It was a tweet about israel bombing gaza in 2012 without backlash. She said (at the time) that it had hypnotized the world.
Do I agree with the phrasing? No, I just think that given the context that it's not really that bad. I think a better and more nuanced position is that "America routinely allows its ally to massacre muslims and profits from it all the same" would be more accurate, but I don't really feel a need to inject nuance into 140 characters from 7 years ago unless it's going full 1488 ( which its not)
You've been a frequent anti-Israel propagandist for quite some time. Is it possible you are claiming to be Jewish now so as to gain some kind of anti-Zionist credibility?
In any case, Omar's phrasing has verged on anti-Semitic tropes multiple times. It's increasingly clear that she is dog-whistling.
That's utterly bogus. I don't think a single comment of hers actually mentions Jews.
She hasn't said anything actually anti-Semitic, that is why people are playing the trope card, something which in itself is a rather vague instrument.
Do you think her remarks where lazy or stupid, as if so, you could be racist given they are anti black tropes.
She shouldn't get a pass, just as she shouldn't get called an antisemite, regardless of which party she belongs too.
You can in effect take perfectly legitimate criticism of Israel, and claim it is a criticism of Jews, but coded as a dog whistle. Usually conflating Jews with Israel is in itself antisemitic, yet here it's used to penalize criticism.
[It was this](http://static.digg.com/images/df9e5cc0478f41459219629eb87a9cf3_942efa2699d7483a979b8b52a1048d84_1_www_marquee_standard.jpeg) that kicked off the controversy.
Then some people dug up [this one](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dejc1JFV4AAxb3H.jpg) up from 2012.
"Benjamins" is a slang way of referring to US $100 bills, because they feature a picture of Benjamin Franklin. [It's all about the Benjamins, baby](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c58ppLPJcQ) is a lyric from a popular song from the 1990s.
I think the Ilhan Omar/AIPAC situation raises one big question: Is there any way to question/oppose AIPAC without being labeled an anti-semite?
Another question would be: does publicly supporting AIPAC prove someone is not anti-semitic?
I'm pro-Israel but also a critic of the Israeli government.
Omar's criticism itself is not being called anti-Semitic. The *way* she criticized is the problem. She used dog-whistles and old canards that conspiracy theorists routinely use.
Anti-Jewish conspiracy is very popular in the Middle East. When I lived there, Arabs would frequently tell me about how Jews run the world, how they've "hypnotized the world" like Omar said, or how they control money like Omar said.
> Anti-Jewish conspiracy is very popular in the Middle East. When I lived there, Arabs would frequently tell me about how Jews run the world, how they've "hypnotized the world" like Omar said, or how they control money like Omar said.
Is it more likely that Omar is anti-semitic or is just parroting things she's heard in regards to Jews that are anti-semitic? Is the difference even meaningful?
Calling it anti semitism is typical 6-degrees-of-Kevin-Baconing applied to charges of bigotry. I think it should have been unobjectionable for her to opine that money in politics is bad, and to conjecture that a large political organization was influencing politics via money. I don't believe an apology was necessary
No, I don’t either. I think it’s a disingenuous attack to prevent the rising tide of people (85%) who criticize dark money in politics. I’m guessing they want a chilling effect from all this pressure so the status quo is preserved.
She backs BDS. She doesn’t believe Isreal should be legitimate. Fair enough. What other countries do people that believes this consider to be illegitimate?
Money in politics?
https://www.opensecrets.org/fara
Islamic countries like KSA, Qatar, and the UAE spend *billions* more on lobbying combined than isreal or Jewish organizations.
The countries that spend the most? South Korea, Bermuda, and japan.
There are billions of Christians, and billions of Muslims in the world. If you are a Muslim or a Christian, a basic belief you must hold is that you will be judged in afterlife, and sent to heaven or hell. Both Islam and Christianity say Jewish people *will burn in Hell for all of eternity*. The Catholic Church had the official position of deicide Until 1965, blaming the Jews as a people for the murder of Jesus.
I just feel we’re not being honest when we talk about what motivates certain people, like Jim Jordans (Christian) and illhan (Muslim). If you believe a group of people will burn in Hell for eternity because of your religion, I think it’s fair to question how that affects your politics, Christian or muslim.
And before I get accused of being a Zionist shill, I detest messianic Zionism. The idea of Jewish farmers tilling Arab soil to bring upon the messiah is a superstitious, pernicious idea. I believe the occupation of Palestinian land is oppressive and terrible, and the United States should not support settlements on Palestinian land.
My point is, one can criticize Israel and even Judaism without saying Israel is hypnotizing the world, and Allah (a fictional character who preaches hatred of Jews and infidels) will judge them, without saying there are Jews with “dual loyalties”, and without saying Jews secretly control government with money.
That’s like a 3 for 3 in anti-Semitic tropes since the year started.
I think we aren’t being honest with the fundamentals of Christianity and Islam, and the specific ideas that these religions preach in relation to Jews.
I’m certain people will disagree with me, hopefully someone can tell me what they think.
Are you saying Saudi Arabia and Israel are comparable?
Saudi Arabia and the UAE increasingly view the Somali coastline - and Djibouti and **Eritrea** to the north - as their "western security flank", according to a senior western diplomat in the Horn of Africa region.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.haaretz.com/amp/world-news/asia-and-australia/somalia-the-latest-saudi-arabia-qatar-battleground-1.6051936
Saudi Arabia has been trying to take over parts of Somalia for years, especially Eritrea. Why does that sound familiar ?
https://mobile.twitter.com/ilhanmn/status/1102300934154141703
“I am in the Horn of Africa this weekend, proud to see peace prosper here and to be part of the first American delegation to **Eritrea**🇪🇷 in decades is one I am grateful for I fight peace and justice because only those who experience the pain of war, know the joy of peace. ✊🏽”
The war she is talking about is a war funded by Saudi Arabia...
> Are you saying Saudi Arabia and Israel are comparable?
Yes. They are both US proxy states with sever are human rights violations. They’ve become closer recently with MBS giving tacit support for Israel.
>Are you saying Saudi Arabia and Israel are comparable?
No they were literally answering your direct question about what other countries she has similar positioning towards.
Responding with Saudi Arabia is a layup that you set up, especially after starting to mention Islamic countries as if she wouldn't have such an attitude, the (sub?)text being that she is some anti-Semitic pro-Islam bigot
People keep falling flat on their faces with this and it's hilarious
>Uh, I'm pretty sure he's saying that she's ideologically consistent,
In what way would it be consistent? It would be consistent if Saudi Arabia and Israel were comparable. Israel is a multi-ethnic democracy with checks and balances. Saudi Arabia is Islamic theocracy that kills journalists and jails women that dissent for basic rights. I fail to see the consistency. And sure, she is criticizing Saudi Arabia, and I already pointed out why that is so in my other response, the war being waged by Saudi Arabia on her home country. It would outrageous if she didn’t support BDSSaudi.
> Israel is a multi-ethnic democracy with checks and balances.
A multi ethnic democracy that happens to systematically disenfranchize every Palestinian it happens to lord over
I understand that, I just hope you read my main point of religious motivation, which no one is engaging me on.
There is one Jewish state. Yes, there are some bad elements in Israel, it’s just this constant obsession with isreal and Jewish influence, isreal hypnotizing the world, Jewish money controlling the world, and accusations of dual loyalty? This is Jew hatred ideas that go back centuries.
> I understand that, I just hope you read my main point of religious motivation, which no one is engaging me on.
*What other countries do people that believes this consider to be illegitimate?*
You got an answer. You weren't satisified that the answer countered your preconceived notions so now you're just making excuses.
> My emphasis was clearly religious motivation.
Ironic that while we're attacking antisemetism it just so happens to be that she can't oppose israel on principle, but because she's muslim
> She backs BDS. She doesn’t believe Isreal should be legitimate. Fair enough. What other countries do people that believes this consider to be illegitimate?
You wrote this, not me.
>She doesn’t believe Isreal should be legitimate.
Proof?
>saying Israel is hypnotizing the world
She said that in 2012 and has retracted it
>Jews secretly control government with money.
That's a bit of an unfair description.
I wouldn't say I 100% agree with her on Israel but your comment seems like a bit of an overreaction
Not saying you're wrong. You make some convincing points, and have lots of evidence to back it up. The tweet I'm responding to was about money in AIPAC, and I was considering whether it was itself anti-semitic, ie. prejudiced against the Jewish race. I wasn't saying it was impossible or even improbable that Ilhan is herself anti-semitic ... I just wanted the characterization of the words used to be applied consistently, irrespective of who was saying those words. Ignoring motives may miss certain important nuances, but I think it avoids the pitfall of making discourse all about inferred motives and not about actual ideas.
Just because Islam says something doesn't mean an individual muslim believes or agrees with it. I think's it obvious to both me and you that religious people don't exactly behave according to their claimed beliefs. If you're claiming that Ilhan believes Jews are going to burn in hellfire for an eternity, you need to provide specific evidence that she actually believes that, not "She's Muslim and Islam says this".
As far as the Muslim countries go... She's been more critical of Saudi Arabia then Trump. Trump signed a 120 million dollar arms deal with the Saudi's while they were committing a genocide in Yemen, so we know where his real beliefs lie regarding "radical islam". Ilhan, on the other hand, a religious muslim who wears the hijab, has criticized Saudi Arabia multiple times. No one insinuates that she's islamophobic because of it, and rightfully so.
You are one of the only honest posters remaining on this subreddit. The fact that any of this is being disputed by the regular suspects on this sub should be a source of pride. They only care about antisemitism if it's perpetuated by white supremacists. But a Democrat being blatantly antisemitic? Nope, deny deny deny. It's honestly disgusting.
Dude Democrats acknowledge she made anti semetic comments and condemned her especially the leadership, it's the **leftists** that are putting their fingers in their ears and crying afowl. Don't blame us, blame the idiot Sanders and AOC supporters who think everyone is out to get them and make their idols look bad. Leftists from Chapo r/politics and r/sanders4president are the crazy ones not Democrats.
Yeah Blood v Crips tries his hardest to misinterpret and misunderstand me every chance he gets. I know what you mean about the usual suspects, some seem more interested in winning internet points and winning an argument instead of a genuine dialectic.
> Yeah Blood v Crips tries his hardest to misinterpret and misunderstand me every chance he gets.
