Anti-semitism on the rise..? Comments by liberal congress woman, calls for apology from fellow Democrats.

[realibrad]

your entire failed analogy.

Mind explaining how, or, were you just trying to signal to everyone?

 

[Blackjack200]

Criticizing Israel or Zionism isn't anti-Semitic.

Refusing to criticize Israel because of its association with Jews is anti-Semitic.

Conflating Jews and Zionism is anti-Semitic.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1019963672121114324

 

[woolfe9998]

I disagree. There is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution expressly to enable US citizens to lobby the government in support of their interests. There are very strict prohibitions for the latter precisely because we don't view them as the same thing. And to be clear, I hate lobbying in all its forms. To say they aren't different though assumes that domestic US groups are no more interested in the well being of Americans and America than foreign governments are. I think that's wrong.

That may be what was assumed at the outset, but our actual lobby groups do not have the public interest in mind. They are mainly arguing for their own profits at the expense of the public interest. I don't see how that makes them all that much better than a foreign lobbyist.

 

[Jhhnn]

There's a lot more to it than just AIPAC & lobbying. See #7-

https://www.salon.com/2015/03/14/10_frightening_facts_about_tom_cotton_partner/

See who they are-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Committee_for_Israel

The Israel lobby bought themselves a Senator.

 

[sportage]

This shouldn't have cause such a ruckus.
We do have freedom of speech still, I think?
America has, supposedly, freedom of religion.
But America is a Christian nation and pro Israel.
This woman is a Muslim but she needs to learn that as a politician and as a politician in Christian America, she must walk a fine line.
So while the ruckus is definitely a hit to her freedom of speech rights, she will need to play the game as it were.
She is a Muslim, but I doubt many minds are changed by her words. Not in a pro Israel Christian America.
But who knows, maybe one day such words just might.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Yea, she's a real great pick to be a lawmaker, great choice Democrats. Let's see, her stance is that Israel is doing evil things and compassion for people going to join ISIS. She sounds like a great pick to represent the left of today.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ilhan-omars-israel-comments

From the link:
"
Leniency for ISIS
Fast forward to 2016, Omar – then a Minnesota state representative – went on to ask a judge to show leniency toward a group of Minnesota men accused of trying to join the Islamic State terror group.

“The best deterrent to fanaticism is a system of compassion," she wrote at the time. "We must alter our attitude and approach; if we truly want to effect change, we should refocus our efforts on inclusion and rehabilitation."

REP. ILHAN OMAR FACING NEW SCRUTINY OVER PAST EFFORT TO WIN LENIENCY FOR 9 MEN ACCUSED OF TRYING TO JOIN ISIS

The nine Minnesota men were facing decades in prison after being accused in 2015 of making plans, including buying fake passports, in an effort to travel to Syria and fight for ISIS, which was at its peak level of activity and held territory in Syria and Iraq.

“Incarcerating 20-year-old men for 30 or 40 years is essentially a life sentence. Society will have no expectations of the to-be 50- or 60-year-old released prisoners; it will view them with distrust and revulsion,” read Omar’s letter to the judge, as obtained by FOX 9 of Minneapolis-St. Paul."

 

[fskimospy]

No, all lobbyists represent special interests as opposed to the broad national interest. Some people agree with the positions of some of these lobbyists. Some people are also pro-Israel. Most are, actually, according to polls.

And all domestic lobbyists (basically) support American interests. Just because Israel may share interests with Americans does not mean Israel supports American interests, because it obviously does not. Again, this is no slam on Israel, if I found out my lobbyists were supporting domestic American interests instead of mine I would fire them.

Many US lobbyists are taking stances which are very unpopular and/or quite injurious to the general public. See the list? Exxon - promoted global warming denial and argues for unrestricted drilling and fracking. Check. Big pharma wanting to continue fleecing the public on its drug prices? Check. Telecoms lobbying to be allowed to invade our privacy for profit? Check. Defense contractors? Check.

Lobbying and all other forms of monetary influence on our politics are a serious systemic problem. Israel's contribution to it isn't somehow special because it comes from a foreign country. It certainly has less chance to influence people and pols given that its expenditures are on a different order of magnitude. Unless you subscribe to the notion that $1 if there's is equivalent to $10 from Exxon or Comcast.

Sure it's special as one is a constitutionally protected expression that's explicitly carved out and the other is not. If you want to say domestic lobbying is bad I'm 100% with you. As you mentioned though Exxon and Comcast are regularly subject to withering criticism for their lobbying so I'm not sure why that's helpful to your argument.

Sure, so too are SO many other people and organizations. Like you said, it's what lobbyists do.

Right. Again, I think this comes down to the fact that for better or worse America views foreign lobbying as a fundamentally different thing than domestic lobbying. You may think that's bad, but I still think it's true. People view undue influence from a foreign power as more sinister than that of a domestic corporation.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Yea, she's a real great pick to be a lawmaker, great choice Democrats. Let's see, her stance is that Israel is doing evil things and compassion for people going to join ISIS. She sounds like a great pick to represent the left of today.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ilhan-omars-israel-comments

From the link:
"
Leniency for ISIS
Fast forward to 2016, Omar – then a Minnesota state representative – went on to ask a judge to show leniency toward a group of Minnesota men accused of trying to join the Islamic State terror group.

