Was Rep. Ilhan Omar being anti-semitic?
Norman_Bates said:Agreed. I also believe that it is neither unreasonable, nor antisemitic, to raise questions or engage in debate about Israel's relationship with, and policies toward, Palestine any more that it would be to question US policy and actions toward another land/nation. Shouldn't a legislator be able ask those questions in considering foreign funding matters?
“It’s all about the Benjamins baby” wasn’t technically a question, and do you think it’s reasonable to object that “all about” is, at best, an uninviting way to engage in that debate?
DaveSchmidt said:
Norman_Bates said:“It’s all about the Benjamins baby” wasn’t technically a question, and do you think it’s reasonable to object that “all about” is, at best, an uninviting way to engage in that debate?
Agreed. I also believe that it is neither unreasonable, nor antisemitic, to raise questions or engage in debate about Israel's relationship with, and policies toward, Palestine any more that it would be to question US policy and actions toward another land/nation. Shouldn't a legislator be able ask those questions in considering foreign funding matters?
This is a problem with discussion by Twitter. Omar posted a short quip that oversimplified the issue AND at the same time referenced an anti-semitic stereotype.
I think she was right to apologize for her remark. Whatever her intent, it was a repeating of a the same anti-semitism that's been around for centuries, and it doesn't belong in a serious discussion of the broader issues.
Red_Barchetta said:This. Just like blackface differs from clownface makeup due to it’s racist past, there is an anti Semitic history of linking money to Jewish people.
I happen to believe she was not specifically making the money connection specifically to Jewish politicians, but politicians as a grou
I thought it was a response to something Glenn Greenwald wrote. IMHO a rookie Congressperson made a rookie mistake.
In any event I think the analogy to blackface is on point. Further I suggest that Michelle Goldberg has it about right in her column in today's NY Times (Sorry, I cannot link) Essentially she says that Right-Wingers support Israel for ideological reasons.
I suggest that some of the Right "support" Israel because they are Anti-Semitic. They want all the Jews to leave "their" country and go to Israel.
The person who murdered eight Jews in a Pittsburg synagogue was not a Muslim or of Middle Eastern background. He was anti-immigrant and blamed Jews for supporting immigration. It is not the rookie member of Congress who has whipped up anti-immigrant sentiment. She is an immigrant.
It was not she or any member of the Muslim Community or any Arab-American who said that some people marching under Nazi flags were "very fine people". It was not a Democratic Congressional Leader who said that Soros, Bloomberg and Steyer were trying to "buy the election".
I don't think she needed to apologize and I hope this does not discourage others from speaking out against influence such as shown in this film that you won't see cause the pro-Israel lobby got it censored:
PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY CAUGHT ON TAPE BOASTING THAT ITS MONEY INFLUENCES WASHINGTON
In the censored documentary, Ochs went on to describe a fundraiser hosted by Jeff Talpins, a hedge fund giant, as similar, as well. “In New York, with Jeff Talpins, we don’t ask a goddamn thing about the ******* Palestinians. You know why? Cuz it’s a tiny issue. It’s a small, insignificant issue. The big issue is Iran. We want everything focused on Iran,” Ochs says. “What happens is Jeff meets with the congressman in the back room, tells them exactly what his goals are — and by the way, Jeff Talpins is worth $250 million — basically they hand him an envelope with 20 credit cards, and say, You can swipe each of these credit cards for a thousand dollars each.”
I'll ask the question again - are we not allowed to speak of the role of money in providing political support for Israel lest we be labelled anti-semitic?
How convenient for them.
drummerboy said:
I'll ask the question again - are we not allowed to speak of the role of money in providing political support for Israel lest we be labelled anti-semitic?
How convenient for them.
Don't you think it might be a bit more nuanced than that - when a Muslim representative singles out Israel for criticism when more than a few of her brethren would quite literally be happy to pick up where the Nazis left off.
tjohn said:
drummerboy said:Don't you think it might be a bit more nuanced than that - when a Muslim representative singles out Israel for criticism when more than a few of her brethren would quite literally be happy to pick up where the Nazis left off.
I'll ask the question again - are we not allowed to speak of the role of money in providing political support for Israel lest we be labelled anti-semitic?
How convenient for them.
I don't think talking about a particular issue is "singling out".
Are we to infer your belief that all other lobbying groups, behind closed doors, don't talk this kind of realpolitik talk or is it only the Jewish supporters of Israel?
drummerboy said:
I'll ask the question again - are we not allowed to speak of the role of money in providing political support for Israel lest we be labelled anti-semitic?
