Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ex Muslim here and I just cringe at the liberals who stretch and stretch to give her type the benefit of the doubt. Her and her mind make me sick because they make life for people like me so difficult. The head scarf is just vomit, she wears her religion on her sleeve but is not pious and tweets things like it’s all about the benjamins when referring to Jews. Ask her about gay rights and whether she believes those who leave Islam deserve to be killed.

+ a million

Agree. The reason Democrats are so reluctant to condemn antisemitism - hence why we see the effort to downplay it by adding all the isms - is that if they are perceived of being supportive of Jews, they fear they will lose the black Muslim vote. Really a pretty sad commentary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ex Muslim here and I just cringe at the liberals who stretch and stretch to give her type the benefit of the doubt. Her and her mind make me sick because they make life for people like me so difficult. The head scarf is just vomit, she wears her religion on her sleeve but is not pious and tweets things like it’s all about the benjamins when referring to Jews. Ask her about gay rights and whether she believes those who leave Islam deserve to be killed.

+ a million

Thank you for posting. Totally agree

Maybe you're just jealous you weren't able to lead a fulfilling life as a Muslim, and she is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ex Muslim here and I just cringe at the liberals who stretch and stretch to give her type the benefit of the doubt. Her and her mind make me sick because they make life for people like me so difficult. The head scarf is just vomit, she wears her religion on her sleeve but is not pious and tweets things like it’s all about the benjamins when referring to Jews. Ask her about gay rights and whether she believes those who leave Islam deserve to be killed.

+ a million

Thank you for posting. Totally agree

Anonymous wrote:Ex Muslim here and I just cringe at the liberals who stretch and stretch to give her type the benefit of the doubt. Her and her mind make me sick because they make life for people like me so difficult. The head scarf is just vomit, she wears her religion on her sleeve but is not pious and tweets things like it’s all about the benjamins when referring to Jews. Ask her about gay rights and whether she believes those who leave Islam deserve to be killed.

+ a million

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue with Omar's comments is she questioned the loyalty of Americans who support Israel and claimed politicians only support Israel because of big money paid to them by a powerful Jewish lobby.
She cannot see that the support has everything to do with the fact that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East that supports Western values and is surrounded by nations that would like to wipe Israel off the map.

Wrong, everyone sees that Israel is a democracy and that it's surrounded by hostile nations. But that said, Israel being a democracy and being surrounded by hostile nations still doesn't justify Israel shooting children and journalists, violating UN agreements, building illegal settlements and other things, nor does it justify Americans and American politicians turning a blind eye to all of that, and apparently you don't see that. Israel doesn't *have* to continue those policies in order to survive and succeed. And to deny that AIPAC isn't a powerful lobby and that they throw a lot of money around is simply not credible as it's right in AIPAC's FEC and lobbying filings. There is nothing wrong let alone anti-semitic with stating those kinds of things, as Ilhan Omar has.

I think it's disingenuous to call Israel a democracy when nearly 2 million people it controls have no input into the laws under which they have to leave. It's a democracy only for certain people. Not for all.

+1.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I presume if the majority of Israelis and Palestianians wanted to invite the British back, or the Turks, there would be no reason to oppose that. But she does not feel a need to mention those.

There is a real concern among Israelis that a two state solution, in which the PA does not recognize Israel's status as the homeland for the Jewish people, would lead to further diplomatic and economic sanctions on Israel for policies (like the law of return) designed to support its Jewish make up. Possibly even to further violence. Excatly how to word an end of conflict clause that resolves this fear, while not offending Palestinian sensibilities is one of the thornier aspects of getting to a final deal.

The notion of a voluntary one state solution in this context reinforces Israeli concerns that Pal support for a two start solution is not sincere, but a tactical step to the elimination of the State. Which is one reason many Israelis who are not conneted to or supportive of the settler movement vote for the right.

This is all whitewashing talk. The reason many Israelis vote for the right is that most cannot afford to live in Israel proper, and housing in settlements is less expensive. So, no one wants to pay a million dollars for a two-bedroom apartment in Tel Aviv when a third of that will buy a SFH with a yard in a settlement in the occupied land. That is the only reason.

1. Most Israelis who vote for the right do not live in settlements

2. Most Israelis who DO live in settlements, esp the ones who move for cheaper housing, are in settlements adjacent to the 1948 armistice lines, which could easily be annexed to Israel in a final deal that created a viable Pal state. The settlements deep in the West Bank, that really are in conflict with a Pal state, are inhabited by ideologues, not by people seeking cheap housing.

Do you deny that if Israel loses land, the price of real estate will go up?

Over half a million Israelis, probably more, live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Is it your claim that they vote for the left?

It's disingenuous to draw the line between settlements that can be easily annexed and settlements that can't. The line of settlements is crawling gradually; what couldn't be easily annexed today can be tomorrow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue with Omar's comments is she questioned the loyalty of Americans who support Israel and claimed politicians only support Israel because of big money paid to them by a powerful Jewish lobby.
She cannot see that the support has everything to do with the fact that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East that supports Western values and is surrounded by nations that would like to wipe Israel off the map.

