The Rush to Judge Ilhan Omar

[Anonymous]

I think the real problem here is those who are leaders in the BDS movement:

An Israeli report investigated 13 international BDS organizations and found that some 30 terror activists held senior positions, two thirds of whom had spent time in prison for their crimes, which include murder. This is a real issue.

https://4il.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/MSA-Terrorists-In-Suits-English-1.pdf

[Anonymous]

"Her claim is factually based if not 100% true. It may be hyperbolic, but in terms of how politicians express themselves, not unusually so. In any case, she apologized."

OMG

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The bill itself does not band BDC support - it merely deconflicts federal law from state law relative to the commerce clause. It is still up to states to pass it and courts to determine its constitutionality (and note, not all State BDS laws are the same, so some may pass constitutional muster while others do not) So I think the claim that the proposed federal law limits 1st amendment rights is in fact disingenuous. I note that despite that plenty of moderate Democrats, pro Israel Democrats, and Jewish Democrats opposed the bill. Some of the very same people are among those very troubled by Rep Omar's remarks.

The bill clearly enables governments to punish those who exercise their 1st Amendment right to free expression. I linked to two examples earlier. Why should a school teacher be fired because she supports BDS (as long as that doesn't interfere with her teaching of course)?

Anonymous wrote:
The constant attempts to redirect from Omar's hateful speech, to the question of the BDS bill or middle eastern politics, reminds me of people on the right, whom, when one calls out hatefulness by Trump, try to change the subject to the impacts of illegal immigration. Just as one can oppose illegal immigration and denounce racist dogwhistles, one can oppose the BDS bill and denounce antisemitic dogwhistles.

To the contrary, I want to focus attention directly on Omar's speech which I believe has been mischaracterized and was not hateful. Her tweet about the Benjamins was directly in response to a question about why Senators were supporting a bill that legalizes the punishment of American citizens who exercise their 1st Amendment rights in order to protect the interests of a foreign country. Omar's response was incomplete (there are factors beyond money) and much too closely echoed the trope of Jewish financiers controlling the government. Omar was correct to apologize, but pro-Israel contributions do play an important role in US politics and it is not hateful to point that out.

[Anonymous]

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.

Right. Sort of like, I’m opposed to gay marriage but I don’t think that makes me homophobic or “hateful.”

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bill itself does not band BDC support - it merely deconflicts federal law from state law relative to the commerce clause. It is still up to states to pass it and courts to determine its constitutionality (and note, not all State BDS laws are the same, so some may pass constitutional muster while others do not) So I think the claim that the proposed federal law limits 1st amendment rights is in fact disingenuous. I note that despite that plenty of moderate Democrats, pro Israel Democrats, and Jewish Democrats opposed the bill. Some of the very same people are among those very troubled by Rep Omar's remarks.

The bill clearly enables governments to punish those who exercise their 1st Amendment right to free expression. I linked to two examples earlier. Why should a school teacher be fired because she supports BDS (as long as that doesn't interfere with her teaching of course)?

Anonymous wrote:
The constant attempts to redirect from Omar's hateful speech, to the question of the BDS bill or middle eastern politics, reminds me of people on the right, whom, when one calls out hatefulness by Trump, try to change the subject to the impacts of illegal immigration. Just as one can oppose illegal immigration and denounce racist dogwhistles, one can oppose the BDS bill and denounce antisemitic dogwhistles.

To the contrary, I want to focus attention directly on Omar's speech which I believe has been mischaracterized and was not hateful. Her tweet about the Benjamins was directly in response to a question about why Senators were supporting a bill that legalizes the punishment of American citizens who exercise their 1st Amendment rights in order to protect the interests of a foreign country. Omar's response was incomplete (there are factors beyond money) and much too closely echoed the trope of Jewish financiers controlling the government. Omar was correct to apologize, but pro-Israel contributions do play an important role in US politics and it is not hateful to point that out.

The problem a lot of organizations are having with BDS is the controversial backgrounds of some of their backers

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bill itself does not band BDC support - it merely deconflicts federal law from state law relative to the commerce clause. It is still up to states to pass it and courts to determine its constitutionality (and note, not all State BDS laws are the same, so some may pass constitutional muster while others do not) So I think the claim that the proposed federal law limits 1st amendment rights is in fact disingenuous. I note that despite that plenty of moderate Democrats, pro Israel Democrats, and Jewish Democrats opposed the bill. Some of the very same people are among those very troubled by Rep Omar's remarks.

The bill clearly enables governments to punish those who exercise their 1st Amendment right to free expression. I linked to two examples earlier. Why should a school teacher be fired because she supports BDS (as long as that doesn't interfere with her teaching of course)?

Anonymous wrote:
The constant attempts to redirect from Omar's hateful speech, to the question of the BDS bill or middle eastern politics, reminds me of people on the right, whom, when one calls out hatefulness by Trump, try to change the subject to the impacts of illegal immigration. Just as one can oppose illegal immigration and denounce racist dogwhistles, one can oppose the BDS bill and denounce antisemitic dogwhistles.

