The Rush to Judge Ilhan Omar

[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.

Isn’t peace that Israelis stop taking Palestinian land and allow Palestinians to work as Israelis do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, the Dems are expanding the resolution to include anti-Muslim, anti-racism, anti-homophobia, etc.

It kind of reminds me of when "Black Lives Matter" came together and people started saying, "All Lives Matter."

So do you find the expanded inclusiveness agreeable?

(Never mimd that BLM was not a government resolution)

Did BLM want to hear that noise? Do people raising awareness for brain cancer want to told "But isn't all cancer bad?" There's your answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, the Dems are expanding the resolution to include anti-Muslim, anti-racism, anti-homophobia, etc.

It kind of reminds me of when "Black Lives Matter" came together and people started saying, "All Lives Matter."

So do you find the expanded inclusiveness agreeable?

(Never mimd that BLM was not a government resolution)

Did BLM want to hear that noise? Do people raising awareness for brain cancer want to told "But isn't all cancer bad?" There's your answer.

So you agreed with BLM's objections? Just trying to see where you're coming from here.

[Anonymous]

Omar is going for controversial. IMO. Hey, if the Bachelor isn't going to pick you, at least stay on the show long enough and attract enough attention, negative or otherwise, to ensure people remember who you are.

With all the problems the US has, all the issues to be worked on, Dems are sucking up time drafting censuring resolutions directed at one who is supposed to be somewhat agreeable to their agenda. They are just as bad as the Republicans.

Nobody wants to drain the swamp...they want to be the oldest, smelliest, ugliest creature in the swamp and swim for infinity in the muck.

[Anonymous]

I don't always agree with Tom Friedman, but this is a very concise summation of where he thinks Omar is on the issue. It's worth the two minute read.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/06/opinion/israel-ilhan-omar.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, the Dems are expanding the resolution to include anti-Muslim, anti-racism, anti-homophobia, etc.

It kind of reminds me of when "Black Lives Matter" came together and people started saying, "All Lives Matter."

Note what is missing.... anti-Christian.
It looks like the Foreign Affairs committee is now drafting the resolution. I guess the other one(s) that was/were drafted could not pass.
It also seems as if Pelosi is not in control of her caucus.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I don't always agree with Tom Friedman, but this is a very concise summation of where he thinks Omar is on the issue. It's worth the two minute read.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/06/opinion/israel-ilhan-omar.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

His main issue seems to be that she supports BDS, while also having criticisms of it. But, he like her, doesn't believe in passing laws against it. But, in this part he is completely wrong:

"And one issue she seems to have seized on is the alleged dual loyalty of Jews to America and Israel."

As I have said repeatedly, this is a mischaracterization of what she said at Busboys and Poets. She didn't question or suggest dual loyalty among Jews. To the contrary, she said she understood their support for the country and compared it to her children's support for Somalia. What she questioned was political pressure to support another country, the example being the anti-BDS law which enables punishing US citizens for exercising their 1st Amendment rights in order to protect the interests of Israel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, the Dems are expanding the resolution to include anti-Muslim, anti-racism, anti-homophobia, etc.

It kind of reminds me of when "Black Lives Matter" came together and people started saying, "All Lives Matter."

So do you find the expanded inclusiveness agreeable?

(Never mimd that BLM was not a government resolution)

Did BLM want to hear that noise? Do people raising awareness for brain cancer want to told "But isn't all cancer bad?" There's your answer.

So you agreed with BLM's objections? Just trying to see where you're coming from here.

Yes, like I said above. Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Isn’t peace that Israelis stop taking Palestinian land and allow Palestinians to work as Israelis do?

There is still some minor land confiscation on the West Bank, tied to some disputes over state and private land ownership. There is also the construction of settlements on state land (under Turkish law, most vacant non farmed land was state owned, and the Occupation Authority controls that land, and sometimes leases it to settlers) I expect that a govt under Benny Gantz (the centrist challenging BiBi) would stop that, though he will disappoint American lefties in most ways).

Not sure what you mean work as Israelis do. Israeli arabs have the same legal right to work as Israeli Jews. There are naturally limits on work permits for people from the territories. Passage from the territories to Israel by people who are not Israeli citizens is naturally impact by day to day security issues.

But I was not speaking to what we as participants in the discourse must do. I will admit to having said "Palestinians are really just Arabs, its a made up identity for political purposes" I have become convinced that trying to define the other is not helpful, and have stopped doing that. I think that gentiles trying to decide, based on limited familiarity with the history and culture, whether Jews are a nation or religion or what, and then decide their political rights based on that, are engaging in the same mistake I used to make wrt Palestinians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, the Dems are expanding the resolution to include anti-Muslim, anti-racism, anti-homophobia, etc.

It kind of reminds me of when "Black Lives Matter" came together and people started saying, "All Lives Matter."

Note what is missing.... anti-Christian.
It looks like the Foreign Affairs committee is now drafting the resolution. I guess the other one(s) that was/were drafted could not pass.
It also seems as if Pelosi is not in control of her caucus.

Its not that it couldnt pass, its that Pelosi didn't want to pass it over the votes of a large number of Dem members. And I agree it is more powerful with a larger vote - that is worth some edits. Whether they are good will depend on the final product, I don't feel a need to judge right now. Mostly I trust Pelosi more than I trust her critics on left and right.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't always agree with Tom Friedman, but this is a very concise summation of where he thinks Omar is on the issue. It's worth the two minute read.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/06/opinion/israel-ilhan-omar.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

His main issue seems to be that she supports BDS, while also having criticisms of it. But, he like her, doesn't believe in passing laws against it. But, in this part he is completely wrong:

"And one issue she seems to have seized on is the alleged dual loyalty of Jews to America and Israel."