How convenient for them.
Omar didn't apologize at all for the larger point she is trying to make. She apologized specifically for one tweet.
drummerboy said:
I don't think talking about a particular issue is "singling out".
Do you believe that it's "all about" the AIPAC money -- or do you think it's possible that this very rare bipartisan support of Israel might be at least somewhat, if not more, related to the USA's reliance on Israel's military and spy systems to protect the USA's own interests in the region?
Here's some additional dirty work that the US wanted taken care of, which was done by the Israelis from 2010-2012: Reducing the Iran nuclear threat by assassinating Iran's nuclear scientists:
Those of you who are "all about the money" seem to be purposely ignoring the bigger reason the USA can't let the relationship with Israel go sour. Israel is the USA's primary hitman for managing nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
Question: As a politician, would you prefer a nuclear Iraq, Iran, and Syria? Or would you maintain your relationship with an increasingly fascist apartheid state to reduce that nuclear threat?
sprout said:
Do you think it's "all about" the AIPAC money -- or do you think it's possible that this very rare bipartisan support of Israel might be at least somewhat, if not more, related to the USA's reliance on Israel's military and spy systems to protect the USA's own interests in the region?
Here's some more dirty work that the US wanted taken care of, that was done by the Israelis from 2010-2012-- reducing the Iran nuclear thread by the assassinating Iran's nuclear scientists:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-israel-tried-destroy-irans-nuclear-program-assassinate-26085
Those of you who are "all about the money" seem to be purposely ignoring the bigger reason the USA can't let the relationship with Israel go sour. Israel is the USA's primary hitman for managing nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
Question: As a politician, would you prefer a nuclear Iraq, Iran, and Syria? Or would you maintain your relationship with an increasingly fascist apartheid state to reduce that nuclear thread?
You could argue that our support of Israel has made us a target of Islamic groups and that our support of Israel limits our options in the region. It's was originally about domestic politics and supporters have looked for reasons why our support is logical and in our interests.
tjohn said:
sprout said:You could argue that our support of Israel has made us a target of Islamic groups and that our support of Israel limits our options in the region. It's was originally about domestic politics and supporters have looked for reasons why our support is logical and in our interests.
Do you think it's "all about" the AIPAC money -- or do you think it's possible that this very rare bipartisan support of Israel might be at least somewhat, if not more, related to the USA's reliance on Israel's military and spy systems to protect the USA's own interests in the region?
Here's some more dirty work that the US wanted taken care of, that was done by the Israelis from 2010-2012-- reducing the Iran nuclear thread by the assassinating Iran's nuclear scientists:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-israel-tried-destroy-irans-nuclear-program-assassinate-26085
Those of you who are "all about the money" seem to be purposely ignoring the bigger reason the USA can't let the relationship with Israel go sour. Israel is the USA's primary hitman for managing nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
Question: As a politician, would you prefer a nuclear Iraq, Iran, and Syria? Or would you maintain your relationship with an increasingly fascist apartheid state to reduce that nuclear thread?
You could argue that, and people do argue it all the time, without singling out pro-Israel lobbying as a more of a "money" thing than the lobbying of countless other groups.
tjohn said:
You could argue that our support of Israel has made us a target of Islamic groups and that our support of Israel limits our options in the region. It's was originally about domestic politics and supporters have looked for reasons why our support is logical and in our interests.
Perhaps. But I don't see how the USA could 'switch sides' and be trusted as a significant ally by other Middle Eastern countries. I also don't see how the USA could trust other Middle Eastern countries not to develop nuclear power after those three covert attempts in the past decade.
Russia and China would also have a field day with USA intelligence, and it would turn into a global game of 'mean girls' if we started to rely on a different Middle Eastern country as our bestie.
drummerboy said:
I'll ask the question again - are we not allowed to speak of the role of money in providing political support for Israel lest we be labelled anti-semitic?
How convenient for them.
That question, which I had as well, has already been answered here.
tjohn said:
drummerboy said:Don't you think it might be a bit more nuanced than that - when a Muslim representative singles out Israel for criticism when more than a few of her brethren would quite literally be happy to pick up where the Nazis left off.
I'll ask the question again - are we not allowed to speak of the role of money in providing political support for Israel lest we be labelled anti-semitic?
How convenient for them.
