Was Rep. Ilhan Omar being anti-semitic?

nan said:

max_weisenfeld said:

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.  

 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.  

 I'm working from the conversation here, and what people are quoting and saying about Rep. Omar and about, specifically, her comment about money.  So the comment posted, which gives an inaccurate impression of malfeasance, needed correcting. 

As for the Intercept being a vehicle for conspiracy theorists, I stand by that as a general principle.

As for the attempts to silence college critics of Israel, yeah, that is happening.  I know that because I read about it in the Forward, though.  

drummerboy said:
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?

 It's a country. It exists. A majority of Jews believe that the existence of Israel is essential to our existence.

I would imagine that a majority of Arabs see Israel as an outpost of Western European colonialism. 

I also imagine that a substantial percentage of Israelis identify as part of "The West" rather than part of the Middle East. 

How ironic given that a substantial theme in the history of Europe is persecution of the Jews.

STANV said:

nan said:

STANV 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.
https://www.halevisrael.org/about

 What exactly is your point?   Did you read the whole article?  Ochs is commenting on how AIPAC hides donations:

 My point is that David Ochs is an extremely minor and obscure figure. Why give any credence to what he said?

 Because he's part of a larger covert operation to manufacture consent for pro-Israel groups and to support or ignore the repression and slaughter of the Palestinians.  I would suggest you watch the movie before dismissing the article.  I'm just starting Part 2 and it's quite eye opening. It should have a wider audience.  

max_weisenfeld said:

nan said:

max_weisenfeld said:

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.  

 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.  

 I'm working from the conversation here, and what people are quoting and saying about Rep. Omar and about, specifically, her comment about money.  So the comment posted, which gives an inaccurate impression of malfeasance, needed correcting. 

As for the Intercept being a vehicle for conspiracy theorists, I stand by that as a general principle.

As for the attempts to silence college critics of Israel, yeah, that is happening.  I know that because I read about it in the Forward, though.  

 What I have learned from watching this movie (so far) is that labeling every critical remark anti-semitisim, no matter how minor is a planned strategy, with coordinated groups and planned scripts.  Really not about free speech or discussion.  They will probably try to smear her again and get her off that committee.  

edited to add:  I'm at the David Ochs part of the movie and they say he is prominent, so he may have more influence than people realize--just not in the news much. . .

drummerboy said:
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.)

I think you are right about the US capability with countries developing nuclear threats. That helps provide a good analogy: Without Israel's presence, the ME would become like the US  dealing with several more nuclear North Koreas at once. 

I expect the other neighboring countries in the ME would be so helpful, and great consistent allies. No one would get played by competing superpowers. And as the world decreases its reliance on oil, the ME will become even more stable. And the increase in nuclear countries would keep everyone safer. Right? 

On the bright side, I would then be able to stop worrying about global warming.

STANV said:

drummerboy said:
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?

 It's a country. It exists. A majority of Jews believe that the existence of Israel is essential to our existence.
I would imagine that a majority of Arabs see Israel as an outpost of Western European colonialism. 
I also imagine that a substantial percentage of Israelis identify as part of "The West" rather than part of the Middle East. 
How ironic given that a substantial theme in the history of Europe is persecution of the Jews.

 I'm not sure that's responsive to my question.

The common theme throughout this thread has been that the reason Israel enjoys such wide, bipartisan support is not due to lobbyists or influence, but simply due to the fact that Israel is an indispensable ally in the ME.

But is it?

They are an indispensable ally in our effort to protect them from their neighbors. 

sprout said:

drummerboy said:
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.)

I think you are right about the US capability with countries developing nuclear threats. That helps provide a good analogy: Without Israel's presence, the ME would become like the US  dealing with several more nuclear North Koreas at once. 
I expect the other neighboring countries in the ME would be so helpful, and great consistent allies. No one would get played by competing superpowers. And as the world decreases its reliance on oil, the ME will become even more stable. And the increase in nuclear countries would keep everyone safer. Right? 
On the bright side, I would then be able to stop worrying about global warming.

I'm not getting your point - facetious as it is.

Red_Barchetta said:
They are an indispensable ally in our effort to protect them from their neighbors. 

 This!

drummerboy said:

The common theme throughout this thread has been that the reason Israel enjoys such wide, bipartisan support is not due to lobbyists or influence, but simply due to the fact that Israel is an indispensable ally in the ME.

Who, other than Omar, suggested it was either/or?

Omar can't be stupid enough not to realize that there is tension between the Muslim community and the Jewish community. She decided to voice her opinion and damn the consequences.

Now she gets to be eyed with suspicion by a large number of her new colleagues who in good faith changed the dress code for her.

Way to build relations and tolerance.

drummerboy said:
I'm not getting your point - facetious as it is.

The US doesn't go in and take out nuclear facilities. And no one else is going in an taking out North Korea's nuclear facilities. So instead, we're plodding along with a failing coordinated BDS against North Korea.

Failing because this approach didn't get North Korea to change, nor stop them from becoming more dangerous.

