jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. I think people should be sensitive about language and beliefs. You can be a raging antiSemite and never hint that you are.

How are you going to determine beliefs? Employ and army of mindreaders?

Obviously not. Just saying that people can be anti Semitic but never say anything that is anti Semitic. For example, they could not invite a Jewish kid to their child’s birthday party because they are anti Semitic. But the child wouldn’t know why he wasn’t invited to the party. Point is, resolve the problems that cause anti Semitism. Whites are addressing their problems, so that people will be less anti white.

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)

Interesting that Trump is going to win the next election by casting the Democratic party as racists and anti-semites.

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.

I'm not debating anything, nor am I pretending to know it all. My friend of over 20 years says it's an identity, a religion, an ethnicity. It's cultural. It's who she is - with or w/o following all Jewish law.

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."

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.

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.

That’s exactly my viewpoint

Anonymous wrote:You take Omar entirely at her word on what she believes and what her motives are, but deny the same presumption of good faith and honesty to other Democrats.

I think the Democrats who are upset by her remarks at Busboys and Poets are either misinformed or not acting in good faith. It is absolute lunacy to interpret what she said as anti-Semitism.

Anonymous wrote:DP. I think people should be sensitive about language and beliefs. You can be a raging antiSemite and never hint that you are.

How are you going to determine beliefs? Employ and army of mindreaders?

You take Omar entirely at her word on what she believes and what her motives are, but deny the same presumption of good faith and honesty to other Democrats.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The anti-Semitic accusations are the usual ridiculous hysteria that accompanies any accusation of Israel. Didn’t the house just pass a bill that allows for states to boycott businesses that are boycotting Israel for its treatment of Palestinians? Our elected officials thought it was so important to protect a foreign government that this was the first bill they passed this year? And people have the audacity to think Omar is wrong to say that Congress is bought and paid for by AIPAC and its affiliates?

^^^ criticism of Israel.......sorry, too early.

It is an anti-semitic trope to say that Jews have bought our Congress. Read a history book if you don't believe that a person in power making such claims is dangerous.

Every use of “trope” I’ve seen or heard re:Omar has been deceitful.

You are wrong. What she said is absolutely an anti semitic trope. Again, read a history book. Please.

Deceit, yet again. PP (and Omar) criticized the nature of Congressional support for Israel and the nature of responses to criticisms of Israel and the US government’s support for it. There’s nothing about Jews controlling Congress there at all.

She outright tweeted that AIPAC (Jewish) money has paid for our Congress to promote Israel over the US. If you don't get how that exact statement connects to propaganda used to fan the flames of the Holocaust then I don't know what more to tell you.

She said that support in the Senate for Marco Rubio's bill that would allow state and local governments to punish supporters of BDS was "was all about the Benjamins" and later said that AIPAC was the source of the Benjamins. Do you deny that AIPAC has used its financial muscle to influence Senators in favor of this bill? Do you deny that this bill puts Israel's interests ahead of the rights of US citizens?

Jeff, she's the one making the charge, she therefore has the burden to show that 100% of the support in the Senate was due to money from AIPAC, since she is the one who made the assertion that it's *ALL* about the money, and that the money is from AIPAC.

Since her claim is factually false on its face and does not represent reality, it is therefore simply the old antisemitic trope that Jews control the world through money.

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.

You are obviously, and understandably, bothered by statements that reflect age-old prejudices against Jews. I agree that everyone needs to be sensitive about their language and I think it was appropriate for Omar to acknowledge this and apologize. That said, where do you stand regarding the bill she was protesting? Do you support infringing on Americans' 1st Amendment rights in order to protect the interests of Israel?

DP. I think people should be sensitive about language and beliefs. You can be a raging antiSemite and never hint that you are.

Speaking of things that someone did not say

Effectively, those pushing to punish Omar and doing exactly what she said she feared. Discussion of US support for Israel or the role of the pro-Israel lobby in the US is being blocked by allegations of anti-Semitism. To prevent any discussion of those issues, House members, led by Democrats, are preparing to punish Omar for something she didn't say.


House members are not preparing to punish Omar. They are preparing a resolution condemning antisemitism, without even mentioning her name (and spefically calling out Islamophobia of the kind that has targeted Omar).

You have not retracted your OP regard to this, have you?

Also the claim that they are doing so to prevent discussion of these issues, rather than out of concern for this rhetoric and for the message it send to Democratic Israel supporters, is not supported.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dude. that is one person's opinion. Of course some people are going to be binary (and wrong) about this topic. But not everyone feels that way, and thus not every criticism of Israel is recast as anti-semitic. Frankly your spin on it is just as big a problem as those who equate every anti-israel sentiment with anti-semitism. that was the real point of my post.

I think that we can agree:

1) not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic;
2) some criticism of Israel is rooted in anti-Semitism;

It is not always easy to tell which is which and this ambiguity is exploited by both sides, on one side to deny anti-Semitism and on the other to squash legitimate criticism of Israel.

My own ways - A. Does it criticize the Israeli Govt, or is it of Israel's existence as a Jewish state (the latter is not by definitioin antisemitic, but 99% of the time it actually is) B If it criticizes the Israeli govt, is it about things that are widely criticized by the Israeli center left (like building in settlements east of the security fence) or is it something that virtually no one in Israel shares (like evaluating Israeli actions in Gaza as if there was no security threat from Gaza) - again, unreasonable and unfair criticisms of Israel are not necessarily antisemitic (just as say, unreasonable and unfair criticisms of Obama, or the NAACP, or BLM are not necessarily racist) but often they are. C. Is it accompanied by specific antisemitic images and wording D. Is it over the top vitriolic?

It also seems like her comment is meant to excuse groups like Hamas that actively and violenty support a one state solution, as if it were a viable choice. When the consensus position in the West (including Europe) has simply been to support a two state solution without qualification.

Anonymous wrote:Dude. that is one person's opinion. Of course some people are going to be binary (and wrong) about this topic. But not everyone feels that way, and thus not every criticism of Israel is recast as anti-semitic. Frankly your spin on it is just as big a problem as those who equate every anti-israel sentiment with anti-semitism. that was the real point of my post.

I think that we can agree:

1) not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic;
2) some criticism of Israel is rooted in anti-Semitism;

It is not always easy to tell which is which and this ambiguity is exploited by both sides, on one side to deny anti-Semitism and on the other to squash legitimate criticism of Israel.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

https://twitter.com/ilhanmn/status/1026630127206256642

I support a two-state solution. The Jewish people have a right to safety and Palestinians have a right to their homes. Conflict must be resolved through a lens of justice and for this to happen, all voices must be brought to the table. #MN05

https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/28/ilhan-omar-israel-palestine-two/

"I believe in a two-state solution. I think it is important for there to be the existence of two states that allow both of the peoples that are involved to have their own sanctuaries, their own states."

You ommitted

Now, if there are Palestinians and Israelis that are interested in having a one-state solution that involves both of them, then that is a decision that they get to make and something that they get to advocate for,” she continued. “But I’m not one that sees there to be a solution that will involve one. I think the only solution that works right now is to advocate for two.”

95% of the minority of Jewish Israelis who support a one state solution in fact DO want an apartheid solution in which Palestinians are disenfranchised, or even expelled. The only one state solution that I think Omar would consider consistent with human rights is one 98% of Jewish Israelis (and many Druse Israelis) oppose and will never accept. This is not serious, and calls into question the sincerity of the earlier statement.

She is being to clever by half.

See the bolded. She supports a two-state solution. In the unlikely even that the two parties were to agree on a one-state solution, she would obviously support it. But, as she says, she doesn't see that happening.

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.