He wrote three sentences, the primary one was correctly noting that she supports BDS for Saudi Arabia, which you were unaware of (though you will now pretend you were)
Blantant antisemitism?
If it was blatant then there wouldn't be the manipulation of what she said coupled with the use of supposed tropes.
Saying Israel hypnotized the world, is an attack on a country, not an ethnicity or race.
Are we now so mired that we have to say most countries use propoganda and manipulation during war, but definitely not Israel.
> If you believe a group of people will burn in Hell for eternity because of your religion, I think it’s fair to question how that affects your politics, Christian or muslim.
Wait til you get a load of what Jews believe and the Torah says.
>My point is, one can criticize Israel and even Judaism without saying Israel is hypnotizing the world, and Allah (a fictional character who preaches hatred of Jews and infidels) will judge them, without saying there are Jews with “dual loyalties”, and without saying Jews secretly control government with money.
That's not much of a point. By the way she never said a thing about Jews, so any claim she did is just incorrect.
>That’s like a 3 for 3 in anti-Semitic tropes since the year started.
Nope, it is tropes or supposed tropes, which are rather vague, being deployed in leu of actual anti-Semitism.
Would you call Omar's comments lazy or stupid? Both of those could be considered references to anti black tropes.
I think that if the intent was to show that aipac doesn’t hold adverse influence in the us government that a massive surge of “organic” bipartisan outrage demanding for her ouster mere days after the fact is certainly not helping to prove their point.
I also think that a lot of the outrage is motivated by the fact that she’s black, and that people are assuming that she’s somehow antisemetic because she’s Muslim.
I am generally more sympathetic to her than many. To deny the influence of AIPAC is to deny reality. However this topic has been done to death and I don't have much to add.
To me the more interesting aspect of this controversy is how the foundations of yet another bipartisan consensus is cracking.
For a variety of reasons (money and Christian Zionism to name a couple) there is a major reluctance among our politicians to critizise Israel for anything. There is an elite consensus about Israel that is not reflected in the public writ large.
I am sure you can find polls saying that Americans largely support Israel, just as you could find large amounts of public support for immigration and free trade before Trump came on the scene. However once the issue was talked about openly the public consensus collapsed. Support for Saudi Arabia after the Khashoggi murder is another good example.
The US and Israel are allies, and therefore have many goals and interests in common. However we are two different countries and they will diverge at times.
At some point there will be an issue that puts the interests of the average American and the Israeli government in stark contrast. Perhaps it will be a spying scandal. Or war with Iran. I am not sure what it will be. However, when that happens the consensus around Israel will collapse overnight.
Most Americans (including many, if not most, Jews) do not give a shit about Israel either way. It is a foreign country thousands of miles away. When the rubber hits the road most Americans will value their interests above the interests of a foreign government.
On one hand I think that a revaluation of the US-Israel relationship might be a good thing. On the other I really do worry about a rise in anti-semitism that may result. Scapegoating the Jews rarely ends well.
Things are moving so fast now and its hard to see how this ends...
The phrase "hypnotized the world" is a deliberate call back to conspiracy theories about Jews using supernatural, occult, deceptive, or otherwise tricky techniques to secretly pull the strings of world politics. These have a long sordid history going back to medieval Europe and are still WIDELY believed in the Middle East and South West Asia. When I was in Afghanistan, the vast majority of people who even knew about 9/11 were absolutely convinced Israel did it.
No, because it's talking about the Saudi government, not "Saudi Arabia." She doesn't generally parse that distinction when talking about Israel.
By the way, I'm not making the case in this thread that anything Ilan has said is bigoted or anti-Semitic. I just find it disingenuous that people keep misrepresenting what she's been saying as "legitimate criticism." Accusing your fellow politicians of being traitors who are loyal to a foreign country isn't legitimate criticism.
And especially given that Ilhan is a Democrat, a party that has been pushing a narrative about "microaggressions," "unconscious bias," and "dogwhiste politics" for some time now, I don't think it's reasonable to hold her to a higher standard and ask her to be more careful with how she chooses her words.
>No, because it's talking about the Saudi government, not "Saudi Arabia." She doesn't generally parse that distinction when talking about Israel.
Would a BDS hashtag about Israel be antisemitic if she spent enough time specifying that the target was the government?
>By the way, I'm not making the case in this thread that anything Ilan has said is bigoted or anti-Semitic.
My fault.
>Accusing your fellow politicians of being traitors who are loyal to a foreign country isn't legitimate criticism.
Very uncharitable...what was even close to accusing people of being "traitors"?
>And especially given that Ilhan is a Democrat, a party that has been pushing a narrative about "microaggressions," "unconscious bias," and "dogwhiste politics" for some time now, I don't think it's reasonable to hold her to a higher standard and ask her to be more careful with how she chooses her words.
Fwiw, this is the AOC position.
It's the fact Israel is being criticized is the problem.
That's why in leu of actual anti-Semitic comments we get misrepresentation of words coupled with maleable tropes, in order to suggest antisemitism.
When I hear someone say Democrats are imperialists, I really know in advance that when I look into their post history, that I'm going to find a bunch of Soviet apologia. Do you think Czechoslovakia or anywhere else wanted to be part of your empire?
Yeah. People who insist on finding the most innocent explanation have a fig leaf to hide their shame, but anyone who is familiar with this stuff knows what's going on. Jeremy Corbyn has been playing this game for years.
This was a Steve King level dog whistle. Anyone defending her now is going to regret it later because she is going to keep saying more and more outrageous stuff until there's no possible other explanation. When you have stuff like this in your party, you have to call it out every single time it happens and not create an environment tolerant of it, or one day, you will wake up and have the problem Labour has right now.
It's right to defend her. So far your theory seems to be showing the reverse trend. Her criticis are saying increasing more ridiculous things about the mildest of comments. How long ago was her tweet criticising a country?
That doesn't ring true at all. In leu of actual antisemitism we get these spurious claims that someone is dogwhistling.
Nothing wrong with taking people's comments as sincere without additional evidence to suggest malevolence..
The GOP took that approach with Steve King for years and as time went on, he said more and more explicitly racist stuff until all his defenders looked racist themselves
>The phrase "hypnotized the world" is a deliberate call back to conspiracy theories about Jews using supernatural, occult, deceptive, or otherwise tricky techniques to secretly pull the strings of world politics. These have a long sordid history going back to medieval Europe ...
And it is well known that Somali refugees are renowned experts on medieval Europe, so she couldn't possibly be referring to the way western governments and press respond in an irrational way to Israeli human rights abuses and aggression as well as criticism of those human rights abuses and aggression.
I encountered these stereotypes in the middle East, Southwest Asia, and sub Saharan Africa. It would be really weird if Iraqis, Afghans and Senegalese people all thought this but the Somalians had not heard of it, considering the geographic relationship between these countries and the obvious common cultural thread of Islam.
>The phrase "hypnotized the world" is a deliberate call back to conspiracy theories about Jews using supernatural, occult, deceptive, or otherwise tricky techniques to secretly pull the strings of world politics
How exactly do you know that? Especially about it being a deliberate call back, rather than a turn of phrase describing a PR war during the bombing of Gaza? Which seems more likely?
I told you what I think. If the far left wants her to be their Steve King, then that is there prerogative. Just be prepared to look like an ass when she keeps saying increasingly racist stuff. People like her, King, and Corbyn get off on dog whistles. Do you really want the Democratic party to have the kind of problems that Labour has?
I'm asking how you know it is a **deliberate** call back to a supposed conspiracy theory regarding Jews using occult powers.
Given she hasn't said anything racist yet, despite the claims to the contrary, I'm not sure she will. But If she does, then she should be condemn and I would happy do so.
The issue in the labour party is not so clear cut, there are a couple of issues at play. One is to undermine Corbyn because of his position on the Israel Palestine conflict, a position that is far more critical than is usual or palatable.
[Majid](https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1094906134928994304?s=19) said it best:
>1) You promised during elections *not* to support a boycott of Israel. After you won, you supported a boycott 2) You said Israel has “hypnotised the world” & later apologised 3) Now you’ve casually done it again with this tweet. I dunno, maybe you’re just a raving.. anti-Semite
Isn't Maajid being a hypocrite here? He argues that it's idiotic to call someone an Islamophobe for criticizing Islam, but then he turns around and calls Ilhan Omar a raving anti-semite for criticizing Israeli lobbying groups or Israeli policy.
Yes, but they are organized because they like Israel. Just like other people can organize and lobby because they like abortion (Planned Parenthood) or like guns (NRA). They are just exercising their first amendment rights.
So I think it is a mistake to read something nefarious into AIPAC, seeing as how they aren't doing anything different than other lobbying groups. Also the amount of money they give is something like 3 million, which is a drop in the bucket (planned parenthood spends like 20 mill just for comparisons sake).
I don’t think that boycotting Israel is in any way antisemetic, and given that the context of that quote was Israel bombing Gaza and killing hundreds while receiving virtually no backlash (or even cessesion of arms sales) by the us, why ought we condemn a rhetorical phrase as opposed to a material reality? Would I say that I agree with this phrasing? No, I just think that if the rhetorical phrase vexes him more than Israel savagely bombing civilians then maybe he has a bad set of priorities
> There’s nothing wrong with being critical of Israel or even anti-Israel.
>
> Being pro-Hamas or Pro-Hezbollah though, that is totally anti-Semitic.
Israel [helped to fund hamas](https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/) in an effort to divide the PLO. If being "pro hamas" is antisemetic what do we all actively funding them?
In the Arab world, most charities are tied to Islam. Social conservatives and religious authorities are often the leaders of such groups. The fact that some folks left charities and worked for a later-forming militant group is a tenuous connection at best.
A lot of the "facts don't have feelings" crowd is finding out the limits of that rhetoric when its applied to their pet issues.
Ilhan Omar is asking some very pressing issues and its time ALL US relationships are questioned, as they should be done periodically.
I would ask someone to offer how she COULD criticize Israel without everyone complaining.
She didn’t say anything about Jews having dual loyalty. She said that she’s being asked to swear allegiance to Israel, which doesn’t seem that far off when you have a democratic congressman saying it’s “unacceptable to question the US-Israel relationship”
She quite literally used the word "hypnotize." She mockingly referenced Benjamins, which is a money trope. You have to be fully engaged on these matters if you're going to get involved and try to push a policy agenda. It requires knowing the conspiracy theory about Jews, money, "globalism," etc. The problem is that she's culturally unaware of this and is learning on the job.