The whole world is trending more fascist and nationalist -- Israel and the USA included. The focus on Israel, while they are becoming increasingly fascist (a typical political shift when there is a constant threat), is a distraction.  And destroying Israel will likely allow for nuclearized ME, and an increase in the power of Russia and China.

A better approach would be to weaken fascism and nationalism globally. 

But if I wanted to strengthen my own growing fascist regime, and weaken the power of the USA, it would be a very clever approach to use some distracting propaganda to get the USA to voluntarily destroy their strongest coordinating spy network and dirtiest fighters.

Morganna said:
Omar can't be stupid enough not to realize that there is tension between the Muslim community and the Jewish community. She decided to voice her opinion and damn the consequences.
Now she gets to be eyed with suspicion by a large number of her new colleagues who in good faith changed the dress code for her.
Way to build relations and tolerance.

So, are Jewish politicians not allowed to express opinions about the machinations of Muslim nations? 

Klinker said:

Morganna said:
Omar can't be stupid enough not to realize that there is tension between the Muslim community and the Jewish community. She decided to voice her opinion and damn the consequences.
Now she gets to be eyed with suspicion by a large number of her new colleagues who in good faith changed the dress code for her.
Way to build relations and tolerance.

So, are Jewish politicians not allowed to express opinions about the machinations of Muslim nations? 

All are free to voice their opinions.

One can join a body of government and chose to build relationships and perhaps get things done for their state or they can look to exacerbate tensions.

There is a man in the Oval office who loves to do exactly that.

A large portion of the population likes a confrontational style. I'm not a fan. To borrow a current phrase, "build bridges not walls."

Morganna said:
Omar can't be stupid enough not to realize that there is tension between the Muslim community and the Jewish community. She decided to voice her opinion and damn the consequences.
Now she gets to be eyed with suspicion by a large number of her new colleagues who in good faith changed the dress code for her.
Way to build relations and tolerance.

I'm not sure there is that much tension between the Muslim community and Jewish community in the US. There certainly isn't as much tension as there is in Europe.

eta - Unless you're thinking of Farrakhan.

Morganna said:

Klinker said:

Morganna said:
Omar can't be stupid enough not to realize that there is tension between the Muslim community and the Jewish community. She decided to voice her opinion and damn the consequences.
Now she gets to be eyed with suspicion by a large number of her new colleagues who in good faith changed the dress code for her.
Way to build relations and tolerance.

So, are Jewish politicians not allowed to express opinions about the machinations of Muslim nations? 

All are free to voice their opinions.
One can join a body of government and chose to build relationships and perhaps get things done for their state or they can look to exacerbate tensions.
There is a man in the Oval office who loves to do exactly that.
A large portion of the population likes a confrontational style. I'm not a fan. To borrow a current phrase, "build bridges not walls."

 Jewish politicians can say anything they want about Muslim nations.   However, they are not free to voice negative opinions on Israel.  Any opinion on Israel that is not 100% positive is attacked as anti-semetic.  Because what she said about the money was spot on (watch the movie I linked--it's quite an eye opener).  She should not have apologized because she did nothing wrong.  The man in the oval office supports this because he does the bidding of Israel and they helped him get elected.  Evangelical Christians are also big supporters of Trump and Israel and that's not a coincidence. 

After watching that film, the best insight you have is "it's all about the Benjamins"? I was hoping you could provide something more productive. Any suggestions to help bring peace to the ME? Or is your conclusion a simplistic "cut off the money, and hope something works out"?

nan said:

 Jewish politicians can say anything they want about Muslim nations.    

nan - What Jewish politicans have said negative things about Muslim nations?   I really don't know. 

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

The common theme throughout this thread has been that the reason Israel enjoys such wide, bipartisan support is not due to lobbyists or influence, but simply due to the fact that Israel is an indispensable ally in the ME.

Who, other than Omar, suggested it was either/or?

 Really? I think that sentiment is spread throughout this thread. The notion that AIPAC doesn't directly contribute money has been sited a few times as some sort of excuse that money is not involved (even though they clearly influence donations).

And Omar hardly suggested it was either or. As has been pointed out - she quoted a damn movie title.

cramer said:

Morganna said:
Omar can't be stupid enough not to realize that there is tension between the Muslim community and the Jewish community. She decided to voice her opinion and damn the consequences.
Now she gets to be eyed with suspicion by a large number of her new colleagues who in good faith changed the dress code for her.
Way to build relations and tolerance.

I'm not sure there is that much tension between the Muslim community and Jewish community in the US. There certainly isn't as much tension as there is in Europe.
eta - Unless you're thinking of Farrakhan.


 

 Well, there was quite a discussion a few years ago about a local Olympic athlete who had posted comments on her twitter account, again on the issue of Palestine and Israel,  and I believe the discussion got a bit heated and one poster was kicked off.

Recently there was the issue of the Women's March and a woman who apparently praised Farrakhan so  tensions surrounding the topic of Israel and Palestine.

Looking at it pragmatically would it be wise for me to join the BOT and then start tweeting negative remarks about the other members? How would that help me accomplish my goals?

If you are in a political fight on the House floor, there are rules, not always followed, that require that you address the president and not the other congressmen. You are not supposed to get personal. Small formalities but something to strive for.