Seems to me that, when its ok for a white christian man to say something but its not ok for a brown Muslim woman to say the same thing, that is the Pictionary definition of the word "racism".
I don't think it is possible to even have this conversation without acknowledging the decade long campaign by supporters of the right wing government in Israel to portray any criticism of that government, no matter how measured, as anti semitic. There's nothing anyone can do to stop them from deploying this tired rhetoric over and over and over again but surely they must realize that it becomes less plausible with each iteration.
Klinker said:
tjohn said:Seems to me that, when its ok for a white christian man to say something but its not ok for a brown Muslim woman to say the same thing, that is the Pictionary definition of the word "racism".
drummerboy said:Don't you think it might be a bit more nuanced than that - when a Muslim representative singles out Israel for criticism when more than a few of her brethren would quite literally be happy to pick up where the Nazis left off.
I'll ask the question again - are we not allowed to speak of the role of money in providing political support for Israel lest we be labelled anti-semitic?
How convenient for them.
Close, but actually is is the definition of bad optics.
Klinker said:
I don't think it is possible to even have this conversation without acknowledging the decade long campaign by supporters of the right wing government in Israel to portray any criticism of that government, no matter how measured, as anti semitic.
I'm not hearing my critiques of Israel's government being bashed as anti-Semitic. Are you?
tjohn said:
Klinker said:Close, but actually is is the definition of bad optics.
tjohn said:Seems to me that, when its ok for a white christian man to say something but its not ok for a brown Muslim woman to say the same thing, that is the Pictionary definition of the word "racism".
drummerboy said:Don't you think it might be a bit more nuanced than that - when a Muslim representative singles out Israel for criticism when more than a few of her brethren would quite literally be happy to pick up where the Nazis left off.
I'll ask the question again - are we not allowed to speak of the role of money in providing political support for Israel lest we be labelled anti-semitic?
How convenient for them.
When racism is perceived as racism, outside the confines of a Trump rally, that is bad optics for the racists.
sprout said:
Klinker said:I'm not hearing my critiques of Israel's government being bashed as anti-Semitic. Are you?
I don't think it is possible to even have this conversation without acknowledging the decade long campaign by supporters of the right wing government in Israel to portray any criticism of that government, no matter how measured, as anti semitic.
I can't say that I follow your comments with any real sort of focus. I do know that I have encountered this nonsense here and elsewhere.
Klinker said:
sprout said:I can't say that I follow your comments with any real sort of focus. I do know that I have encountered this nonsense here and elsewhere.
Klinker said:I'm not hearing my critiques of Israel's government being bashed as anti-Semitic. Are you?
I don't think it is possible to even have this conversation without acknowledging the decade long campaign by supporters of the right wing government in Israel to portray any criticism of that government, no matter how measured, as anti semitic.
I tend to find that if the topic is discussed by acknowledging the complex goal that 'peace in the Middle East' really is, the critiques are discussed rationally.
If the critiques seem overly simplified, and appear to reference tropes such as it's "all about the money," then the "anti-Semitism card" is played.
nan said:
I don't think she needed to apologize and I hope this does not discourage others from speaking out against influence such as shown in this film that you won't see cause the pro-Israel lobby got it censored:
PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY CAUGHT ON TAPE BOASTING THAT ITS MONEY INFLUENCES WASHINGTON
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/11/ilhan-omar-israel-lobby-documentary/?fbclid=IwAR39mGXWVlO4OogAwcg-OorTGUZQlt4Ha7a_wBfL7jYDieZU5k19YydrYf4
In the censored documentary, Ochs went on to describe a fundraiser hosted by Jeff Talpins, a hedge fund giant, as similar, as well. “In New York, with Jeff Talpins, we don’t ask a goddamn thing about the ******* Palestinians. You know why? Cuz it’s a tiny issue. It’s a small, insignificant issue. The big issue is Iran. We want everything focused on Iran,” Ochs says. “What happens is Jeff meets with the congressman in the back room, tells them exactly what his goals are — and by the way, Jeff Talpins is worth $250 million — basically they hand him an envelope with 20 credit cards, and say, You can swipe each of these credit cards for a thousand dollars each.”
I subscribe to The Forward a Jewish Publication that covers Jewish and pro-Israel organizations and I never heard of David Ochs. So I googled him and all I got was a link to some illustrator of animated films. Not sure it's the same guy. So I googled the organization mentioned HaLev and it appears that they do not Lobby or contribute to Campaigns. All they do is subsidize younger people to attend the AIPAC convention who otherwise couldn't afford to do so. Very narrow and a bit odd focus. But delving into small obscure organizations is what conspiracy theorists do.
https://www.halevisrael.org/about
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:That question, which I had as well, has already been answered here.