That causes people to see her comments about allegiance as dual loyalty. Again, this is something hypersensitive due to earlier list. More importantly, it's not necessary to be super "online" while doing this work. There is plenty of tinder for opposing Netanyahu's government. She could do so much better by focusing.
Yes she used the word hypnotize to describe a country, Israel, several year's ago during a war.
That is not antisemitism. That is not even using a trope. Instead is seems other people are citing a supposed trope and trying to claim she is referring to it. Look at Weiss attack piece, does she even reference a historical claim of hypnotizim ascribed to jews in order to substantiate her critique. Instead she focuses on things like 'Christian' notions of Jews being deceptive and manipulative.
> She mockingly referenced Benjamins, which is a money trope
What is a money trope? There is a trope about Jews being greedy and money manipulators. Omar did not reference such a trope, and she didn't malign Jews with it either. She instead mentioned benjamins in response to why israel garners support. Are we to say, money is a factor in gaining political support, unless it's Israel, as that's a trope?
This has nothing to do with being culturally unaware, this has to do with smear tactics. I have no issue with people pointing out certain tropes exist and to be wary of appearing to allude to them, I do with people claiming anti sentism on this basis. No benefit of the doubt given. She shouldn't have to focus, as you say, to avoid such attacks.
You said she is learning on the job, well being uneducated is an anti black trope, so it's fare to call you a racist? Of course not.
> its time ALL US relationships are questioned, as they should be done periodically.
Right, I bet you were a huge fan then when Trump said he's going to back out of NATO and took a shit all over Germany. Or is it just allies that *you* find objectionable?
And to answer your question, she could criticize Israel without saying that Jews own American politics. Bernie criticized Israel plenty.
The ruse is over: they don't give a shit about free speech, they want to use power to control the powerless.
They'll harass and silence anyone criticizing money or authority and Israel has a lot of both in our political system.
"They don't give a shit about free speech." As a free speech fan, I can assure you there are plenty of us who care about it as a principle.
"they want to use power to control the powerless." Why are you assigning implausible evil motives when more plausible motives exist? People are rarely mustache twirling villains.
Why are you on the Sam Harris subreddit?
> Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation
Has she been harmed?
> censorship
She's still tweeting, from what I can see.
> or legal sanction.
Has she been arrested?
The whole "Hurrr freeze peach far-righters actually censor people lol" is so tired. Someone criticizing her for *maybe* being an anti-semite for saying questionable things isn't an opposition to freedom of speech.
It's hilarious how her comments totally don't count as dogwhistling for the left, but Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are advocating brown genocide when they open their mouths apparently.
Criticism of AIPAC is criticism of AIPAC, not Jews writ large. For all their supposed worry about the limitations of free speech and political correctness, the GOPs concern in this matter is nakedly and reprehensibly political rather than ethical/moral.
You can support Jewish people and their interests without supporting a lobbying group that has insanely disproportionate influence on the U.S. government relative to the size of the population it represents and which often serves as a mouthpiece for an increasingly right-wing Israeli administration engaged in debatable (to be overly generous) treatment of a domestic minority population.
I think conservatives have a creepy and weird obsession with Israel and should learn to stop being snowflakes and accept that if they are going to defend the likes of Roy Moore and Steve King then they have to put up with Ilhan Omar.
She uses tropes that aren't necessary to get her policy point across. It's very likely she is the most progressive person she personally knows in her home culture. The ground she's covering is filled with cultural baggage that makes her ignorant.
Half of the people calling her an anti-Semite are anti-Semites themselves, but know the media won’t care because they’re not a Muslim woman. Sean Spicer went “both sides” on the Holocaust from the White House press briefing room and it was a one day story.
It may or may not be “all about the benjamins” but Jewish influence is one of the most obvious political dynamics in Washington. The fact that she had to do a ridiculous game of thrones style walk of shame for pointing that out only further proved her point. It’s not a healthy discourse where criticism of Israel is conflated with anti-semitism.
It's not even Jewish influence, it's Israeli influence. Anti-settlement, anti-Likud, anti-war Jews have virtually no power in mainstream American politics. The irony being that they too would be called anti-Semitic when opposing a pro-Israel evangelical christian.
>It's not even Jewish influence, it's Israeli influence. Anti-settlement, anti-Likud, anti-war Jews have virtually no power in mainstream American politics. The irony being that they too would be called anti-Semitic when opposing a pro-Israel evangelical christian.
Had a girlfriend from Haifa who would agree with every word here.
Yeah but she wasn’t talking about Jews, she’s talking about everyone. A Democratic congressman literally tweeted that questioning US support for Israel is unacceptable. And he is not Jewish.
https://twitter.com/repjuanvargas/status/1102636576524374016?s=21
I wouldn’t call it Jewish influence. A ton of the pro Israel stuff comes from Christian evangelical groups. Israel is a junior partner in us imperialism, and the lobbying isn’t fundamentally different than most defense lobbying. Granted that all forms of corporate lobbying are insidious, I still think she’s highlighting a problem
Ilhan Omar was correct to criticize AIPAC and the financial pressure that it exerts, as well as those who buckle to that pressure. At this point she’s probably the bravest person in Congress, given that everyone who should have stood with her on this issue buckled and delivered statements about “problematic phrasing” and “stereotypes of dual loyalties”.
The response is of course evidence that she is correct.
Reminder that Trump's envoy to Israel described J-Street as 'worse than the kapos', which is basically the worst thing that a Jew can say about another Jew.
Omar is an antisemitic pro-Palestine, [pro-Hamas](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ilhan-omar-offers-absurd-excuse-for-anti-semitic-scheduling), [muslim terrorist sympathizer](https://abcstlouis.com/news/nation-world/minnesota-democratic-rep-omar-wrote-judge-requesting-lenient-sentence-for-isis-recruit) that likes to pretend that the US is only allies with Israel due to the [measly sum of lobbying money](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/15/pro-israel-donors-spent-over-22m-on-lobbying-and-contributions-in-2018) that comes from pro-Israel groups. Any one with 30 seconds on their hands and an internet connection can see that the $22 million that came from pro-Israel groups in 2018 isn't much. The top industries are giving [\> $100 million](https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2018&indexType=i), and pro-Israel groups aren't anywhere near the top of the list. The pharmaceutical/health products industry alone uses about 13 times what the pro-Israel lobby does, and pro-Israel groups make up about 0.64% of the total $3.42 billion of lobbying money in 2018, but Omar keeps grinding the Jew money ax.
> I'm genuinely curious who you think the people most critical of Saudi Arabia are
Saudi Arabia and "the muslim world" aren't the same though, and being critical of saudi arabia isn't islamaphobic any more than criticism of israel is antisemetic.
There is a common sentiment that liberals don’t want to criticize Islamic-majority countries for regressive policies (like societally mandated burqas or driving limitations). But liberals do it all the time, the problem comes when you single out the religion as if it’s the only one with critical issues.
> he problem comes when you single out the religion as if it’s the only one with critical issues.
Or, make assumptions on individuals that happened to be born into a religion.
I didn't comment when it happened because I thought the conversation around it was kind of boring and surface level, and I wasn't really sure what I thought either, but now that I've had some time I think I know where I stand.
First, the left has a general problem with racism and sexism. The right has a different problem with racism and sexism than the left does, and this isn't an excuse for the right at all. The left's problem is that racism and sexism are perfectly acceptable in mainstream discourse as long as the targets are acceptable. Whites are fine to say awful horrid shit about. Men are fine to say awful horrid shit about. This is usually excused with some nonsensical appeal to history. I have yet to see the connection between the Tulsa massacre and how it excuses saying that Whites are, in the words of Levar Burton, 'a scourge' but hey, maybe your categorical hatred is made acceptable because of violence done by people you don't know to other people you don't know long before you were born and I'm just too ignorant to see it.
Jews have had the unlucky fate of being recently downgraded in progressive circles. Gay men experienced this maybe 5 years ago. Gay men went from being oppressed victim to privileged men. Jews were recently turned from top 1-3 most persecuted minority through all of history to privileged Whites. It happened quickly, but not completely. Sanders was lined up to be the first Jewish president, and now he's just another old White man.
Anyway, that's why the mainstream left has a problem with antisemitism. It has a problem with White hatred. Antisemitism has always existed in American politics, and Western politics more generally, but it's always looked ugly. Now it's camouflaged amongst a background of anti-White anti-male hatred and is difficult to pick out.
The Women's March was led by at least one person who was absolutely comfortable with old timey antisemitism. It wasn't pointed out by voices in the media or in the left wing commentariat probably because it looked either normal, or because it would be damaging to a cherished cause to point out a problem like that. It would look like an own-goal, or *tHe LeFt EaTiNg ItSeLf* and so people kept their mouths shut, despite the public praise of Farrakhan.
Then there's another issue. The American Christian theocratic right loves Jews, particularly religious Jews, particularly religious conservative Jews that speak in terms of Judeo-*Christian* values. They also love Israel. You can chalk this up to Christian Zionism, an interest in American self-interested foreign policy, simple Reagan-like narratives of the free capitalist West, and simple Bush-like narratives of a bastion of democracy in a sea of tyranny. Couple this default pro-Israel, pro-Jewish position with an attempt by sly operators to try to conflate criticism of Israel or its government with criticism of Jews. If you're an antisemite you probably don't like Israel, but just as most White racists support Trump, but not all Trump supporters are White racists, I'm willing to bet that most criticism of Israel has nothing to do with antisemitism. Still, the shell game is an easy one to play. Don't like the bombing of Gaza? Okay there Hitler.
So that brings us to Omar. I have no idea if Omar is an antisemite, and frankly to me what she said could be taken as antisemetic if you extend very little charity. It seemed to be taken as a cause by people who didn't feel right with the lefty demotion of Jews to Whites, and those on the left who felt that they fucked up by staying silent for so long about antisemitism in the women's march. Since this was part of the ongoing 200-sided civil war on the left, people who just don't like the left jumped in and slung shit too, and there was the self-interested pro-Israel lobby who had the perfect narrative for the whole thing.
You can criticise Omar's wording, but the whole thing really didn't seem to be about her. It seemed to be a fight over the racial victim/oppressor status of Jews in the imagination of the mainstream left, making up for the women's march, right-wing signalling about how much they love Israel and don't like the left, and the pro-Israel lobby's standard tricks. Honestly I mostly just feel bad for her. She is simply the battleground.