“The best deterrent to fanaticism is a system of compassion," she wrote at the time. "We must alter our attitude and approach; if we truly want to effect change, we should refocus our efforts on inclusion and rehabilitation."

REP. ILHAN OMAR FACING NEW SCRUTINY OVER PAST EFFORT TO WIN LENIENCY FOR 9 MEN ACCUSED OF TRYING TO JOIN ISIS

The nine Minnesota men were facing decades in prison after being accused in 2015 of making plans, including buying fake passports, in an effort to travel to Syria and fight for ISIS, which was at its peak level of activity and held territory in Syria and Iraq.

“Incarcerating 20-year-old men for 30 or 40 years is essentially a life sentence. Society will have no expectations of the to-be 50- or 60-year-old released prisoners; it will view them with distrust and revulsion,” read Omar’s letter to the judge, as obtained by FOX 9 of Minneapolis-St. Paul."

I love when people refrence Fox. Really I do. Especialy in an attempt to paint someone as racist/antisemitic.

Fox and the right criticizing a Muslim woman? News at 10.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I love when people refrence Fox. Really I do. Especialy in an attempt to paint someone as racist/antisemitic.

Fox and the right criticizing a Muslim woman? News at 10.

But it is her own fucking words. You are trying to pretend because Fox did a story that invalidates the things she said. She did sympathize with these ISIS wannabes, this is a FACT. She has posted things that can be considered anti-Semitic as well. This isn't about Fox, this is about what she's said.

 

[Jhhnn]

Israel isn't running a "concentration camp" either. You are in bad need of a history lesson.

And again, you've missed the point and are trying to change the subject. My point is there is nothing special about the money spent by AIPAC. It's a pin prick compared to domestic lobbying efforts. The notion that we have strong support for Israel among pols in both parties being entirely or even mainly because of "AIPAC money" is ludicrous.

So why so much emphasis on this money? If it has nothing to do with anti-semitism then I have to wonder why it is that whenever anything involves Jews, suddenly the absolute power of money to change minds is beyond question.

Here's a novel idea. If you want to criticize Israel, criticize Israel. These process arguments having to do with money and supposed hypnotic powers aren't necessary. More to the point: these people can take their anti-semetic tropes and shove it.

Yeh, I suppose Gaza is more like the Warsaw Ghetto than a concentration camp.

If I have the right to criticize the State of Israel I have the right to criticize those who use their power & influence to advance the cause of that govt in American politics.

 

[Blackjack200]

And all domestic lobbyists (basically) support American interests.

Not sure I agree with that.

 

[woolfe9998]

Yeh, I suppose Gaza is more like the Warsaw Ghetto than a concentration camp.

Yeah, once again, you need a serious history lesson.

If I have the right to criticize the State of Israel I have the right to criticize those who use their power & influence to advance the cause of that govt in American politics.

You have the right to say whatever the hell you want. This conversation isn't about your rights.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, once again, you need a serious history lesson.



You have the right to say whatever the hell you want. This conversation isn't about your rights.

Keep telling yourself that-

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/story-gaza-story-neglect-180615123448548.html

 

[woolfe9998]

And all domestic lobbyists (basically) support American interests. Just because Israel may share interests with Americans does not mean Israel supports American interests, because it obviously does not. Again, this is no slam on Israel, if I found out my lobbyists were supporting domestic American interests instead of mine I would fire them.

Sure, if by "American interests" you mean the profits of an American corporation. Then technically you're correct. Not the public's interest though. Just the interests of a small number of Americans in lining their pockets.

Sure it's special as one is a constitutionally protected expression that's explicitly carved out and the other is not. If you want to say domestic lobbying is bad I'm 100% with you. As you mentioned though Exxon and Comcast are regularly subject to withering criticism for their lobbying so I'm not sure why that's helpful to your argument.

I think if the FF had any inkling of what lobbying in America would become - at the time it barely existed - that might not have been the case.

Right. Again, I think this comes down to the fact that for better or worse America views foreign lobbying as a fundamentally different thing than domestic lobbying. You may think that's bad, but I still think it's true. People view undue influence from a foreign power as more sinister than that of a domestic corporation.

Yes, I do not agree that domestic lobbying is automatically better or less threatening than foreign lobbying. Whatever the FF believed 250 years ago isn't really all that applicable to the real world of 2019. And since we aren't really arguing over what is Constitutional or legal in any sense, I fail to see how the views of the founders from a bygone era of politics really matter here. As for today, people may be generically more suspicious of "foreign" lobbying but that is because we're generically more suspicious of pretty much anything foreign.

My main point in bringing up the domestic lobbying is that the difference in spending by orders of magnitude. Just because some people are more suspicious of foreign lobbying because its foreign doesn't make a foreign $ worth any more than a domestic $.

 

[UNCjigga]

Oh boy, next thing you know, someone will suggest that supporting a campaign of boycotts, divestments and sanctions against the commercial interests of a state due to their human rights abuses is “anti-Semitic” lol.

