege that every Jew was suspect, no matter what they thought about Israel, and that they could not be fully American because they were assumed to have too much affection for another country. It wasn’t about the particulars of U.S. policy or what Jews at the time were advocating; it was about who they (allegedly) were, their identity.
Now, back to Omar. Here’s the truth: The whole purpose of the Democrats’ resolution is to enforce dual loyalty not among Jews, but among members of Congress, to make sure that criticism of Israel is punished in the most visible way possible. This, of course, includes Omar. As it happens, this punishment of criticism of Israel is exactly what the freshman congresswoman was complaining about, and has on multiple occasions. The fact that no one seems to acknowledge that this is her complaint shows how spectacularly disingenuous Omar’s critics are being.
[ . . .] Not coincidentally, this happened at the same time as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the most prominent and influential pro-Israel lobby, went from supporting Israel generally to being the lobby in the United States for the Likud, Israel’s main right-wing party. While AIPAC works hard to keep Democrats in line, its greatest allies are in the GOP, where support for Israel and a rejection of any meaningful rights for Palestinians have become a central component of party ideology. When the most prominent advocates for Israel are people such as Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin, “dual loyalty” loses any meaning as a slur against Jews.
The idea that taking issue with support of Israel means one is necessarily criticizing Jews as Jews ignores the last few decades of political developments around the United States’ relationship with Israel. “Supporters of Israel” hasn’t been a synonym for “Jews” since the 1980s. I have to repeat this: In the United States today, a “supporter of Israel” is much more likely to be an evangelical Christian Republican than a Jew.
Ilhan Omar certainly didn’t say that Jews have dual loyalty. For instance, in one of the tweets that got people so worked up, Omar said, “I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.” You’ll notice she didn’t say or even imply anything at all about Jews. She said that she was being asked to support Israel in order to have the privilege of serving on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which was true. Many on the right have called for her to be removed from that committee (see here, or here, or here, or here). Her argument, to repeat, isn’t about how Jews feel about Israel, it’s about what is being demanded of her.
And here’s the ultimate irony: Dual loyalty is precisely what AIPAC demands, and what it gets. Again, it makes this demand not of Jews, but of every member of Congress, and even of politicians at the state level whom you wouldn’t think would be conducting foreign policy. And it is working.
Take, for instance, the wave of state laws passed in recent years in opposition to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, in which a state would refuse to do business with anyone who supports BDS. In some cases, those laws require that contractors sign a document promising not to support any boycott of Israel. It’s illustrated by the case of a speech pathologist in Texas who sued over a requirement that she sign such a pledge to work in a public school district. That is literally a demand that she pledge her loyalty to Israel. She’s not Jewish, and the officials who demanded that she do so aren’t either; the Texas Republican Party is not exactly an organization dominated by Jews. When Gov. Greg Abbott (R) — also not a Jew — proclaims that “Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies,” he’s expressing his dual loyalty.
Yet, when Omar says she shouldn’t have to do the same, everyone jumps up to accuse her of anti-Semitism, on the bogus grounds that 1) //she is secretly referring to Jews and not to what she is being asked to do; and 2) it’s some kind of anti-Semitic smear to even raise the issue of people being asked to promise their allegiance to Israel, when the truth is that members of Congress are asked to do just that. [ . . . ]
cramer said:
Is J Street attacking her for not being politically correct? I don't think so and J Street is to the left.
Mainly the Republicans are but no one dare call it "politically correct".
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/03/05/paul-waldman-dishonest/
You can read the Waldman op-ed here.
The conclusion is written to be a terrifying prediction -- but turned out to be a overgeneralization that was innaccurate.
When this episode is over, Omar and everyone else will have learned a lesson. You’d better not step out of line on Israel. You’d better not question AIPAC. You’d better not criticize members of Congress for the craven way they deal with this issue. You’d better not talk about how policy toward Israel is made and maintained. Because if you do, this is what you’re going to get.
This episode is over. And what we got was a resolution that was anti-hate in general, and pointed out 24 Republicans who won't condemn hate in a general way, as some of them believe anti-Semitism is the only valid type of hate to denounce, and/or only believe in reprimands if they are of Omar -- and/or are White supremacists.
In the not-too-distant future "Jews" and "Israelis" will be seen as being two very different peoples.
cramer said:
paulsurovell said:I think you're a member of J Street. J Street thought Omar's language "echoed long-standing stereotypes and anti-Semitic tropes." (It didn't mention Omar by name but the reference is clear.)
MaryGee said:Me too. It's excellent, with a great discussion of "dual loyalty."