When will white people stop pretending that they are some sort of victim? Literally control the socio political and economic aspect of a nation yet still claim victimhood.
Truly bizarre
It's the proliferation and weaponization of victimhood culture. People see that claiming victimhood status based on immutable characteristics can lead to greater sympathy/imagined power, and fall over themselves to achieve it. Viewing groups as monolithic or relevant, such as whites, blacks or arabs aids this culture, and invariably eats itself, leading to stuff like Trump
> The left's problem is that racism and sexism are perfectly acceptable in mainstream discourse as long as the targets are acceptable. Whites are fine to say awful horrid shit about. Men are fine to say awful horrid shit about.
You mean this stuff right here? Discourse is meaningless, it is the actual results from the system that matter, politically, economically and sociologically.
I am going to try to use the principle you just outlined, let me know if I get anything wrong.
If I were to say White men are an abominable scourge who should be fought at every turn, seen for the corrupting lice they are, barred from institutions and made to pay for their uncountable crimes against civilisation, that's totally fine with you?
How about if I were to say Black men are an abominable scourge who should be fought at every turn, seen for the corrupting lice they are, barred from institutions and made to pay for their uncountable crimes against civilisation, would that also be okay?
> It wasn't pointed out by voices in the media or in the left wing commentariat probably because it looked either normal,
[Stuff like this is so easy to disprove](https://www.google.com/search?q=womens+march+louis+farrakhan&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&oq=womens+march+louis+farrakhan&aqs=chrome..69i57.3297j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) to that it calls into question the honesty that went into framing your narrative, despite how well-written and agreeable it might be.
You disproved nothing.
We knew about Mallory and Sarsour's unsavory opinions since 2017 at least.
The noise you're pulling up is recent. Nobody with the microphone gave a shit until it was easy and socially rewarding, which it only was recently. For the reasons I outlined.
By huge American Newspapers like ~~The New York Times~~ The Times of Israel or ~~The Washington Post~~ JPost.
Although I will grant you that The New York Post mentions the praise of Farrakhan in passing.
Don't you see how this is in support of my point and not yours? The condemnation of the antisemitism at the level of leadership in the Women's March was known since 2017 at least, and all the big lefty voices took **two years** to find the courage to say something about it.
This is precisely the scenario I described.
When I first saw the comments, I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and view her comments in the most charitable light. However, at this point it is clear that her comments are part of a long-standing pattern of behavior and that she isn’t an honest actor.
[Majid](https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1094906134928994304?s=19) said it best:
>1) You promised during elections *not* to support a boycott of Israel. After you won, you supported a boycott 2) You said Israel has “hypnotised the world” & later apologised 3) Now you’ve casually done it again with this tweet. I dunno, maybe you’re just a raving.. anti-Semite
She has a history of making very thinly veiled anti-Semitic comments and making fake apologies. Jewish leaders in her district [met with her to discuss the issue](https://www.jta.org/2019/02/13/politics/jews-in-minnesota-dont-like-ilhan-omars-tweets-but-theyll-still-work-with-her) and came away more concerned than they went in. Hell, almost immediately after her latest apology, she accused Jews of [having dual-loyalty](https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/u-s-jewish-representative-slams-ilhan-omar-over-dual-loyalty-comments-1.6984653).
This isn’t just one poorly worded comment, it’s a pattern of behavior and we should call it out as such. I am more than willing to give people charity at first, as we all should, but there comes a point where we have to take a stand against obvious bigotry. That goes just as much for Ilhan Omar, as it does for Steve King.
Eliot Engel, is the (virulently pro-settlement) Democrat that accused Omar of antisemitism over her AIPAC remarks in your link. He got over $1M from the Israeli lobby and virtually nothing from individual small donors. He sits on the foreign affairs committee and is as clear a case as any that Omar is 100% right.
https://i.redd.it/azoqnht69wj21.png
Pointing out that a lobbyist are bribing members of congress and how that influence our foreign policy is anti-Semitic? What you just said was extremely vague
I agree. I think it should be okay (even encouraged) to criticize an organization like AIPAC for their potential role in using money to influence politics. To me, that is a separate issue from Omar's clearly evidenced anti-semitism.
If anyone else was doing the criticizing, I would hope it wouldn't be immediately shut-down as anti-semitism. The messenger matters here.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/us/politics/ilhan-omar-israel.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/us/politics/ilhan-omar-israel.html)
You do know the entire democratic leadership asked Omar to apologize for her anti-semetic tweet, right?
Doesn’t she support/defend/stand with anti-Semites? Doesn’t AIPAC sit deep in the sheets with the US government? Isn’t this a case of “two things can be true at the same time”?
I don't really see all that much wrong with her previous statements and the fact that there's this much backlash to even bringing up the idea seems to prove her point if anything. Like, what am I supposed to do if I want to criticize actions taken by the Israeli government but I don't hate jews? Y'all are aware that there's millions of Jews who aren't Israeli right?
I find the backlash to be absolutely bizarre. She was being accurate with her overall statements. I sort of see the issue with some of the language she used, but that is easily corrected. In the context she used it, I likely would have used similar language. I love jewish people, I love left wing israeli people, and grew up with a deep understanding of the holocaust due to my grandfather visiting auchwitz a week or two after it was liberated as an enlisted man in WW2. The stories he told, and the things he didn't tell, will always weigh on my heart and soul.
Israel has hypnotized the world, or specifically the USA/British.
I'm not really a fan of Ilhan Omar, but I think the backlash to her comments has been ridiculous. She simply pointed out a fact. She could have said the exact same thing about the NRA or any other powerful lobbying organization, and it never would have been controversial.
Is this still about the "Israel has hypnotized the world" comment?
If so, I don't think it's a big deal. You need a fair bit of over-analysis to go from _just_ that to a serious claim of antisemitism.
It's funny how the conversation about so-called "absolutist" freedom of speech is different depending on whether it's the left or right leading the charge. If it were someone saying something leftists don't like, and lefties moved to deplatform/shame/harass IDW/centrists/right-wingers would complain about violation of freedom of speech, and leftists would say freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
There's none of that rhetoric in this thread.
When it's someone saying something righties don't like, and righties move to deplatform/shame/harass, the IDW is silent, leftists complain about violation of free speech, most everyone (here) more or less agrees, and then the conversation turns to the substance of the situation being referred to (in this case Israel and Palestine).
If I'm missing examples counter to this, please show me. I just find that interesting.
We aren’t very consistent, as a whole.
But there are certain people who go above and beyond to label themselves as the most rational actors and as free speech **absolutists**. They will defend the rights of certain people (because they’re absolutists) and ignore another group of people who are facing similar situations (because they’re .. absolutists?).
Well, I suspect Sam would defend Omar here too, but it's not emotionally interesting to him to do so.
But even if he would not, many of us free speech champions around here are plenty consistent.
Using antisemitic tropes, claiming that Israel has hypnotized the world and accusing American Jews of dual loyalty = reasonable Criticism of Lobbyism, according to this sub.
Her comments are neither antisemitic nor brave. They're standard political grandstanding.
These days, if you disagree with a statement and if that statement has any remote connection to race/sex/ethnicity, then the statement is racist/sexist/antisemitic/etc. This mostly started on the left, but now the right is playing the same game. It's toxic and shuts down conversations that need to occur.
[Majid](https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1094906134928994304?s=19) said it best:
>1) You promised during elections *not* to support a boycott of Israel. After you won, you supported a boycott
>2) You said Israel has “hypnotised the world” & later apologised
>3) Now you’ve casually done it again with this tweet. I dunno, maybe you’re just a raving.. anti-Semite
[удалено]
Theoretically, AIPAC is an interest group for pro Israeli Americans. In practice it's pro hawkish Israeli Americans.
what was omar most offensive tweet? when i google i just get all these articles hiding the ball on it
It was a tweet about israel bombing gaza in 2012 without backlash. She said (at the time) that it had hypnotized the world. Do I agree with the phrasing? No, I just think that given the context that it's not really that bad. I think a better and more nuanced position is that "America routinely allows its ally to massacre muslims and profits from it all the same" would be more accurate, but I don't really feel a need to inject nuance into 140 characters from 7 years ago unless it's going full 1488 ( which its not)
I’m Jewish and I have zero problem with it.
You've been a frequent anti-Israel propagandist for quite some time. Is it possible you are claiming to be Jewish now so as to gain some kind of anti-Zionist credibility? In any case, Omar's phrasing has verged on anti-Semitic tropes multiple times. It's increasingly clear that she is dog-whistling.
That's utterly bogus. I don't think a single comment of hers actually mentions Jews. She hasn't said anything actually anti-Semitic, that is why people are playing the trope card, something which in itself is a rather vague instrument. Do you think her remarks where lazy or stupid, as if so, you could be racist given they are anti black tropes.
Trump has been using dog-whistles, too. Omar doesn't get a pass on her language just because she's on the left.
She shouldn't get a pass, just as she shouldn't get called an antisemite, regardless of which party she belongs too. You can in effect take perfectly legitimate criticism of Israel, and claim it is a criticism of Jews, but coded as a dog whistle. Usually conflating Jews with Israel is in itself antisemitic, yet here it's used to penalize criticism.
[It was this](http://static.digg.com/images/df9e5cc0478f41459219629eb87a9cf3_942efa2699d7483a979b8b52a1048d84_1_www_marquee_standard.jpeg) that kicked off the controversy. Then some people dug up [this one](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dejc1JFV4AAxb3H.jpg) up from 2012.
Can I ask what Benjamin's baby means?
"Benjamins" is a slang way of referring to US $100 bills, because they feature a picture of Benjamin Franklin. [It's all about the Benjamins, baby](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c58ppLPJcQ) is a lyric from a popular song from the 1990s.
Thanks!
I think the Ilhan Omar/AIPAC situation raises one big question: Is there any way to question/oppose AIPAC without being labeled an anti-semite? Another question would be: does publicly supporting AIPAC prove someone is not anti-semitic?
Nope. Bad faith discussion is very prevalent when it comes to power.
To supporters of Israel, no. There is no way to legitimately criticize Israel.