Wrong, everyone sees that Israel is a democracy and that it's surrounded by hostile nations. But that said, Israel being a democracy and being surrounded by hostile nations still doesn't justify Israel shooting children and journalists, violating UN agreements, building illegal settlements and other things, nor does it justify Americans and American politicians turning a blind eye to all of that, and apparently you don't see that. Israel doesn't *have* to continue those policies in order to survive and succeed. And to deny that AIPAC isn't a powerful lobby and that they throw a lot of money around is simply not credible as it's right in AIPAC's FEC and lobbying filings. There is nothing wrong let alone anti-semitic with stating those kinds of things, as Ilhan Omar has.

I think it's disingenuous to call Israel a democracy when nearly 2 million people it controls have no input into the laws under which they have to leave. It's a democracy only for certain people. Not for all.

David Rothkopf, former CEO and editor of Foreign Policy, had an awesome set of tweets that I wholly support and encourage everyone to read:

I'm a Jew. I'm not a Zionist. I believe Israel is a key ally. I also believe the current gov't of Israel is a menace & a serial human rights violator & many of its policies are not in the U.S. interest. Being critical of that gov't is in the interest of both the US & Israel.

I also believe there's no place for anti-Semitism or intolerance, racism, or prejudice of any sort in any aspect of US life. We all owe each other the respect and tolerance we ourselves would demand. That means we must understand & be sensitive to coded language & hateful tropes.

Would-be leaders and public officials who represent diverse communities have a special responsibility in this regard. We benefit from vigorous debate from different perspectives on our foreign policy choices. We are damaged by prejudice & hate-mongering.

We need to recognize those two ideas are not only not in conflict, they are inextricably related, they are essential parts of who we aspire to be as a free democratic and richly, proudly diverse society.

p.s. I have receive a number of questions about what it means not to be a Zionist. While I respect the claims of indigenous and ancient peoples to lands they once occupied or have continuously occupied, the nature of human history...

makes granting national sovereignty to all with such claims impossible. Similarly, granting those with a claim in one period hundreds or thousands of years ago preference to others with similar claims would be very difficult to adjudicate fairly.

We need to find solutions that honor historical claims & it seems to me those must be based on both respect and tolerance. For me, it is also therefore key, to adhere to the principle of separation of church and state in all societies--another approach incompatible with Zionism.

The only solutions to the complexity of claims and affinities thrown at us by world history is civil societies that are scrupulously neutral on such issues except to guarantee minority rights and accommodations reach through negotiations among all parties.




In short, I believe in some old Jewish principles--like values-based societies, the struggle to perfect ourselves and our world, and respect for the law and for learning from history. And that is why I can't embrace the idea of Zionism.

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.

What choice do they have though? They have put themselves out there as the virtuous, moral, against every -phobe and -ism, above all else. They've boxed themselves in. How else do you explain their need to add all these other things to the anti-Semitism resolution? It's just like "Black Lives Matter" vs "All Lives Matter."

They are the creators of manufactured outrage. It's the bed they made, and now they have to lie in it. This is just one of many of their self-inflicted problems that they have created for themselves.

The real mess of this is that it will be a plague on the 2020 Democratic candidates.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She might just be grandstanding, but Pelosi in this video sounds a tad misplaced in her loyalties:

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1102985099367366657

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I presume if the majority of Israelis and Palestianians wanted to invite the British back, or the Turks, there would be no reason to oppose that. But she does not feel a need to mention those.

There is a real concern among Israelis that a two state solution, in which the PA does not recognize Israel's status as the homeland for the Jewish people, would lead to further diplomatic and economic sanctions on Israel for policies (like the law of return) designed to support its Jewish make up. Possibly even to further violence. Excatly how to word an end of conflict clause that resolves this fear, while not offending Palestinian sensibilities is one of the thornier aspects of getting to a final deal.

The notion of a voluntary one state solution in this context reinforces Israeli concerns that Pal support for a two start solution is not sincere, but a tactical step to the elimination of the State. Which is one reason many Israelis who are not conneted to or supportive of the settler movement vote for the right.

This is all whitewashing talk. The reason many Israelis vote for the right is that most cannot afford to live in Israel proper, and housing in settlements is less expensive. So, no one wants to pay a million dollars for a two-bedroom apartment in Tel Aviv when a third of that will buy a SFH with a yard in a settlement in the occupied land. That is the only reason.

1. Most Israelis who vote for the right do not live in settlements

2. Most Israelis who DO live in settlements, esp the ones who move for cheaper housing, are in settlements adjacent to the 1948 armistice lines, which could easily be annexed to Israel in a final deal that created a viable Pal state. The settlements deep in the West Bank, that really are in conflict with a Pal state, are inhabited by ideologues, not by people seeking cheap housing.