 

[woolfe9998]

Keep telling yourself that-

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/story-gaza-story-neglect-180615123448548.html

I didn't say you needed a lesson in current events. I said you needed a lesson in history. If you're going to draw a historical analogy, you need to understand not only the current event being compared, but the historical event to which you're comparing it. If you had any knowledge of Nazi ghettos, you wouldn't make such a comparison. And nothing in your article supports the comparison either. When a third of Gazans have died of famine, disease and random shootings (and that was before the Warsaw Jews were sent to Treblinka) then we can talk comparisons.

I think it's telling that ludicrous Nazi comparisons are always at the center of criticisms of Israel.

How about just sticking to the facts?

 

[Jhhnn]

I didn't say you needed a lesson in current events. I said you needed a lesson in history. If you're going to draw a historical analogy, you need to understand not only the current even being compared, by the historical event to which you're comparing it. If you had any knowledge of Nazi ghettos, you wouldn't make such a comparison. And nothing in your article supports the comparison either.

I think it's telling that ludicrous Nazi comparisons are always at the center of criticisms of Israel.

How about just sticking to the facts?

The features are similar. The Israelis just aren't actually starving the Gazans, but they'll gladly cut it close.

 

[fskimospy]

Sure, if by "American interests" you mean the profits of an American corporation. Then technically you're correct. Not the public's interest though. Just the interests of a small number of Americans in lining their pockets.

I think if the FF had any inkling of what lobbying in America would become - at the time it barely existed - that might not have been the case.

I agree, I think the original idea was literally for individuals or groups of regular citizens to protest things they didn't like, not this money machine spending billions each year to effectively buy politicians. This is one of the (many) reasons I think the idea of corporate personhood for the purposes of political action is one of the worst ideas in US history. Its effects have been calamitous.

Yes, I do not agree that domestic lobbying is automatically better or less threatening than foreign lobbying. Whatever the FF believed 250 years ago isn't really all that applicable to the real world of 2019. And since we aren't really arguing over what is Constitutional or legal in any sense, I fail to see how the views of the founders from a bygone era of politics really matter here. As for today, people may be generically more suspicious of "foreign" lobbying but that is because we're generically more suspicious of pretty much anything foreign.

My main point in bringing up the domestic lobbying is that the difference in spending by orders of magnitude. Just because some people are more suspicious of foreign lobbying because its foreign doesn't make a foreign $ worth any more than a domestic $.

No real argument there, but I thought the original idea is why people view Israel's lobbying as problematic. I think a decent part of it is that it's a foreign government. I'm sure there's antisemitic bigotry involved but I don't know if the left saying 'Israel is buying politicians' is necessarily indicative of that considering the left's concern about basically anything is 'X is buying politicians'. (and this concern is generally very valid)

I think you know my position - I don't give a shit about what people who have been dead for two centuries think about how we run our government. In practice though that sort of lobbying is protected.

 

[realibrad]

Criticizing Israel or Zionism isn't anti-Semitic.

Refusing to criticize Israel because of its association with Jews is anti-Semitic.

Conflating Jews and Zionism is anti-Semitic.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1019963672121114324

What about saying the Jews have hypnotized the world? You got pretty upset with me before saying she did not say that, but, clearly she did. Is that a problem? Is that racist?

 

[Blackjack200]

What about saying the Jews have hypnotized the world? You got pretty upset with me before saying she did not say that, but, clearly she did. Is that a problem? Is that racist?

Why should I engage with you when you've shown yourself, (and continue to show yourself, as above) to be an anti-Semite?

 

[woolfe9998]

The features are similar. The Israelis just aren't actually starving the Gazans, but they'll gladly cut it close.

I don't know about you, but if I lived in Gaza, I'd rather have them "cut it close" as you claim and still be alive than have them go all the way and you're all dead. The distinction is hardly a trifling one.

You read the news. You see countries and people doing bad things all the time. Yet do you routinely compare all of those situations to the Nazis? If not, why are you doing it with Israel?

 

[realibrad]

Why should I engage with you when you've shown yourself, (and continue to show yourself, as above) to be an anti-Semite?

Anti-Semite eh? How so? Also, do you at least admit that she did in fact say the Jews hypnotized the world?

The reason I brought that up was to give context to her comments. You clearly dismissed that as a lie, and yet, the tweet was provided for you.

 

[fskimospy]

Anti-Semite eh? How so? Also, do you at least admit that she did in fact say the Jews hypnotized the world?

The reason I brought that up was to give context to her comments. You clearly dismissed that as a lie, and yet, the tweet was provided for you.

She said Isreal hypnotized the world, not Jews. There is a profound difference.

 

[Victorian Gray]

She said Isreal hypnotized the world, not Jews. There is a profound difference.

It's been pointed out several times and he obviously doesn't care.

 

[woolfe9998]

She said Isreal hypnotized the world, not Jews. There is a profound difference.

They said the Mexican immigrants were taking our jobs, not that they are undesirable because they just don't like Mexicans. There is a profound difference.

We don't get to reject the idea of inferring bigotry from context and word choice. Not the left. Sorry.