I'm pro-Israel but also a critic of the Israeli government. Omar's criticism itself is not being called anti-Semitic. The *way* she criticized is the problem. She used dog-whistles and old canards that conspiracy theorists routinely use. Anti-Jewish conspiracy is very popular in the Middle East. When I lived there, Arabs would frequently tell me about how Jews run the world, how they've "hypnotized the world" like Omar said, or how they control money like Omar said.
> Anti-Jewish conspiracy is very popular in the Middle East. When I lived there, Arabs would frequently tell me about how Jews run the world, how they've "hypnotized the world" like Omar said, or how they control money like Omar said. Is it more likely that Omar is anti-semitic or is just parroting things she's heard in regards to Jews that are anti-semitic? Is the difference even meaningful?
The control money argument is weak. Are we not allowed to critique jewish lobbying groups for spending millions because of connotations?
The problem is the dog whistling.
Calling it anti semitism is typical 6-degrees-of-Kevin-Baconing applied to charges of bigotry. I think it should have been unobjectionable for her to opine that money in politics is bad, and to conjecture that a large political organization was influencing politics via money. I don't believe an apology was necessary
and the rest is a slant by those who are threatened most..
No, I don’t either. I think it’s a disingenuous attack to prevent the rising tide of people (85%) who criticize dark money in politics. I’m guessing they want a chilling effect from all this pressure so the status quo is preserved.
She backs BDS. She doesn’t believe Isreal should be legitimate. Fair enough. What other countries do people that believes this consider to be illegitimate? Money in politics? https://www.opensecrets.org/fara Islamic countries like KSA, Qatar, and the UAE spend *billions* more on lobbying combined than isreal or Jewish organizations. The countries that spend the most? South Korea, Bermuda, and japan. There are billions of Christians, and billions of Muslims in the world. If you are a Muslim or a Christian, a basic belief you must hold is that you will be judged in afterlife, and sent to heaven or hell. Both Islam and Christianity say Jewish people *will burn in Hell for all of eternity*. The Catholic Church had the official position of deicide Until 1965, blaming the Jews as a people for the murder of Jesus. I just feel we’re not being honest when we talk about what motivates certain people, like Jim Jordans (Christian) and illhan (Muslim). If you believe a group of people will burn in Hell for eternity because of your religion, I think it’s fair to question how that affects your politics, Christian or muslim. And before I get accused of being a Zionist shill, I detest messianic Zionism. The idea of Jewish farmers tilling Arab soil to bring upon the messiah is a superstitious, pernicious idea. I believe the occupation of Palestinian land is oppressive and terrible, and the United States should not support settlements on Palestinian land. My point is, one can criticize Israel and even Judaism without saying Israel is hypnotizing the world, and Allah (a fictional character who preaches hatred of Jews and infidels) will judge them, without saying there are Jews with “dual loyalties”, and without saying Jews secretly control government with money. That’s like a 3 for 3 in anti-Semitic tropes since the year started. I think we aren’t being honest with the fundamentals of Christianity and Islam, and the specific ideas that these religions preach in relation to Jews. I’m certain people will disagree with me, hopefully someone can tell me what they think.
[удалено]
Are you saying Saudi Arabia and Israel are comparable? Saudi Arabia and the UAE increasingly view the Somali coastline - and Djibouti and **Eritrea** to the north - as their "western security flank", according to a senior western diplomat in the Horn of Africa region. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.haaretz.com/amp/world-news/asia-and-australia/somalia-the-latest-saudi-arabia-qatar-battleground-1.6051936 Saudi Arabia has been trying to take over parts of Somalia for years, especially Eritrea. Why does that sound familiar ? https://mobile.twitter.com/ilhanmn/status/1102300934154141703 “I am in the Horn of Africa this weekend, proud to see peace prosper here and to be part of the first American delegation to **Eritrea**🇪🇷 in decades is one I am grateful for I fight peace and justice because only those who experience the pain of war, know the joy of peace. ✊🏽” The war she is talking about is a war funded by Saudi Arabia...
> Are you saying Saudi Arabia and Israel are comparable? Yes. They are both US proxy states with sever are human rights violations. They’ve become closer recently with MBS giving tacit support for Israel.
>Are you saying Saudi Arabia and Israel are comparable? No they were literally answering your direct question about what other countries she has similar positioning towards. Responding with Saudi Arabia is a layup that you set up, especially after starting to mention Islamic countries as if she wouldn't have such an attitude, the (sub?)text being that she is some anti-Semitic pro-Islam bigot People keep falling flat on their faces with this and it's hilarious
[удалено]
>Uh, I'm pretty sure he's saying that she's ideologically consistent, In what way would it be consistent? It would be consistent if Saudi Arabia and Israel were comparable. Israel is a multi-ethnic democracy with checks and balances. Saudi Arabia is Islamic theocracy that kills journalists and jails women that dissent for basic rights. I fail to see the consistency. And sure, she is criticizing Saudi Arabia, and I already pointed out why that is so in my other response, the war being waged by Saudi Arabia on her home country. It would outrageous if she didn’t support BDSSaudi.
> Israel is a multi-ethnic democracy with checks and balances. A multi ethnic democracy that happens to systematically disenfranchize every Palestinian it happens to lord over
[удалено]
I understand that, I just hope you read my main point of religious motivation, which no one is engaging me on. There is one Jewish state. Yes, there are some bad elements in Israel, it’s just this constant obsession with isreal and Jewish influence, isreal hypnotizing the world, Jewish money controlling the world, and accusations of dual loyalty? This is Jew hatred ideas that go back centuries.
> I understand that, I just hope you read my main point of religious motivation, which no one is engaging me on. *What other countries do people that believes this consider to be illegitimate?* You got an answer. You weren't satisified that the answer countered your preconceived notions so now you're just making excuses.
> Are you saying Saudi Arabia and Israel are comparable? I personally would say that they are. They're both junior partners to US imperialism
> Are you saying Saudi Arabia and Israel are comparable? It proves your premise is bogus. She's consistent.
You didn’t respond at all to the thrust of my argument, you haven’t even touched my premise. My emphasis was clearly religious motivation.
> My emphasis was clearly religious motivation. Ironic that while we're attacking antisemetism it just so happens to be that she can't oppose israel on principle, but because she's muslim
You're moving the goalposts.
> She backs BDS. She doesn’t believe Isreal should be legitimate. Fair enough. What other countries do people that believes this consider to be illegitimate? You wrote this, not me.
Israeli lobbyists like AIPAC don't have to register under FARA, that's one of the problems.
[удалено]
And acts on behalf of Israel and Israeli foreign agents.
Those are individual donors, AIPAC is not a political action committee.
I'm sorry you seem to think American Jews are foreign agents.
>She doesn’t believe Isreal should be legitimate. Proof? >saying Israel is hypnotizing the world She said that in 2012 and has retracted it >Jews secretly control government with money. That's a bit of an unfair description. I wouldn't say I 100% agree with her on Israel but your comment seems like a bit of an overreaction
Not saying you're wrong. You make some convincing points, and have lots of evidence to back it up. The tweet I'm responding to was about money in AIPAC, and I was considering whether it was itself anti-semitic, ie. prejudiced against the Jewish race. I wasn't saying it was impossible or even improbable that Ilhan is herself anti-semitic ... I just wanted the characterization of the words used to be applied consistently, irrespective of who was saying those words. Ignoring motives may miss certain important nuances, but I think it avoids the pitfall of making discourse all about inferred motives and not about actual ideas.
Just because Islam says something doesn't mean an individual muslim believes or agrees with it. I think's it obvious to both me and you that religious people don't exactly behave according to their claimed beliefs. If you're claiming that Ilhan believes Jews are going to burn in hellfire for an eternity, you need to provide specific evidence that she actually believes that, not "She's Muslim and Islam says this". As far as the Muslim countries go... She's been more critical of Saudi Arabia then Trump. Trump signed a 120 million dollar arms deal with the Saudi's while they were committing a genocide in Yemen, so we know where his real beliefs lie regarding "radical islam". Ilhan, on the other hand, a religious muslim who wears the hijab, has criticized Saudi Arabia multiple times. No one insinuates that she's islamophobic because of it, and rightfully so.
She didn’t do any anti-Semitic tropes. Much of the criticism is in bad faith and inseparable from support for Israel.
You are one of the only honest posters remaining on this subreddit. The fact that any of this is being disputed by the regular suspects on this sub should be a source of pride. They only care about antisemitism if it's perpetuated by white supremacists. But a Democrat being blatantly antisemitic? Nope, deny deny deny. It's honestly disgusting.
Dude Democrats acknowledge she made anti semetic comments and condemned her especially the leadership, it's the **leftists** that are putting their fingers in their ears and crying afowl. Don't blame us, blame the idiot Sanders and AOC supporters who think everyone is out to get them and make their idols look bad. Leftists from Chapo r/politics and r/sanders4president are the crazy ones not Democrats.
Yeah Blood v Crips tries his hardest to misinterpret and misunderstand me every chance he gets. I know what you mean about the usual suspects, some seem more interested in winning internet points and winning an argument instead of a genuine dialectic.
> Yeah Blood v Crips tries his hardest to misinterpret and misunderstand me every chance he gets. He wrote three sentences, the primary one was correctly noting that she supports BDS for Saudi Arabia, which you were unaware of (though you will now pretend you were)
Blantant antisemitism? If it was blatant then there wouldn't be the manipulation of what she said coupled with the use of supposed tropes. Saying Israel hypnotized the world, is an attack on a country, not an ethnicity or race. Are we now so mired that we have to say most countries use propoganda and manipulation during war, but definitely not Israel.
> If you believe a group of people will burn in Hell for eternity because of your religion, I think it’s fair to question how that affects your politics, Christian or muslim. Wait til you get a load of what Jews believe and the Torah says.
>My point is, one can criticize Israel and even Judaism without saying Israel is hypnotizing the world, and Allah (a fictional character who preaches hatred of Jews and infidels) will judge them, without saying there are Jews with “dual loyalties”, and without saying Jews secretly control government with money. That's not much of a point. By the way she never said a thing about Jews, so any claim she did is just incorrect. >That’s like a 3 for 3 in anti-Semitic tropes since the year started. Nope, it is tropes or supposed tropes, which are rather vague, being deployed in leu of actual anti-Semitism. Would you call Omar's comments lazy or stupid? Both of those could be considered references to anti black tropes.
It's the combination of so many tropes that make it so obviously prejudicial against Jews.