I'll ask the question again - are we not allowed to speak of the role of money in providing political support for Israel lest we be labelled anti-semitic?
How convenient for them.
I guess I missed it.
STANV said:
nan said:I subscribe to The Forward a Jewish Publication that covers Jewish and pro-Israel organizations and I never heard of David Ochs. So I googled him and all I got was a link to some illustrator of animated films. Not sure it's the same guy. So I googled the organization mentioned HaLev and it appears that they do not Lobby or contribute to Campaigns. All they do is subsidize younger people to attend the AIPAC convention who otherwise couldn't afford to do so. Very narrow and a bit odd focus. But delving into small obscure organizations is what conspiracy theorists do.
I don't think she needed to apologize and I hope this does not discourage others from speaking out against influence such as shown in this film that you won't see cause the pro-Israel lobby got it censored:
PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY CAUGHT ON TAPE BOASTING THAT ITS MONEY INFLUENCES WASHINGTON
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/11/ilhan-omar-israel-lobby-documentary/?fbclid=IwAR39mGXWVlO4OogAwcg-OorTGUZQlt4Ha7a_wBfL7jYDieZU5k19YydrYf4
In the censored documentary, Ochs went on to describe a fundraiser hosted by Jeff Talpins, a hedge fund giant, as similar, as well. “In New York, with Jeff Talpins, we don’t ask a goddamn thing about the ******* Palestinians. You know why? Cuz it’s a tiny issue. It’s a small, insignificant issue. The big issue is Iran. We want everything focused on Iran,” Ochs says. “What happens is Jeff meets with the congressman in the back room, tells them exactly what his goals are — and by the way, Jeff Talpins is worth $250 million — basically they hand him an envelope with 20 credit cards, and say, You can swipe each of these credit cards for a thousand dollars each.”
https://www.halevisrael.org/about
What exactly is your point? Did you read the whole article? Ochs is commenting on how AIPAC hides donations:
David Ochs, founder of HaLev, which helps send young people to American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual conference, described for the reporter how AIPAC and its donors organize fundraisers outside the official umbrella of the organization, so that the money doesn’t show up on disclosures as coming specifically from AIPAC. He describes one group that organizes fundraisers in both Washington and New York. “This is the biggest ad hoc political group, definitely the wealthiest, in D.C.,” Ochs says, adding that it has no official name, but is clearly tied to AIPAC. “It’s the AIPAC group. It makes a difference; it really, really does. It’s the best bang for your buck, and the networking is phenomenal.” (Ochs and AIPAC did not immediately return The Intercept’s requests for comment.)
You can watch the censored film here: https://electronicintifada.net/content/watch-film-israel-lobby-didnt-want-you-see/25876
nan said
David Ochs, founder of HaLev, which helps send young people to American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual conference, described for the reporter how AIPAC and its donors organize fundraisers outside the official umbrella of the organization, so that the money doesn’t show up on disclosures as coming specifically from AIPAC. He describes one group that organizes fundraisers in both Washington and New York. “This is the biggest ad hoc political group, definitely the wealthiest, in D.C.,” Ochs says, adding that it has no official name, but is clearly tied to AIPAC. “It’s the AIPAC group. It makes a difference; it really, really does. It’s the best bang for your buck, and the networking is phenomenal.” (Ochs and AIPAC did not immediately return The Intercept’s requests for comment.)
You can watch the censored film here: https://electronicintifada.net/content/watch-film-israel-lobby-didnt-want-you-see/25876
They have to so this by law, since AIPAC is not a PAC and cannot legally donate money to a campaign. The PAC in AIPAC's name stands for "Public Affairs Committee" not political action committee. The name predates the laws that created political action committees.
I have no love for AIPAC, but less for the conspiracy theorists at the Intercept who seem to have caught AIPAC secretly working to abide by the law.
max_weisenfeld said:
nan saidThey have to so this by law, since AIPAC is not a PAC and cannot legally donate money to a campaign. The PAC in AIPAC's name stands for "Public Affairs Committee" not political action committee. The name predates the laws that created political action committees.
