The Rush to Judge Ilhan Omar

[Anonymous]

I'm a liberal Dem. This woman is causing too much trouble for the party

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a liberal Dem. This woman is causing too much trouble for the party

I'm an R. I'm quickly becoming Omar's biggest fan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a liberal Dem. This woman is causing too much trouble for the party

It's only considered 'trouble' because the israeli lobby, as described by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, have taken over the leadership of the Democratic party.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Three Democratic Presidential Nomination candidates have issued statements about the controversy:

Bernie Sanders:

Anti-Semitism is a hateful and dangerous ideology which must be vigorously opposed in the United States and around the world. We must not, however, equate anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel. Rather, we must develop an even-handed Middle East policy which brings Israelis and Palestinians together for a lasting peace. What I fear is going on in the House now is an effort to target Congresswoman Omar as a way of stifling that debate. That’s wrong.


Elizabeth Warren:

We have a moral duty to combat hateful ideologies in our own country and around the world -- and that includes both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. In a democracy, we can and should have an open, respectful debate about the Middle East that focuses on policy. Branding criticism of Israel as automatically anti-Semitic has a chilling effect on our public discourse and makes it harder to achieve a peaceful solution between Israelis and Palestinians. Threats of violence -- like those made against Rep. Omar -- are never acceptable.

Kamala Harris:

We all have a responsibility to speak out against anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism, and all forms of hatred and bigotry, especially as we see a spike in hate crimes in America. But like some of my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, I am concerned that the spotlight being put on Congresswoman Omar may put her at risk. We should be having a sound, respectful discussion about policy. You can both support Israel and be loyal to our country. I also believe there is a difference between criticism of policy or political leaders, and anti-Semitism. At the end of the day, we need a two-state solution and a commitment to peace, human rights and democracy by all leaders in the region -- and a commitment by our country to help achieve that.

bernie is the best on this issue because like 'nixon to china', him being jewish allows him to speak more honestly on this topic whereas non-jews have to always tip-toe, otherwise get hammered like Ilhan.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a liberal Dem. This woman is causing too much trouble for the party

It's only considered 'trouble' because the israeli lobby, as described by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, have taken over the leadership of the Democratic party.

I don't think this is true. It is another case of the Democratic leadership responding to critics acting in bad faith and not taking time to get the facts. The Democrats needs to learn to take time to catch their breath and not immediately cower in front of every manufactured outrage. Now they have created a self-inflicted problem for themselves.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a liberal Dem. This woman is causing too much trouble for the party

It's only considered 'trouble' because the israeli lobby, as described by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, have taken over the leadership of the Democratic party.

I don't think this is true. It is another case of the Democratic leadership responding to critics acting in bad faith and not taking time to get the facts. The Democrats needs to learn to take time to catch their breath and not immediately cower in front of every manufactured outrage. Now they have created a self-inflicted problem for themselves.

Matt Yglesias has written about this a bunch as have others. Israel is a wedge issue in the democratic party because leadership is beholden to current hyper-pro israel posture whereas the base isn't.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/29/14102754/kerry-israel-speech

Israel, for example, is an issue on which Democrats are fairly badly divided. Most Democrats — broadly in line with Obama — have a liberal-ish view on Israel that emphasizes support for a two-state solution, a democratic version of Zionism, and support of Israel’s hard security needs but not its expansive claims for territory. Most Democrats also simply don’t see this as a particularly pressing issue.

But there is a substantial minority of Democrats — including a number of important elected leaders — who line up with conservatives in steadfastly supporting an aggressive vision of Israeli nationalism. Meanwhile, on a grassroots level many rank-and-file liberals thirst for a more critical line on the conflict than Obama or other party leaders have been willing to take. Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer condemned the UN resolution and criticized Obama for allowing it through. Bernie Sanders, by contrast, pushed (unsuccessfully) to change the Democratic Party platform to condemn Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a liberal Dem. This woman is causing too much trouble for the party

It's only considered 'trouble' because the israeli lobby, as described by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, have taken over the leadership of the Democratic party.

I don't think this is true. It is another case of the Democratic leadership responding to critics acting in bad faith and not taking time to get the facts. The Democrats needs to learn to take time to catch their breath and not immediately cower in front of every manufactured outrage. Now they have created a self-inflicted problem for themselves.

BTW I worked for Eliot Engel for a short while - the atmosphere of the staff had an overarching focus on israel/middle east/jewish issues. It was clear what was the top priority for him.

It isn't - bad faith- top democratic leadership truly is in line with a likudnik and christian zionist mindset.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a liberal Dem. This woman is causing too much trouble for the party

It's only considered 'trouble' because the israeli lobby, as described by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, have taken over the leadership of the Democratic party.

I don't think this is true. It is another case of the Democratic leadership responding to critics acting in bad faith and not taking time to get the facts. The Democrats needs to learn to take time to catch their breath and not immediately cower in front of every manufactured outrage. Now they have created a self-inflicted problem for themselves.

BTW I worked for Eliot Engel for a short while - the atmosphere of the staff had an overarching focus on israel/middle east/jewish issues. It was clear what was the top priority for him.

It isn't - bad faith- top democratic leadership truly is in line with a likudnik and christian zionist mindset.

That may be true for Engel, though even he may be softening a little. It may also be true to an extent for Hoyer, but I don't think it is true for Pelosi or many other in the broader leadership. The bad faith was on the part of those who hyped the mischaracterization of Omar's remarks. The Democratic leadership bought that mischaracterization and is now having having a difficult time backing off of it.

[Anonymous]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/ilhan-omar-anti-semitism-dual-loyalty-trump.html

Another interesting perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/ilhan-omar-anti-semitism-dual-loyalty-trump.html

Another interesting perspective.