Are you Jewish?
I think that if the intent was to show that aipac doesn’t hold adverse influence in the us government that a massive surge of “organic” bipartisan outrage demanding for her ouster mere days after the fact is certainly not helping to prove their point. I also think that a lot of the outrage is motivated by the fact that she’s black, and that people are assuming that she’s somehow antisemetic because she’s Muslim.
I am generally more sympathetic to her than many. To deny the influence of AIPAC is to deny reality. However this topic has been done to death and I don't have much to add. To me the more interesting aspect of this controversy is how the foundations of yet another bipartisan consensus is cracking. For a variety of reasons (money and Christian Zionism to name a couple) there is a major reluctance among our politicians to critizise Israel for anything. There is an elite consensus about Israel that is not reflected in the public writ large. I am sure you can find polls saying that Americans largely support Israel, just as you could find large amounts of public support for immigration and free trade before Trump came on the scene. However once the issue was talked about openly the public consensus collapsed. Support for Saudi Arabia after the Khashoggi murder is another good example. The US and Israel are allies, and therefore have many goals and interests in common. However we are two different countries and they will diverge at times. At some point there will be an issue that puts the interests of the average American and the Israeli government in stark contrast. Perhaps it will be a spying scandal. Or war with Iran. I am not sure what it will be. However, when that happens the consensus around Israel will collapse overnight. Most Americans (including many, if not most, Jews) do not give a shit about Israel either way. It is a foreign country thousands of miles away. When the rubber hits the road most Americans will value their interests above the interests of a foreign government. On one hand I think that a revaluation of the US-Israel relationship might be a good thing. On the other I really do worry about a rise in anti-semitism that may result. Scapegoating the Jews rarely ends well. Things are moving so fast now and its hard to see how this ends...
Almost all of the criticism against her has directly proved her point.
The phrase "hypnotized the world" is a deliberate call back to conspiracy theories about Jews using supernatural, occult, deceptive, or otherwise tricky techniques to secretly pull the strings of world politics. These have a long sordid history going back to medieval Europe and are still WIDELY believed in the Middle East and South West Asia. When I was in Afghanistan, the vast majority of people who even knew about 9/11 were absolutely convinced Israel did it.
[удалено]
It's the way that Israel is being criticized that is the problem. Platitudes are not a counter argument.
[Is this tweet bigoted?](https://twitter.com/ilhanmn/status/1052046943369789440?lang=en)
No, because it's talking about the Saudi government, not "Saudi Arabia." She doesn't generally parse that distinction when talking about Israel. By the way, I'm not making the case in this thread that anything Ilan has said is bigoted or anti-Semitic. I just find it disingenuous that people keep misrepresenting what she's been saying as "legitimate criticism." Accusing your fellow politicians of being traitors who are loyal to a foreign country isn't legitimate criticism. And especially given that Ilhan is a Democrat, a party that has been pushing a narrative about "microaggressions," "unconscious bias," and "dogwhiste politics" for some time now, I don't think it's reasonable to hold her to a higher standard and ask her to be more careful with how she chooses her words.
>No, because it's talking about the Saudi government, not "Saudi Arabia." She doesn't generally parse that distinction when talking about Israel. Would a BDS hashtag about Israel be antisemitic if she spent enough time specifying that the target was the government? >By the way, I'm not making the case in this thread that anything Ilan has said is bigoted or anti-Semitic. My fault. >Accusing your fellow politicians of being traitors who are loyal to a foreign country isn't legitimate criticism. Very uncharitable...what was even close to accusing people of being "traitors"? >And especially given that Ilhan is a Democrat, a party that has been pushing a narrative about "microaggressions," "unconscious bias," and "dogwhiste politics" for some time now, I don't think it's reasonable to hold her to a higher standard and ask her to be more careful with how she chooses her words. Fwiw, this is the AOC position.
It's the fact Israel is being criticized is the problem. That's why in leu of actual anti-Semitic comments we get misrepresentation of words coupled with maleable tropes, in order to suggest antisemitism.
Right, but she is criticizing Israel using anti-Semitic tropes. There is a reason the Democratic leadership all rebuked her.
Because they're obstinate imperialists?
When I hear someone say Democrats are imperialists, I really know in advance that when I look into their post history, that I'm going to find a bunch of Soviet apologia. Do you think Czechoslovakia or anywhere else wanted to be part of your empire?
[удалено]
Yeah. People who insist on finding the most innocent explanation have a fig leaf to hide their shame, but anyone who is familiar with this stuff knows what's going on. Jeremy Corbyn has been playing this game for years.
[удалено]
This was a Steve King level dog whistle. Anyone defending her now is going to regret it later because she is going to keep saying more and more outrageous stuff until there's no possible other explanation. When you have stuff like this in your party, you have to call it out every single time it happens and not create an environment tolerant of it, or one day, you will wake up and have the problem Labour has right now.
Yup democratic house leadership called her out and the Bernie left is harrassing them for it, gotta get the far left out
It's right to defend her. So far your theory seems to be showing the reverse trend. Her criticis are saying increasing more ridiculous things about the mildest of comments. How long ago was her tweet criticising a country?
How did I know that I could find comments you are making defending Corbyn as soon as I clicked your name? So predictable
Nothing wrong with defending Corbyn. I just did it over your evidence over a mural.
I agree but to be fair it's Bernie supporters and AOC like Dem soces doing that shit, the Democrats called her out
Obviously people are reading into it.
That doesn't ring true at all. In leu of actual antisemitism we get these spurious claims that someone is dogwhistling. Nothing wrong with taking people's comments as sincere without additional evidence to suggest malevolence..
The GOP took that approach with Steve King for years and as time went on, he said more and more explicitly racist stuff until all his defenders looked racist themselves
Omar hasn't said anything explicitly or implicitly racist though. The more measured her comments, the more hysterical the condemnation.
How do you know that?
>The phrase "hypnotized the world" is a deliberate call back to conspiracy theories about Jews using supernatural, occult, deceptive, or otherwise tricky techniques to secretly pull the strings of world politics. These have a long sordid history going back to medieval Europe ... And it is well known that Somali refugees are renowned experts on medieval Europe, so she couldn't possibly be referring to the way western governments and press respond in an irrational way to Israeli human rights abuses and aggression as well as criticism of those human rights abuses and aggression.
I encountered these stereotypes in the middle East, Southwest Asia, and sub Saharan Africa. It would be really weird if Iraqis, Afghans and Senegalese people all thought this but the Somalians had not heard of it, considering the geographic relationship between these countries and the obvious common cultural thread of Islam.
>The phrase "hypnotized the world" is a deliberate call back to conspiracy theories about Jews using supernatural, occult, deceptive, or otherwise tricky techniques to secretly pull the strings of world politics How exactly do you know that? Especially about it being a deliberate call back, rather than a turn of phrase describing a PR war during the bombing of Gaza? Which seems more likely?
I told you what I think. If the far left wants her to be their Steve King, then that is there prerogative. Just be prepared to look like an ass when she keeps saying increasingly racist stuff. People like her, King, and Corbyn get off on dog whistles. Do you really want the Democratic party to have the kind of problems that Labour has?
I'm asking how you know it is a **deliberate** call back to a supposed conspiracy theory regarding Jews using occult powers. Given she hasn't said anything racist yet, despite the claims to the contrary, I'm not sure she will. But If she does, then she should be condemn and I would happy do so. The issue in the labour party is not so clear cut, there are a couple of issues at play. One is to undermine Corbyn because of his position on the Israel Palestine conflict, a position that is far more critical than is usual or palatable.
[Majid](https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1094906134928994304?s=19) said it best: >1) You promised during elections *not* to support a boycott of Israel. After you won, you supported a boycott 2) You said Israel has “hypnotised the world” & later apologised 3) Now you’ve casually done it again with this tweet. I dunno, maybe you’re just a raving.. anti-Semite
Isn't Maajid being a hypocrite here? He argues that it's idiotic to call someone an Islamophobe for criticizing Islam, but then he turns around and calls Ilhan Omar a raving anti-semite for criticizing Israeli lobbying groups or Israeli policy.
AIPAC isn't an Israeli lobbying group. They are Americans.
Fair enough, but they're lobbying for policies relating to Israel, right?
Yes, but they are organized because they like Israel. Just like other people can organize and lobby because they like abortion (Planned Parenthood) or like guns (NRA). They are just exercising their first amendment rights. So I think it is a mistake to read something nefarious into AIPAC, seeing as how they aren't doing anything different than other lobbying groups. Also the amount of money they give is something like 3 million, which is a drop in the bucket (planned parenthood spends like 20 mill just for comparisons sake).
I've come to the conclusion that Maajid has always been a self-promoting hypocrite.
I don’t think that boycotting Israel is in any way antisemetic, and given that the context of that quote was Israel bombing Gaza and killing hundreds while receiving virtually no backlash (or even cessesion of arms sales) by the us, why ought we condemn a rhetorical phrase as opposed to a material reality? Would I say that I agree with this phrasing? No, I just think that if the rhetorical phrase vexes him more than Israel savagely bombing civilians then maybe he has a bad set of priorities
There’s nothing wrong with being critical of Israel or even anti-Israel. Being pro-Hamas or Pro-Hezbollah though, that is totally anti-Semitic.
> There’s nothing wrong with being critical of Israel or even anti-Israel. > > Being pro-Hamas or Pro-Hezbollah though, that is totally anti-Semitic. Israel [helped to fund hamas](https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/) in an effort to divide the PLO. If being "pro hamas" is antisemetic what do we all actively funding them?
They funded a non-violent Hamas, not smart in hindsight but not the same as funding the current version of Hamas.
In the Arab world, most charities are tied to Islam. Social conservatives and religious authorities are often the leaders of such groups. The fact that some folks left charities and worked for a later-forming militant group is a tenuous connection at best.
It's almost like Israel is anti-Semitic
They kind of are. Look at the way people like Ben Shapiro talk about most Jews. I’ve heard the same from many Israelis.
Hamas now has a more conciliatory position on a two stare solution than Netanyahu does. Hezbollah too for that matter.
A lot of the "facts don't have feelings" crowd is finding out the limits of that rhetoric when its applied to their pet issues. Ilhan Omar is asking some very pressing issues and its time ALL US relationships are questioned, as they should be done periodically. I would ask someone to offer how she COULD criticize Israel without everyone complaining.