As I have said repeatedly, this is a mischaracterization of what she said at Busboys and Poets. She didn't question or suggest dual loyalty among Jews. To the contrary, she said she understood their support for the country and compared it to her children's support for Somalia. What she questioned was political pressure to support another country, the example being the anti-BDS law which enables punishing US citizens for exercising their 1st Amendment rights in order to protect the interests of Israel.

And one more time, the FEDERAL law does not punish anyone. The anti BDS bills in states vary. Opponents of BDS believe that BDS is not just a threat to Israels interests, but to US interests and to justice. And if her issue was support, she did not need to use the word allegiance. And yes, its fully appropriate for US citizens to pressure their representative to support causes they believe in. As it happens I believe Omar gets support from CAIR, which supports things not everyone agrees with.

[Anonymous]

There is also the construction of settlements on state land (under Turkish law, most vacant non farmed land was state owned, and the Occupation Authority controls that land, and sometimes leases it to settlers) I expect that a govt under Benny Gantz (the centrist challenging BiBi) would stop that,

To clarify, I believe he would stop settlement expansion (excluding areas adjacent to the 1948 cease fire line) not that he would expel the settlers from the homes they live in (and in some cases, settlements they were born in). That is unlikely short of a peace deal, and that is not likely in the short term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't always agree with Tom Friedman, but this is a very concise summation of where he thinks Omar is on the issue. It's worth the two minute read.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/06/opinion/israel-ilhan-omar.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

His main issue seems to be that she supports BDS, while also having criticisms of it. But, he like her, doesn't believe in passing laws against it. But, in this part he is completely wrong:

"And one issue she seems to have seized on is the alleged dual loyalty of Jews to America and Israel."

As I have said repeatedly, this is a mischaracterization of what she said at Busboys and Poets. She didn't question or suggest dual loyalty among Jews. To the contrary, she said she understood their support for the country and compared it to her children's support for Somalia. What she questioned was political pressure to support another country, the example being the anti-BDS law which enables punishing US citizens for exercising their 1st Amendment rights in order to protect the interests of Israel.

And one more time, the FEDERAL law does not punish anyone. The anti BDS bills in states vary. Opponents of BDS believe that BDS is not just a threat to Israels interests, but to US interests and to justice. And if her issue was support, she did not need to use the word allegiance. And yes, its fully appropriate for US citizens to pressure their representative to support causes they believe in. As it happens I believe Omar gets support from CAIR, which supports things not everyone agrees with.

You think CAIR is on par with AIPAC??? That’s a stretch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Isn’t peace that Israelis stop taking Palestinian land and allow Palestinians to work as Israelis do?

There is still some minor land confiscation on the West Bank, tied to some disputes over state and private land ownership. There is also the construction of settlements on state land (under Turkish law, most vacant non farmed land was state owned, and the Occupation Authority controls that land, and sometimes leases it to settlers) I expect that a govt under Benny Gantz (the centrist challenging BiBi) would stop that, though he will disappoint American lefties in most ways).

Not sure what you mean work as Israelis do. Israeli arabs have the same legal right to work as Israeli Jews. There are naturally limits on work permits for people from the territories. Passage from the territories to Israel by people who are not Israeli citizens is naturally impact by day to day security issues.

But I was not speaking to what we as participants in the discourse must do. I will admit to having said "Palestinians are really just Arabs, its a made up identity for political purposes" I have become convinced that trying to define the other is not helpful, and have stopped doing that. I think that gentiles trying to decide, based on limited familiarity with the history and culture, whether Jews are a nation or religion or what, and then decide their political rights based on that, are engaging in the same mistake I used to make wrt Palestinians.

So in your mind it’s a minor spat and Palestinians aren’t second class citizens of nowhere right?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't always agree with Tom Friedman, but this is a very concise summation of where he thinks Omar is on the issue. It's worth the two minute read.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/06/opinion/israel-ilhan-omar.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

His main issue seems to be that she supports BDS, while also having criticisms of it. But, he like her, doesn't believe in passing laws against it. But, in this part he is completely wrong:

"And one issue she seems to have seized on is the alleged dual loyalty of Jews to America and Israel."

As I have said repeatedly, this is a mischaracterization of what she said at Busboys and Poets. She didn't question or suggest dual loyalty among Jews. To the contrary, she said she understood their support for the country and compared it to her children's support for Somalia. What she questioned was political pressure to support another country, the example being the anti-BDS law which enables punishing US citizens for exercising their 1st Amendment rights in order to protect the interests of Israel.

And one more time, the FEDERAL law does not punish anyone. The anti BDS bills in states vary. Opponents of BDS believe that BDS is not just a threat to Israels interests, but to US interests and to justice. And if her issue was support, she did not need to use the word allegiance. And yes, its fully appropriate for US citizens to pressure their representative to support causes they believe in. As it happens I believe Omar gets support from CAIR, which supports things not everyone agrees with.

Regardless of whether BDS is good, bad, or ugly, it is a non-violent movement that Americans should be able to support, or at a minimum, not be required to oppose. The idea that American school teachers or newspaper publishers should be required to sign a pledge not to exercise their 1st Amendment rights in order to protect Israel's interests is unAmerican. If you believe BDS is bad, use your 1st Amendment rights to oppose it. You can even start a thread on DCUM. Just don't pass laws making me sign pledges to protect Israel. For the record, while I agree with many of BDS's position, I don't boycott Israel myself. One of our advertising partners is an Israeli company. They don't pay much and I could easily give up the revenue. But I like the folks and have found them to be good partners.