I agree with this op-ed by WAPO's Paul Waldman.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/05/dishonest-smearing-ilhan-omar/?utm_term=.141d5ebbc357&wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1
"J Street is dismayed by some of the rhetoric and imagery used by some critics of Israeli policy. Harmful language that echoes long-standing stereotypes and anti-Semitic tropes concern us deeply"
https://jstreet.org/press-releases/statement-on-the-current-debate-over-anti-semitism-and-criticism-of-israel/#.XILKaihKjIU
Yes I'm a member of J Street and I've highlighted other parts of the J Street statement that explain why.
J Street urges those looking to criticize Israeli policy and actions to do all they can to keep the debate focused on the merits of the issues by (1) acknowledging and committing to fight the very real scourge of anti-Semitism and other forms of racism and prejudice; (2) explicitly clarifying that their critique is of Israeli government policy, not of the Jewish people or of the right of the state of Israel to exist; and (3) focusing as much as possible on how American policy can help substantively to end the occupation, resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and address the legitimate needs of both peoples
The United States, the Jewish community and Israel will only benefit from an ever more robust debate over time regarding US policy in the Middle East. Attacks on those members of Congress who criticize Israel’s policies should not be allowed to limit debate on the merits of the issues they are raising.
The US-Israel relationship is supposed to be based – as political figures consistently reinforce – on the interests and values that the two countries share. The primary challenge to that relationship right now is that the current government of Israel is regularly taking actions that run counter to American interests and implementing policies that call into question its commitment to core shared values.
STANV said:
lord_pabulum said:You go to War with the Congress you have not the one you would like to have.
The resolution is all well and good for the House of ne'er do wells. How about congress address the influence of special interests and the money in general. Some words of advice though, when giving examples of lobbyists or special interests, don't mention certain ones.
Of course, their number one priority is looking out for themselves. Every once in a while there is some work being done.
paulsurovell said:
cramer said:Yes I'm a member of J Street and I've highlighted other parts of the J Street statement that explain why.
paulsurovell said:
I think you're a member of J Street. J Street thought Omar's language "echoed long-standing stereotypes and anti-Semitic tropes." (It didn't mention Omar by name but the reference is clear.)
Do you agree with this part of their statement which refers to Omar:
"J Street is dismayed by some of the rhetoric and imagery used by some critics of Israeli policy. Harmful language that echoes long-standing stereotypes and anti-Semitic tropes concern us deeply"
STANV said:
It blocks me from reading it unless I subscribe.
Sorry, Here are some key paragraphs:
The whole purpose of the Democrats’ resolution is to enforce dual loyalty not among Jews, but among members of Congress, to make sure that criticism of Israel is punished in the most visible way possible. This, of course, includes Omar. As it happens, this punishment of criticism of Israel is exactly what the freshman congresswoman was complaining about, and has on multiple occasions. The fact that no one seems to acknowledge that this is her complaint shows how spectacularly disingenuous Omar’s critics are being.
You may have noticed that almost no one uses “dual loyalty” as a way of questioning whether Jews are loyal to the United States anymore. Why has it almost disappeared as an anti-Semitic slur? Because, over the last three decades, support for Israel has become increasingly associated with conservative evangelicals and the Republican Party.
...
The idea that taking issue with support of Israel means one is necessarily criticizing Jews as Jews ignores the last few decades of political developments around the United States’ relationship with Israel. “Supporters of Israel” hasn’t been a synonym for “Jews” since the 1980s. I have to repeat this: In the United States today, a “supporter of Israel” is much more likely to be an evangelical Christian Republican than a Jew.
Ilhan Omar certainly didn’t say that Jews have dual loyalty. For instance, in one of the tweets that got people so worked up, Omar said, “I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.” You’ll notice she didn’t say or even imply anything at all about Jews. She said that she was being asked to support Israel in order to have the privilege of serving on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which was true. Many on the right have called for her to be removed from that committee (see here, or here, or here, or here). Her argument, to repeat, isn’t about how Jews feel about Israel, it’s about what is being demanded of her.
And here’s the ultimate irony: Dual loyalty is precisely what AIPAC demands, and what it gets. Again, it makes this demand not of Jews, but of every member of Congress, and even of politicians at the state level whom you wouldn’t think would be conducting foreign policy. And it is working.
MaryGee said:
Sorry, Here are some key paragraphs:
The whole purpose of the Democrats’ resolution is to enforce dual loyalty not among Jews, but among members of Congress, to make sure that criticism of Israel is punished in the most visible way possible. This, of course, includes Omar. As it happens, this punishment of criticism of Israel is exactly what the freshman congresswoman was complaining about, and has on multiple occasions. The fact that no one seems to acknowledge that this is her complaint shows how spectacularly disingenuous Omar’s critics are being.
