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:

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 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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.