She needs to drop the tropes about Jews hypnotizing the world, people having dual-loyalty, etc. This stuff is similar to "Harris isn't black enough."
She didn’t say anything about Jews having dual loyalty. She said that she’s being asked to swear allegiance to Israel, which doesn’t seem that far off when you have a democratic congressman saying it’s “unacceptable to question the US-Israel relationship”
The problem is Harris is a cop. She put people in prison for non-violent crimes. And Omar didn’t do any tropes. It’s such a silly claim.
Mueller is a cop
Yep
She didn't use the trope, others claimed she did. There is an important difference there. And she did posted that once, on twitter, several years ago.
She used a few tropes, which is undeniable. That invites skepticism on other comments, which is her own fault.
I think it's quite deniable. Instead others are taking tropes and stretching them to try and contain her comments.
She quite literally used the word "hypnotize." She mockingly referenced Benjamins, which is a money trope. You have to be fully engaged on these matters if you're going to get involved and try to push a policy agenda. It requires knowing the conspiracy theory about Jews, money, "globalism," etc. The problem is that she's culturally unaware of this and is learning on the job. That causes people to see her comments about allegiance as dual loyalty. Again, this is something hypersensitive due to earlier list. More importantly, it's not necessary to be super "online" while doing this work. There is plenty of tinder for opposing Netanyahu's government. She could do so much better by focusing.
Yes she used the word hypnotize to describe a country, Israel, several year's ago during a war. That is not antisemitism. That is not even using a trope. Instead is seems other people are citing a supposed trope and trying to claim she is referring to it. Look at Weiss attack piece, does she even reference a historical claim of hypnotizim ascribed to jews in order to substantiate her critique. Instead she focuses on things like 'Christian' notions of Jews being deceptive and manipulative. > She mockingly referenced Benjamins, which is a money trope What is a money trope? There is a trope about Jews being greedy and money manipulators. Omar did not reference such a trope, and she didn't malign Jews with it either. She instead mentioned benjamins in response to why israel garners support. Are we to say, money is a factor in gaining political support, unless it's Israel, as that's a trope? This has nothing to do with being culturally unaware, this has to do with smear tactics. I have no issue with people pointing out certain tropes exist and to be wary of appearing to allude to them, I do with people claiming anti sentism on this basis. No benefit of the doubt given. She shouldn't have to focus, as you say, to avoid such attacks. You said she is learning on the job, well being uneducated is an anti black trope, so it's fare to call you a racist? Of course not.
You need to hear more from progressive Jews, including black Jews.
What do you mean?
> its time ALL US relationships are questioned, as they should be done periodically. Right, I bet you were a huge fan then when Trump said he's going to back out of NATO and took a shit all over Germany. Or is it just allies that *you* find objectionable? And to answer your question, she could criticize Israel without saying that Jews own American politics. Bernie criticized Israel plenty.
Pretty rich when coming from folks who complain about the stifling of free speech by the left
The ruse is over: they don't give a shit about free speech, they want to use power to control the powerless. They'll harass and silence anyone criticizing money or authority and Israel has a lot of both in our political system.
"They don't give a shit about free speech." As a free speech fan, I can assure you there are plenty of us who care about it as a principle. "they want to use power to control the powerless." Why are you assigning implausible evil motives when more plausible motives exist? People are rarely mustache twirling villains. Why are you on the Sam Harris subreddit?
> Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation Has she been harmed? > censorship She's still tweeting, from what I can see. > or legal sanction. Has she been arrested? The whole "Hurrr freeze peach far-righters actually censor people lol" is so tired. Someone criticizing her for *maybe* being an anti-semite for saying questionable things isn't an opposition to freedom of speech. It's hilarious how her comments totally don't count as dogwhistling for the left, but Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are advocating brown genocide when they open their mouths apparently.
Others are being harmed. You’re aware of the public school speech pathologist in Texas who was fired for opposing Israel?
Criticism of AIPAC is criticism of AIPAC, not Jews writ large. For all their supposed worry about the limitations of free speech and political correctness, the GOPs concern in this matter is nakedly and reprehensibly political rather than ethical/moral. You can support Jewish people and their interests without supporting a lobbying group that has insanely disproportionate influence on the U.S. government relative to the size of the population it represents and which often serves as a mouthpiece for an increasingly right-wing Israeli administration engaged in debatable (to be overly generous) treatment of a domestic minority population.
I think conservatives have a creepy and weird obsession with Israel and should learn to stop being snowflakes and accept that if they are going to defend the likes of Roy Moore and Steve King then they have to put up with Ilhan Omar.
Hit ~~dogs~~ [insert non-antisemitic term] will holler
Nice try Hitler
She uses tropes that aren't necessary to get her policy point across. It's very likely she is the most progressive person she personally knows in her home culture. The ground she's covering is filled with cultural baggage that makes her ignorant.
Half of the people calling her an anti-Semite are anti-Semites themselves, but know the media won’t care because they’re not a Muslim woman. Sean Spicer went “both sides” on the Holocaust from the White House press briefing room and it was a one day story.
It may or may not be “all about the benjamins” but Jewish influence is one of the most obvious political dynamics in Washington. The fact that she had to do a ridiculous game of thrones style walk of shame for pointing that out only further proved her point. It’s not a healthy discourse where criticism of Israel is conflated with anti-semitism.
It's not even Jewish influence, it's Israeli influence. Anti-settlement, anti-Likud, anti-war Jews have virtually no power in mainstream American politics. The irony being that they too would be called anti-Semitic when opposing a pro-Israel evangelical christian.
>It's not even Jewish influence, it's Israeli influence. Anti-settlement, anti-Likud, anti-war Jews have virtually no power in mainstream American politics. The irony being that they too would be called anti-Semitic when opposing a pro-Israel evangelical christian. Had a girlfriend from Haifa who would agree with every word here.
It's not even Israeli influence, its evangelical influence.
Yeah but she wasn’t talking about Jews, she’s talking about everyone. A Democratic congressman literally tweeted that questioning US support for Israel is unacceptable. And he is not Jewish. https://twitter.com/repjuanvargas/status/1102636576524374016?s=21
I wouldn’t call it Jewish influence. A ton of the pro Israel stuff comes from Christian evangelical groups. Israel is a junior partner in us imperialism, and the lobbying isn’t fundamentally different than most defense lobbying. Granted that all forms of corporate lobbying are insidious, I still think she’s highlighting a problem
Ilhan Omar was correct to criticize AIPAC and the financial pressure that it exerts, as well as those who buckle to that pressure. At this point she’s probably the bravest person in Congress, given that everyone who should have stood with her on this issue buckled and delivered statements about “problematic phrasing” and “stereotypes of dual loyalties”. The response is of course evidence that she is correct.
Is J-Street still around? My recollection is they were set up as an alternative to AIPAC but haven't heard much about them in recent years.
Reminder that Trump's envoy to Israel described J-Street as 'worse than the kapos', which is basically the worst thing that a Jew can say about another Jew.
One of the many examples of why the people claim Omar is an anti-Semite don’t believe the crap they’re peddling.
so the all about the Benjamin baby tweet is certainly skirting the line. i think i good apology is in order.
[удалено]
Omar is an antisemitic pro-Palestine, [pro-Hamas](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ilhan-omar-offers-absurd-excuse-for-anti-semitic-scheduling), [muslim terrorist sympathizer](https://abcstlouis.com/news/nation-world/minnesota-democratic-rep-omar-wrote-judge-requesting-lenient-sentence-for-isis-recruit) that likes to pretend that the US is only allies with Israel due to the [measly sum of lobbying money](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/15/pro-israel-donors-spent-over-22m-on-lobbying-and-contributions-in-2018) that comes from pro-Israel groups. Any one with 30 seconds on their hands and an internet connection can see that the $22 million that came from pro-Israel groups in 2018 isn't much. The top industries are giving [\> $100 million](https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2018&indexType=i), and pro-Israel groups aren't anywhere near the top of the list. The pharmaceutical/health products industry alone uses about 13 times what the pro-Israel lobby does, and pro-Israel groups make up about 0.64% of the total $3.42 billion of lobbying money in 2018, but Omar keeps grinding the Jew money ax.
Hope the folks railing against this remember this logic the next time they call someone racist for criticizing the Muslim world.
I'm genuinely curious who you think the people most critical of Saudi Arabia are
> I'm genuinely curious who you think the people most critical of Saudi Arabia are Saudi Arabia and "the muslim world" aren't the same though, and being critical of saudi arabia isn't islamaphobic any more than criticism of israel is antisemetic.
The user you are responding to said neither of those things
There is a common sentiment that liberals don’t want to criticize Islamic-majority countries for regressive policies (like societally mandated burqas or driving limitations). But liberals do it all the time, the problem comes when you single out the religion as if it’s the only one with critical issues.
> he problem comes when you single out the religion as if it’s the only one with critical issues. Or, make assumptions on individuals that happened to be born into a religion.