To add, there is much cheaper housing in development towns in the Galil and the Negev than in metro TA. Many voices in Labour have attacked Bibi for not focusing on the needs of the development towns, instead of the settlements.

And that, BTW, is a criticism of the Govt of Israel that is NOT antisemitic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I presume if the majority of Israelis and Palestianians wanted to invite the British back, or the Turks, there would be no reason to oppose that. But she does not feel a need to mention those.

There is a real concern among Israelis that a two state solution, in which the PA does not recognize Israel's status as the homeland for the Jewish people, would lead to further diplomatic and economic sanctions on Israel for policies (like the law of return) designed to support its Jewish make up. Possibly even to further violence. Excatly how to word an end of conflict clause that resolves this fear, while not offending Palestinian sensibilities is one of the thornier aspects of getting to a final deal.

The notion of a voluntary one state solution in this context reinforces Israeli concerns that Pal support for a two start solution is not sincere, but a tactical step to the elimination of the State. Which is one reason many Israelis who are not conneted to or supportive of the settler movement vote for the right.

This is all whitewashing talk. The reason many Israelis vote for the right is that most cannot afford to live in Israel proper, and housing in settlements is less expensive. So, no one wants to pay a million dollars for a two-bedroom apartment in Tel Aviv when a third of that will buy a SFH with a yard in a settlement in the occupied land. That is the only reason.

1. Most Israelis who vote for the right do not live in settlements

2. Most Israelis who DO live in settlements, esp the ones who move for cheaper housing, are in settlements adjacent to the 1948 armistice lines, which could easily be annexed to Israel in a final deal that created a viable Pal state. The settlements deep in the West Bank, that really are in conflict with a Pal state, are inhabited by ideologues, not by people seeking cheap housing.

To add, there is much cheaper housing in development towns in the Galil and the Negev than in metro TA. Many voices in Labour have attacked Bibi for not focusing on the needs of the development towns, instead of the settlements.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I presume if the majority of Israelis and Palestianians wanted to invite the British back, or the Turks, there would be no reason to oppose that. But she does not feel a need to mention those.

There is a real concern among Israelis that a two state solution, in which the PA does not recognize Israel's status as the homeland for the Jewish people, would lead to further diplomatic and economic sanctions on Israel for policies (like the law of return) designed to support its Jewish make up. Possibly even to further violence. Excatly how to word an end of conflict clause that resolves this fear, while not offending Palestinian sensibilities is one of the thornier aspects of getting to a final deal.

The notion of a voluntary one state solution in this context reinforces Israeli concerns that Pal support for a two start solution is not sincere, but a tactical step to the elimination of the State. Which is one reason many Israelis who are not conneted to or supportive of the settler movement vote for the right.

This is all whitewashing talk. The reason many Israelis vote for the right is that most cannot afford to live in Israel proper, and housing in settlements is less expensive. So, no one wants to pay a million dollars for a two-bedroom apartment in Tel Aviv when a third of that will buy a SFH with a yard in a settlement in the occupied land. That is the only reason.

1. Most Israelis who vote for the right do not live in settlements

2. Most Israelis who DO live in settlements, esp the ones who move for cheaper housing, are in settlements adjacent to the 1948 armistice lines, which could easily be annexed to Israel in a final deal that created a viable Pal state. The settlements deep in the West Bank, that really are in conflict with a Pal state, are inhabited by ideologues, not by people seeking cheap housing.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, he is on record saying he supports a two state solution. Now I don't think he is particularly sincere, and he shows no urgency, and much of his party opposes a two state solution. But see

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/30/653094273/netanyahu-at-odds-with-trump-over-two-state-solution

He does call for some limits on Pal sovereignty, but that is ALSO the position of the Israeli left, was the position of the Clinton Admin at Camp David, and has been the position of the European Union.

Anonymous wrote:
I presume if the majority of Israelis and Palestianians wanted to invite the British back, or the Turks, there would be no reason to oppose that. But she does not feel a need to mention those.

There is a real concern among Israelis that a two state solution, in which the PA does not recognize Israel's status as the homeland for the Jewish people, would lead to further diplomatic and economic sanctions on Israel for policies (like the law of return) designed to support its Jewish make up. Possibly even to further violence. Excatly how to word an end of conflict clause that resolves this fear, while not offending Palestinian sensibilities is one of the thornier aspects of getting to a final deal.

The notion of a voluntary one state solution in this context reinforces Israeli concerns that Pal support for a two start solution is not sincere, but a tactical step to the elimination of the State. Which is one reason many Israelis who are not conneted to or supportive of the settler movement vote for the right.

This is all whitewashing talk. The reason many Israelis vote for the right is that most cannot afford to live in Israel proper, and housing in settlements is less expensive. So, no one wants to pay a million dollars for a two-bedroom apartment in Tel Aviv when a third of that will buy a SFH with a yard in a settlement in the occupied land. That is the only reason.