You may have noticed that almost no one uses “dual loyalty” as a way of questioning whether Jews are loyal to the United States anymore. Why has it almost disappeared as an anti-Semitic slur? Because, over the last three decades, support for Israel has become increasingly associated with conservative evangelicals and the Republican Party.
...
The idea that taking issue with support of Israel means one is necessarily criticizing Jews as Jews ignores the last few decades of political developments around the United States’ relationship with Israel. “Supporters of Israel” hasn’t been a synonym for “Jews” since the 1980s. I have to repeat this: In the United States today, a “supporter of Israel” is much more likely to be an evangelical Christian Republican than a Jew.
Ilhan Omar certainly didn’t say that Jews have dual loyalty. For instance, in one of the tweets that got people so worked up, Omar said, “I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.” You’ll notice she didn’t say or even imply anything at all about Jews. She said that she was being asked to support Israel in order to have the privilege of serving on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which was true. Many on the right have called for her to be removed from that committee (see here, or here, or here, or here). Her argument, to repeat, isn’t about how Jews feel about Israel, it’s about what is being demanded of her.
And here’s the ultimate irony: Dual loyalty is precisely what AIPAC demands, and what it gets. Again, it makes this demand not of Jews, but of every member of Congress, and even of politicians at the state level whom you wouldn’t think would be conducting foreign policy. And it is working.
what she said.
And all of a sudden, Glenn Greenwald is making sense.
The Greenwald and Waldman articles predicting doom and gloom are sooooo March 5th, 2019.
The House Resolution came out on March 7th.
Since that seems to keep getting lost in here, I'll start a new thread for it.
cramer said:
paulsurovell said:Do you agree with this part of their statement which refers to Omar:
cramer said:Yes I'm a member of J Street and I've highlighted other parts of the J Street statement that explain why.
paulsurovell said:
I think you're a member of J Street. J Street thought Omar's language "echoed long-standing stereotypes and anti-Semitic tropes." (It didn't mention Omar by name but the reference is clear.)
"J Street is dismayed by some of the rhetoric and imagery used by some critics of Israeli policy. Harmful language that echoes long-standing stereotypes and anti-Semitic tropes concern us deeply"
No, I don't think Omar said anything that suggested anti-Semitism. The allegations against Omar are debunked in the Waldman piece above as well as the Glenn Greenwald piece.
I'm a member of J Street but I don't agree with everything they say.
Yesterday, Omar was criticized for saying Obama got away with murder because he was a "pretty face."
"Ilhan Omar might be one of the first to deal with a serious primary challenge in her district. Can virtually guarantee her district has a very high opinion of Barack Obama. When you need allies most, this is pretty reckless"
https://twitter.com/marcushjohnson/status/1104096586718765056
On the bright side, Omar's now tweeting about policy, in terms of the election reform package that just passed the House.
If she can bring more focus on that (and what it would mean if Republicans in the Senate squashes it), this would be a positive.
https://twitter.com/Ilhan/status/1104124560163655680
cramer said:
Yesterday, Omar was criticized for saying Obama got away with murder because he was a "pretty face."
https://www.bet.com/news/national/2019/03/08/ilhan-omar-criticized-for-saying-barack-obama-got-away-with-murd.html
"Ilhan Omar might be one of the first to deal with a serious primary challenge in her district. Can virtually guarantee her district has a very high opinion of Barack Obama. When you need allies most, this is pretty reckless"
https://twitter.com/marcushjohnson/status/1104096586718765056
this is pertinent to this discussion how?
Israel will come to regret that, instead of remaining neutral in the partisan warfare in the US, they openly sided with the GOP. If you think this dual-loyalty discussion now is anti-semitic (which it isn't), wait a few more years. Unless of course, Israel gets their act together again, which they show no signs of. They only have themselves to blame.
drummerboy said:
cramer said:this is pertinent to this discussion how?
Yesterday, Omar was criticized for saying Obama got away with murder because he was a "pretty face."
https://www.bet.com/news/national/2019/03/08/ilhan-omar-criticized-for-saying-barack-obama-got-away-with-murd.html
"Ilhan Omar might be one of the first to deal with a serious primary challenge in her district. Can virtually guarantee her district has a very high opinion of Barack Obama. When you need allies most, this is pretty reckless"
https://twitter.com/marcushjohnson/status/1104096586718765056
It seems to relate to the general debate, which includes:
Is Omar being overcriticized for anything she says? Or is Omar saying/tweeting things without enough thought/nuance?
Rentals
Featured Events
-
Go "Back to the '70s" with The Maplewood Glee Club and Special Guests from CHS
May 19, 2024 at 4:00pm
I agree with this op-ed by WAPO's Paul Waldman.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/05/dishonest-smearing-ilhan-omar/?utm_term=.141d5ebbc357&wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1