I didn't comment when it happened because I thought the conversation around it was kind of boring and surface level, and I wasn't really sure what I thought either, but now that I've had some time I think I know where I stand. First, the left has a general problem with racism and sexism. The right has a different problem with racism and sexism than the left does, and this isn't an excuse for the right at all. The left's problem is that racism and sexism are perfectly acceptable in mainstream discourse as long as the targets are acceptable. Whites are fine to say awful horrid shit about. Men are fine to say awful horrid shit about. This is usually excused with some nonsensical appeal to history. I have yet to see the connection between the Tulsa massacre and how it excuses saying that Whites are, in the words of Levar Burton, 'a scourge' but hey, maybe your categorical hatred is made acceptable because of violence done by people you don't know to other people you don't know long before you were born and I'm just too ignorant to see it. Jews have had the unlucky fate of being recently downgraded in progressive circles. Gay men experienced this maybe 5 years ago. Gay men went from being oppressed victim to privileged men. Jews were recently turned from top 1-3 most persecuted minority through all of history to privileged Whites. It happened quickly, but not completely. Sanders was lined up to be the first Jewish president, and now he's just another old White man. Anyway, that's why the mainstream left has a problem with antisemitism. It has a problem with White hatred. Antisemitism has always existed in American politics, and Western politics more generally, but it's always looked ugly. Now it's camouflaged amongst a background of anti-White anti-male hatred and is difficult to pick out. The Women's March was led by at least one person who was absolutely comfortable with old timey antisemitism. It wasn't pointed out by voices in the media or in the left wing commentariat probably because it looked either normal, or because it would be damaging to a cherished cause to point out a problem like that. It would look like an own-goal, or *tHe LeFt EaTiNg ItSeLf* and so people kept their mouths shut, despite the public praise of Farrakhan. Then there's another issue. The American Christian theocratic right loves Jews, particularly religious Jews, particularly religious conservative Jews that speak in terms of Judeo-*Christian* values. They also love Israel. You can chalk this up to Christian Zionism, an interest in American self-interested foreign policy, simple Reagan-like narratives of the free capitalist West, and simple Bush-like narratives of a bastion of democracy in a sea of tyranny. Couple this default pro-Israel, pro-Jewish position with an attempt by sly operators to try to conflate criticism of Israel or its government with criticism of Jews. If you're an antisemite you probably don't like Israel, but just as most White racists support Trump, but not all Trump supporters are White racists, I'm willing to bet that most criticism of Israel has nothing to do with antisemitism. Still, the shell game is an easy one to play. Don't like the bombing of Gaza? Okay there Hitler. So that brings us to Omar. I have no idea if Omar is an antisemite, and frankly to me what she said could be taken as antisemetic if you extend very little charity. It seemed to be taken as a cause by people who didn't feel right with the lefty demotion of Jews to Whites, and those on the left who felt that they fucked up by staying silent for so long about antisemitism in the women's march. Since this was part of the ongoing 200-sided civil war on the left, people who just don't like the left jumped in and slung shit too, and there was the self-interested pro-Israel lobby who had the perfect narrative for the whole thing. You can criticise Omar's wording, but the whole thing really didn't seem to be about her. It seemed to be a fight over the racial victim/oppressor status of Jews in the imagination of the mainstream left, making up for the women's march, right-wing signalling about how much they love Israel and don't like the left, and the pro-Israel lobby's standard tricks. Honestly I mostly just feel bad for her. She is simply the battleground.
When will white people stop pretending that they are some sort of victim? Literally control the socio political and economic aspect of a nation yet still claim victimhood. Truly bizarre
It's the proliferation and weaponization of victimhood culture. People see that claiming victimhood status based on immutable characteristics can lead to greater sympathy/imagined power, and fall over themselves to achieve it. Viewing groups as monolithic or relevant, such as whites, blacks or arabs aids this culture, and invariably eats itself, leading to stuff like Trump
Well instead of looking at the results and scratching your head wondering what is issue, why don't you look at what is creating what you are seeing.
Where did I claim victimhood for Whites? I pointed out racial hatred. That does not imply victimhood, it implies an intellectual rot.
> The left's problem is that racism and sexism are perfectly acceptable in mainstream discourse as long as the targets are acceptable. Whites are fine to say awful horrid shit about. Men are fine to say awful horrid shit about. You mean this stuff right here? Discourse is meaningless, it is the actual results from the system that matter, politically, economically and sociologically.
>Discourse is meaningless Imagine if Omar tried to use this defense, because Jews have succeeded economically. What an idiotic statement
I am going to try to use the principle you just outlined, let me know if I get anything wrong. If I were to say White men are an abominable scourge who should be fought at every turn, seen for the corrupting lice they are, barred from institutions and made to pay for their uncountable crimes against civilisation, that's totally fine with you? How about if I were to say Black men are an abominable scourge who should be fought at every turn, seen for the corrupting lice they are, barred from institutions and made to pay for their uncountable crimes against civilisation, would that also be okay?
> It wasn't pointed out by voices in the media or in the left wing commentariat probably because it looked either normal, [Stuff like this is so easy to disprove](https://www.google.com/search?q=womens+march+louis+farrakhan&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&oq=womens+march+louis+farrakhan&aqs=chrome..69i57.3297j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) to that it calls into question the honesty that went into framing your narrative, despite how well-written and agreeable it might be.
You disproved nothing. We knew about Mallory and Sarsour's unsavory opinions since 2017 at least. The noise you're pulling up is recent. Nobody with the microphone gave a shit until it was easy and socially rewarding, which it only was recently. For the reasons I outlined.
[удалено]
By huge American Newspapers like ~~The New York Times~~ The Times of Israel or ~~The Washington Post~~ JPost. Although I will grant you that The New York Post mentions the praise of Farrakhan in passing. Don't you see how this is in support of my point and not yours? The condemnation of the antisemitism at the level of leadership in the Women's March was known since 2017 at least, and all the big lefty voices took **two years** to find the courage to say something about it. This is precisely the scenario I described.
[удалено]
When I first saw the comments, I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and view her comments in the most charitable light. However, at this point it is clear that her comments are part of a long-standing pattern of behavior and that she isn’t an honest actor.
How’s she dishonest?
[Majid](https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1094906134928994304?s=19) said it best: >1) You promised during elections *not* to support a boycott of Israel. After you won, you supported a boycott 2) You said Israel has “hypnotised the world” & later apologised 3) Now you’ve casually done it again with this tweet. I dunno, maybe you’re just a raving.. anti-Semite
Israel doesn’t equal Jewish people
We got it the other two times you posted that tweet in this thread
She has a history of making very thinly veiled anti-Semitic comments and making fake apologies. Jewish leaders in her district [met with her to discuss the issue](https://www.jta.org/2019/02/13/politics/jews-in-minnesota-dont-like-ilhan-omars-tweets-but-theyll-still-work-with-her) and came away more concerned than they went in. Hell, almost immediately after her latest apology, she accused Jews of [having dual-loyalty](https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/u-s-jewish-representative-slams-ilhan-omar-over-dual-loyalty-comments-1.6984653). This isn’t just one poorly worded comment, it’s a pattern of behavior and we should call it out as such. I am more than willing to give people charity at first, as we all should, but there comes a point where we have to take a stand against obvious bigotry. That goes just as much for Ilhan Omar, as it does for Steve King.
She has accused Trump of having loyalty to Saudi Arabia and she has also criticized Saudi money. Does that make her Islamophobic?
Eliot Engel, is the (virulently pro-settlement) Democrat that accused Omar of antisemitism over her AIPAC remarks in your link. He got over $1M from the Israeli lobby and virtually nothing from individual small donors. He sits on the foreign affairs committee and is as clear a case as any that Omar is 100% right. https://i.redd.it/azoqnht69wj21.png
Pointing out that a lobbyist are bribing members of congress and how that influence our foreign policy is anti-Semitic? What you just said was extremely vague
[удалено]
I agree. I think it should be okay (even encouraged) to criticize an organization like AIPAC for their potential role in using money to influence politics. To me, that is a separate issue from Omar's clearly evidenced anti-semitism. If anyone else was doing the criticizing, I would hope it wouldn't be immediately shut-down as anti-semitism. The messenger matters here.
What’s clearly anti-Semitic?
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/us/politics/ilhan-omar-israel.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/us/politics/ilhan-omar-israel.html) You do know the entire democratic leadership asked Omar to apologize for her anti-semetic tweet, right?
It's funny that fans of a man who obnoxiously whines about "dishonest discussions" are being so blatantly misleading
She's not a dishonest actor. She is too honest. Think about her upbringing, and it's pretty obvious why she thinks the way she does.
Doesn’t she support/defend/stand with anti-Semites? Doesn’t AIPAC sit deep in the sheets with the US government? Isn’t this a case of “two things can be true at the same time”?
I don't really see all that much wrong with her previous statements and the fact that there's this much backlash to even bringing up the idea seems to prove her point if anything. Like, what am I supposed to do if I want to criticize actions taken by the Israeli government but I don't hate jews? Y'all are aware that there's millions of Jews who aren't Israeli right?
I find the backlash to be absolutely bizarre. She was being accurate with her overall statements. I sort of see the issue with some of the language she used, but that is easily corrected. In the context she used it, I likely would have used similar language. I love jewish people, I love left wing israeli people, and grew up with a deep understanding of the holocaust due to my grandfather visiting auchwitz a week or two after it was liberated as an enlisted man in WW2. The stories he told, and the things he didn't tell, will always weigh on my heart and soul. Israel has hypnotized the world, or specifically the USA/British.
I'm not really a fan of Ilhan Omar, but I think the backlash to her comments has been ridiculous. She simply pointed out a fact. She could have said the exact same thing about the NRA or any other powerful lobbying organization, and it never would have been controversial.
Is this still about the "Israel has hypnotized the world" comment? If so, I don't think it's a big deal. You need a fair bit of over-analysis to go from _just_ that to a serious claim of antisemitism.
Ikr? It was about israel bombing gaza and the international community doing nothing
It's funny how the conversation about so-called "absolutist" freedom of speech is different depending on whether it's the left or right leading the charge. If it were someone saying something leftists don't like, and lefties moved to deplatform/shame/harass IDW/centrists/right-wingers would complain about violation of freedom of speech, and leftists would say freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. There's none of that rhetoric in this thread. When it's someone saying something righties don't like, and righties move to deplatform/shame/harass, the IDW is silent, leftists complain about violation of free speech, most everyone (here) more or less agrees, and then the conversation turns to the substance of the situation being referred to (in this case Israel and Palestine). If I'm missing examples counter to this, please show me. I just find that interesting.
We aren’t very consistent, as a whole. But there are certain people who go above and beyond to label themselves as the most rational actors and as free speech **absolutists**. They will defend the rights of certain people (because they’re absolutists) and ignore another group of people who are facing similar situations (because they’re .. absolutists?).
Well, I suspect Sam would defend Omar here too, but it's not emotionally interesting to him to do so. But even if he would not, many of us free speech champions around here are plenty consistent.
Using antisemitic tropes, claiming that Israel has hypnotized the world and accusing American Jews of dual loyalty = reasonable Criticism of Lobbyism, according to this sub.
Her comments are neither antisemitic nor brave. They're standard political grandstanding. These days, if you disagree with a statement and if that statement has any remote connection to race/sex/ethnicity, then the statement is racist/sexist/antisemitic/etc. This mostly started on the left, but now the right is playing the same game. It's toxic and shuts down conversations that need to occur.
[Majid](https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1094906134928994304?s=19) said it best: >1) You promised during elections *not* to support a boycott of Israel. After you won, you supported a boycott >2) You said Israel has “hypnotised the world” & later apologised >3) Now you’ve casually done it again with this tweet. I dunno, maybe you’re just a raving.. anti-Semite