To the contrary, I want to focus attention directly on Omar's speech which I believe has been mischaracterized and was not hateful. Her tweet about the Benjamins was directly in response to a question about why Senators were supporting a bill that legalizes the punishment of American citizens who exercise their 1st Amendment rights in order to protect the interests of a foreign country. Omar's response was incomplete (there are factors beyond money) and much too closely echoed the trope of Jewish financiers controlling the government. Omar was correct to apologize, but pro-Israel contributions do play an important role in US politics and it is not hateful to point that out.

I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on that statement but she does bear watching. My guess is this is not the last of the controversy.

[Anonymous]

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.

Right. Sort of like, I’m opposed to gay marriage but I don’t think that makes me homophobic or “hateful.”

Interestingly enough, one could be against gay marriage from a religious ceremony standpoint but have no problem with gay individuals marrying in civil unions and thus getting all the benefits of any married couple.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am sick of hearing every criticism of Israel or those who demand unconditional support for Israel recast as an anti-Semitic “trope.” It is largely simply an effort to silence criticism or debate. Omar has the same right to speak out as every other member of Congress, including older Jewish members in their 60s and 70s.

Your first sentence is simply not true. It is certainly the case that not every criticism of Israel is equivalent to anti-semitism. But some criticism of Israel is in fact grounded in anti-semitism.

Just like those that state that every person who criticizes Israel is anti-semitic, are dead wrong, so too are those who say that to be anti-Israel (or anti-zionist) never has anything to do with anti-semitism. We don't live in a world of absolutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sick of hearing every criticism of Israel or those who demand unconditional support for Israel recast as an anti-Semitic “trope.” It is largely simply an effort to silence criticism or debate. Omar has the same right to speak out as every other member of Congress, including older Jewish members in their 60s and 70s.

Your first sentence is simply not true. It is certainly the case that not every criticism of Israel is equivalent to anti-semitism. But some criticism of Israel is in fact grounded in anti-semitism.

Just like those that state that every person who criticizes Israel is anti-semitic, are dead wrong, so too are those who say that to be anti-Israel (or anti-zionist) never has anything to do with anti-semitism. We don't live in a world of absolutes.

You just rephrased what the PP said, after saying it's simply not true.

[Anonymous]

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.

Right. Sort of like, I’m opposed to gay marriage but I don’t think that makes me homophobic or “hateful.”

You oppose equality for fellow citizens. Israel is not a person.

[Anonymous]

A bit more about BDS and its history as an organization. I think it's key to understanding why some have a real problem with people in their employ supporting it through boycott:

https://israelbehindthenews.com/exclusive-undercover-investigative-films-expose-inner-workings-of-bds/14626/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sick of hearing every criticism of Israel or those who demand unconditional support for Israel recast as an anti-Semitic “trope.” It is largely simply an effort to silence criticism or debate. Omar has the same right to speak out as every other member of Congress, including older Jewish members in their 60s and 70s.

Your first sentence is simply not true. It is certainly the case that not every criticism of Israel is equivalent to anti-semitism. But some criticism of Israel is in fact grounded in anti-semitism.

Just like those that state that every person who criticizes Israel is anti-semitic, are dead wrong, so too are those who say that to be anti-Israel (or anti-zionist) never has anything to do with anti-semitism. We don't live in a world of absolutes.

You just rephrased what the PP said, after saying it's simply not true.

Uh, not quite. PP literally said "I am sick of hearing every criticism of Israel... recast as an anti-Semitic trope." That's an absolute statement that is not true. Not every criticism is recast as anti-semitic.

[Anonymous]

There are a quite a few Members of the House and Senate who do not come to Washington with a strong opinion or position about Israeli affairs, and so they are prone to follow the path of least political risk. This is what Members do on many issues that are not among their personal priorities.

In cases that involve powerful and well-funded advocacy groups, the political calculation is not necessarily that they would receive contributions and support for voting with the powerful group, but may be about the fear that the group and its supporters would mobilize a lot of money and advocacy against them if they vote against.

AIPAC operates in much the same was as the NRA and the other major single-issue lobbying groups in this regard.

[Anonymous]

The bill clearly enables governments to punish those who exercise their 1st Amendment right to free expression. I linked to two examples earlier. Why should a school teacher be fired because she supports BDS (as long as that doesn't interfere with her teaching of course)?

That is a question for individual states to decide. IF the desired to do so conflicts with the 1st amendment, our system provides for judicial review, including appeal to federal courts. It does not require the Congress to use the interstate commerce clause to regulate state laws that MAY be unconstitutional. Now some have opposed the deconflicting law (including again, many Israel supporters and many who find Omar's language problematic) but the bill itself is not a violation of the first amendment, and supporting it is not "pledging allegiance to Israel"