I loved the lead character in Aaron Sorkin's Newsroom who claimed he was on a quest for civility.

It just seemed to be a dumb way to start a relationship with your colleagues. And just might get you kicked off social media.

drummerboy said:

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

The common theme throughout this thread has been that the reason Israel enjoys such wide, bipartisan support is not due to lobbyists or influence, but simply due to the fact that Israel is an indispensable ally in the ME.

Who, other than Omar, suggested it was either/or?

 Really? I think that sentiment is spread throughout this thread. The notion that AIPAC doesn't directly contribute money has been sited a few times as some sort of excuse that money is not involved (even though they clearly influence donations).
And Omar hardly suggested it was either or. As has been pointed out - she quoted a damn movie title.

An unambiguous title that landed squarely on the Either side, didn’t it?

And really. Don’t let Anthem throw you off. If a theme of this discussion is that AIPAC doesn’t wield influence through lobbying, then I’m like you and the answer to your original question: I missed it.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

The common theme throughout this thread has been that the reason Israel enjoys such wide, bipartisan support is not due to lobbyists or influence, but simply due to the fact that Israel is an indispensable ally in the ME.

Who, other than Omar, suggested it was either/or?

 Really? I think that sentiment is spread throughout this thread. The notion that AIPAC doesn't directly contribute money has been sited a few times as some sort of excuse that money is not involved (even though they clearly influence donations).
And Omar hardly suggested it was either or. As has been pointed out - she quoted a damn movie title.

An unambiguous title that landed squarely on the Either side, didn’t it?
And really. Don’t let Anthem throw you off. If a theme of this discussion is that AIPAC doesn’t wield influence through lobbying, then I’m like you and the answer to your original question: I missed it.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Saying "all about" hardly means "exclusively". It says it's a vital part of it. Which it obviously is.

To be clear - what I "don't buy" is the honesty of the people making the charge of anti-Semitism.  Their primary purpose is to fight criticism of Israel's actions in the ME - not to defend against anti-Semitism. The charge of AS is just a cudgel.

And it's been shocking to me how the banner has been taken up by the media. From what I've seen and heard so far, Omar's statement has been simply and flatly labeled anti-Semitic. This from a media that usually bends over itself to avoid the word lie, or uses euphemisms like "racially charged", etc. 

Not here. The judge and jury (and executioner, such as it is) has apparently spoken on Omar's intent.

Good piece on the subject here

drummerboy said:

And it's been shocking to me how the banner has been taken up by the media. From what I've seen and heard so far, Omar's statement has been simply and flatly labeled anti-Semitic. This from a media that usually bends over itself to avoid the word lie, or uses euphemisms like "racially charged", etc. 

 Also from what you’ve read? If so, I’d be interested in examples.

drummerboy said:

The judge and jury (and executioner, such as it is) has apparently spoken on Omar's intent.

Whatever the verdict, she seems to be taking it seriously. Any reason to doubt her sincerity?

sprout said:

drummerboy said:
I'm not getting your point - facetious as it is.

The US doesn't go in and take out nuclear facilities. And no one else is going in an taking out North Korea's nuclear facilities. So instead, we're plodding along with a failing coordinated BDS against North Korea.
Failing because this approach didn't get North Korea to change, nor stop them from becoming more dangerous.

That ship sailed long ago.  If we had destroyed the Soviet Union killing millions of people on August 29, 1949 and had done the same to any nation that developed nuclear weapons after that, non-proliferation would be credible.

Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear capability because it was arguably an existential problem for Israel.  North Korea nukes are not an existential problem for the U.S.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

The judge and jury (and executioner, such as it is) has apparently spoken on Omar's intent.

Whatever the verdict, she seems to be taking it seriously. Any reason to doubt her sincerity?

I give her credit for sincerity.  Were she an n-term representative, I might be more skeptical, but she is new.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

The judge and jury (and executioner, such as it is) has apparently spoken on Omar's intent.

Whatever the verdict, she seems to be taking it seriously. Any reason to doubt her sincerity?

 well, yeah, but I also assume someone read her the riot act and she's being a good soldier.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:
And it's been shocking to me how the banner has been taken up by the media. From what I've seen and heard so far, Omar's statement has been simply and flatly labeled anti-Semitic. This from a media that usually bends over itself to avoid the word lie, or uses euphemisms like "racially charged", etc. 

 Also from what you’ve read? If so, I’d be interested in examples.

 No - admittedly, at least from cursory reading, most written coverage was equivocal. But the talking heads I saw were not. (you know me, all I know is what I see on CNN)

cramer said:

nan said:

 Jewish politicians can say anything they want about Muslim nations.    

nan - What Jewish politicans have said negative things about Muslim nations?   I really don't know. 

 What American politician, Jewish, Christian or Pastafarian hasn't said negative things about Muslim nations in the years since 9/11?  Seriously, did you think at all before asking this? I feel silly even responding.

Klinker said:

Seriously, did you think at all before asking this? 

As someone who is familiar with cramer’s contributions to MOL, I’ve got the same question about that question.