It isn't very interesting. Friedman's take was better in that he atleast acknowledges the pervasive power of israeli lobbying and influence in the country AND also criticizes Ilhan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In America, is there space to be anti-Israel and not be anti-semetic? From the controversy surrounding Rep. Omar's comments, it appears to me that the only choice for Americans is to be pro-Israel, or be labeled anti-semetic. Lastly, not all jewish people are semetic. Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity. Just because Ivanka is jewish, dioesn't mean she's semetic.

Judaism, according to some, is an ethnic religion.

It is a religion based on the relationship of a people to G-d. A concept alien to Christianity, and handled somewhat differently in Islam.

That gentiles are debating what Judaism is should I hope make people uncomfortable. Peace means Jews stop questioning Palestinian identity, and Palestinians and their supporters stop questioning Jewish identity.

Palestinians are not questioning Jewish identity. They are questioning Israel's claim to the land they own because Israel says god told them this land is theirs.

[Anonymous]

This is a great article:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/ilhan-omar-alleggiance-resolution-democrats-anti-semitism-israel-palestine.html

Ilhan Omar Has a Less Bigoted Position on Israel Than Almost All of Her Colleagues

The problem with AIPAC is not that it pushes American lawmakers to show deference to the interests of another country. The problem is that it pushes them to show deference to a country that practices de facto apartheid rule in much of the territory it controls. If there were a lobby pushing Congress to put the humanitarian needs of Bangladesh over the immediate economic interests of Americans — by imposing a steep carbon tax and drastically increasing foreign aid to that low-lying nation — would the left decry the idea that such lobbying was “okay?” Of course not. Because progressives aren’t hypernationalists. And I don’t think Omar is either. So she shouldn’t frame her opposition to the Israel lobby in nationalist terms. The problem isn’t Congress’s “allegiance to a foreign country,” but its complicity in Jewish supremacy in the West Bank, an inhuman blockade in Gaza, and discrimination against Arab-Israelis in Israel proper.

Speaking at AIPAC’s conference last year, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer suggested that Israel did not need to end any of these practices — because the Arabs wouldn’t make peace with the Jewish State, even if it did:
Now, some say there are some who argue the settlements are the reason there’s not peace … some say it’s the borders … Now, let me tell you why — my view, why we don’t have peace. Because the fact of the matter is that too many Palestinians and too many Arabs do not want any Jewish state in the Middle East. The view of Palestinians is simple, the Europeans treated the Jews badly culminating in the Holocaust and they gave them our land as compensation.

Of course, we say it’s our land, the Torah says it, but they don’t believe in the Torah. So that’s the reason there is not peace. They invent other reasons, but they do not believe in a Jewish state and that is why we, in America, must stand strong with Israel through thick and thin.
When Schumer says that America “must stand strong with Israel,” he means that it must block any and all efforts to liberate Palestinians from race-based oppression.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

different PP than the one you are responding to

Fatah officially believes in a two state solution. As does, BTW, Likud and BiBi. Both have done things that have made achieving a two state soloution more difficult, IMO

That Gaza, where there are no Israeli boots on the ground, and no Israeli settlements, all having removed by the IDF under Sharon, and where "Occupation" is a matter of a continued sea blockade necessitated by the shipment of rockets to Hamas, is equated with the situation on the West Bank, is part of why even nominally pro two state leftist critics of Israel are not taken seriously in Israel, even by the mainstream left.


By the way, do you have a link to where Omar says she supports a two state solution, with one Palestinian state and one Jewish state?

Netanyahu is on record that he will not allow a two-state solution to happen. Stop lying.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a liberal Dem. This woman is causing too much trouble for the party

It's only considered 'trouble' because the israeli lobby, as described by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, have taken over the leadership of the Democratic party.

I don't think this is true. It is another case of the Democratic leadership responding to critics acting in bad faith and not taking time to get the facts. The Democrats needs to learn to take time to catch their breath and not immediately cower in front of every manufactured outrage. Now they have created a self-inflicted problem for themselves.

+100

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a liberal Dem. This woman is causing too much trouble for the party

It's only considered 'trouble' because the israeli lobby, as described by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, have taken over the leadership of the Democratic party.

I don't think this is true. It is another case of the Democratic leadership responding to critics acting in bad faith and not taking time to get the facts. The Democrats needs to learn to take time to catch their breath and not immediately cower in front of every manufactured outrage. Now they have created a self-inflicted problem for themselves.

BTW I worked for Eliot Engel for a short while - the atmosphere of the staff had an overarching focus on israel/middle east/jewish issues. It was clear what was the top priority for him.

It isn't - bad faith- top democratic leadership truly is in line with a likudnik and christian zionist mindset.

That may be true for Engel, though even he may be softening a little. It may also be true to an extent for Hoyer, but I don't think it is true for Pelosi or many other in the broader leadership. The bad faith was on the part of those who hyped the mischaracterization of Omar's remarks. The Democratic leadership bought that mischaracterization and is now having having a difficult time backing off of it.

I do not think there is a single Democrat who would not prefer a centrist or center left govt over a Likud govt. You may be using "likudnik" to refer to positions held by Israelis and well to the left of Likud and their American supporters.

As for the remarks, I urge reading this

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/ilhan-omars-dual-loyalty-charge-was-anti-semitic/584314/

There is no doubt a response is needed. The problem was that NDP wanted to pass something early enough to get it off the table before HR1 comes up tomorrow, and so tried to do a quick draft "top down".

But she will get this resolved. As Rep. Raskin says, people have lost a lot of money betting against Nancy Pelosi.