David Ochs, founder of HaLev, which helps send young people to American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual conference, described for the reporter how AIPAC and its donors organize fundraisers outside the official umbrella of the organization, so that the money doesn’t show up on disclosures as coming specifically from AIPAC. He describes one group that organizes fundraisers in both Washington and New York. “This is the biggest ad hoc political group, definitely the wealthiest, in D.C.,” Ochs says, adding that it has no official name, but is clearly tied to AIPAC. “It’s the AIPAC group. It makes a difference; it really, really does. It’s the best bang for your buck, and the networking is phenomenal.” (Ochs and AIPAC did not immediately return The Intercept’s requests for comment.)
You can watch the censored film here: https://electronicintifada.net/content/watch-film-israel-lobby-didnt-want-you-see/25876
I have no love for AIPAC, but less for the conspiracy theorists at the Intercept who seem to have caught AIPAC secretly working to abide by the law.
It's not a conspiracy theory and it's not the Intercept, who is just reporting (thankfully cause you won't see this in MSN). It's a movie made after months of undercover investigation, and censored by the pro-Israel lobby. You can watch it in the link I posted above. I'm watching part 1 now and it goes into how Israel launched a disinformation campaign and spied on college student activists who support BDS.
nan said:
max_weisenfeld said:It's not a conspiracy theory and it's not the Intercept, who is just reporting (thankfully cause you won't see this in MSN). It's a movie made after months of undercover investigation, and censored by the pro-Israel lobby. You can watch it in the link I posted above. I'm watching part 1 now and it goes into how Israel launched a disinformation campaign and spied on college student activists who support BDS.
nan saidThey have to so this by law, since AIPAC is not a PAC and cannot legally donate money to a campaign. The PAC in AIPAC's name stands for "Public Affairs Committee" not political action committee. The name predates the laws that created political action committees.
David Ochs, founder of HaLev, which helps send young people to American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual conference, described for the reporter how AIPAC and its donors organize fundraisers outside the official umbrella of the organization, so that the money doesn’t show up on disclosures as coming specifically from AIPAC. He describes one group that organizes fundraisers in both Washington and New York. “This is the biggest ad hoc political group, definitely the wealthiest, in D.C.,” Ochs says, adding that it has no official name, but is clearly tied to AIPAC. “It’s the AIPAC group. It makes a difference; it really, really does. It’s the best bang for your buck, and the networking is phenomenal.” (Ochs and AIPAC did not immediately return The Intercept’s requests for comment.)
You can watch the censored film here: https://electronicintifada.net/content/watch-film-israel-lobby-didnt-want-you-see/25876
I have no love for AIPAC, but less for the conspiracy theorists at the Intercept who seem to have caught AIPAC secretly working to abide by the law.
Nothing to do with Rep. Omar and probably not anything she'd focus on now.
Here's a question - Is Israel really that valuable to us in the Middle East? The ME is pretty much a disaster zone right now. Would it be worse without Israel's presence? How? Why? What is Israel doing to make it better for us? Or anyone?
(no need to re-state Israel's attacks on nuclear reactor sites. non-starter. The U.S. is capable of dealing with nuclear threats on its own without Israel's assistance.)
nan said:
STANV said:What exactly is your point? Did you read the whole article? Ochs is commenting on how AIPAC hides donations:
I subscribe to The Forward a Jewish Publication that covers Jewish and pro-Israel organizations and I never heard of David Ochs. So I googled him and all I got was a link to some illustrator of animated films. Not sure it's the same guy. So I googled the organization mentioned HaLev and it appears that they do not Lobby or contribute to Campaigns. All they do is subsidize younger people to attend the AIPAC convention who otherwise couldn't afford to do so. Very narrow and a bit odd focus. But delving into small obscure organizations is what conspiracy theorists do.
https://www.halevisrael.org/about
My point is that David Ochs is an extremely minor and obscure figure. Why give any credence to what he said?
Rentals
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Agreed. I also believe that it is neither unreasonable, nor antisemitic, to raise questions or engage in debate about Israel's relationship with, and policies toward, Palestine any more that it would be to question US policy and actions toward another land/nation. Shouldn't a legislator be able ask those questions in considering foreign funding matters? With that said, however, I do understand that there are those who contend that any such statements or expressions are tantamount to anti-zionism and anti-semitism. - some equate the two - or support for terrorism. That is a "hotbutton" issue on college campuses.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-to-tell-when-criticism-of-israel-is-actually-anti-semitism/2018/05/17/cb58bf10-59eb-11e8-b656-a5f8c2a9295d_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5467c1a9b553