Congresswoman Omar ignites new anti-Semitism controversy with comments on AIPAC

[Nerokis]

There's nothing wrong with that tweet. Although, what you are doing is antisemitic, I'm afraid. She didn't mention Jews or Jewish people. Conflating AIPAC or Israel with Jewish people generally is antisemitism. It's astounding how so many of you who claim she has uttered an antisemitic statement are the ones invoking the trope, not her.

Click to shrink...

This is just pathetic.

As far as I can tell, no one is conflating Israel or AIPAC with Jewish people generally; people are acknowledging that Jewishness is part of their texture, that both are common avenues for anti-Semitism, and that this should affect how we navigate discussion regarding them. Why is it that when it comes to this subject, bigotry is suddenly so...simplistic? Since when did you have to overtly comment on "x people generally" to evoke harmful tropes, to tap into harmful forces, to reinforce harmful perceptions?

Also, I don't think anyone reasonable is saying she invoked the trope. There was clearly no intentionality. She evoked it.

So what Rep. Omar did was simple. Support for Israel comes from a lot of places, but in a reductionist fashion, she attributed it to money/AIPAC. Such reductionism, in and of itself, is the stuff of stereotypes; in tends to, in a selective fashion, choose a certain subject, erases the complexity and diversity and conflict from that subject, and situates it around a single thing. In this case, that single thing was money. Money is the reason that people support Israel. All of this intersects with anti-Semitic tropes - tropes that should actively be avoided.

It shouldn't have ever blown up the way it did, but that was her mistake. "You're on the right side of history, I hope you continue this fight, and I get that navigating around this is tricky, but that specific framing can be hurtful and damaging" was the extent of what Rep. Omar needed to hear.

What I find amazing is that instead of being sensitive to the trickier dimensions of her commentary, it's the people who think she evoked something troublesome who are anti-Semitic. Like...I'm sorry, but how is this not just a repackaging of "actually you're the racist for focusing on race"?

 

[SaveWeyard]

Thirded. Clipjoints van was unjustified and The Guys post rightfully called it out. He should be unbanned as well.

Click to shrink...

Why are people being banned in this topic? Especially for the posts in question. What the hell?

Click to shrink...

They should. Sure, maybe it was harshly worded, but come on now.
You can't tell me there is no validity in that post, especially since Clipjoint has been unbanned.

Click to shrink...

C'mon now, at least be consistent with your bullshit bans!

 

[Chikor]

She likely didn't intend it to be. But she sideswiped them. Hence the apology that included a slam at AIPAC.

And that's the problem. There are many like yourself, claiming it just didn't matter. That people were lying when they said they were upset by it. That this is really about AIPAC/Israel, and not about intra-Dem politics and the need to make sure your members aren't constantly saying dumb shit in a broad coalition with a large number of minority groups that need to be able to get along and work together.

Click to shrink...

All I'm saying is that I haven't heard a compelling argument as to why what she said was racist or insensitive. I haven't even heard one as to why this was "dumb shit".
I'm not seeing one in your post either.

 

[Deleted member 2145]

I know I criticized Omar's comments earlier in this thread, but the continuing condemnation from both D and R, after she clarified her meaning and apologized for her miscommunication, is ridiculous and embarrassing. This barrage of polemic against her character for inelegant criticism of one of the most influential lobbies in Congress is not only completely out of proportion to the severity of her misstep, but seems like a stark example of exactly what she said and is saying. The longer and harder these politicians harp on this issue, the less I believe they actually genuinely give a shit about a conversation of problematic language and stereotypes, and the more I believe they're cravenly trying to kill the conversation about AIPAC lobbying entirely.

Click to shrink...

yeah this is actually a big reason why her apology was important. it separated the good faith criticism from the bad faith criticism. that's why I kept saying it was good that she apologized for what she needed to apologize for but also that she doubled down on what she needed to double down on. (leaning against anti-semitic tropes and saying fuck aipac, respectively).

kirblar posted a great article about why her apology, both for this and for invoking the nazi rhetoric of Jews hypnotizing the world back in 2012, shows that she is actually awesome because she showed a willingness to put herself in another minority group's shoes and see things from their perspective. like the article stated rarely has someone who made anti-semitic remarks been willing to do that.

I came away from this liking her even more tbh

 

[Kirblar]

All I'm saying is that I haven't heard a compelling argument as to why what she said was racist or insensitive. I haven't even heard one as to why this was "dumb shit".
I'm not seeing one in your post either.

Click to shrink...

Not compelling to you. Maybe listen to other people and acknowledge they have a different perspective? Like, once the apology came out, this was over on the Dem side aside from social media 101 courses in AOC's office every day for detention.

 

[Chikor]

Not compelling to you. Maybe listen to other people and acknowledge they have a different perspective? Like, once the apology came out, this was over on the Dem side aside from social media 101 courses in AOC's office every day for detention.

Click to shrink...

No but like, I see a ton of posts talking about Some People who might have really good reasons to be upset, but like, you can't tell me what those reasons are exactly?
Like, you wouldn't accept such line of arguments for other groups, right?

There are people who are really offended that Colin Kaepernick knelt during the anthem, I have listened to their arguments and have found them unconvincing.
Now, if you think they have a good reason to be upset about that you should try to explain why, but I really don't think you can just say "well, it's just different perspective" on such cases.
I certainly not, especially not on shit this, where a way simpler explanation exists than "secret antisemitism that you just have to believe us is there".

 

[DOT_mjo]

So a joke about a PAC caring solely about money is what got everyone in a tizzy.

 

[Deleted member 2145]

Like, you wouldn't accept such line of arguments for other groups, right?

Click to shrink...

this is an important point to make in all of this

and the answer is yes, absolutely. if another minority group were sharing certain grievances whether or not I found their reasoning compelling enough for me is, frankly, irrelevant. it's a situation where I would listen and try to understand rather than put the onus on them to meet some threshold of being compelling to me that would make me feel better about what they're feeling.

honestly, it's just basic empathy

maybe if racist white people were a persecuted minority group your kaep analogy would work but they're not and it doesn't

 

[Nerokis]

All I'm saying is that I haven't heard a compelling argument as to why what she said was racist or insensitive. I haven't even heard one as to why this was "dumb shit".
I'm not seeing one in your post either.

Click to shrink...

Well, this is the mistake I think she made:

So what Rep. Omar did was simple. Support for Israel comes from a lot of places, but in a reductionist fashion, she attributed it to money/AIPAC. Such reductionism, in and of itself, is the stuff of stereotypes; in tends to, in a selective fashion, choose a certain subject, erases the complexity and diversity and conflict from that subject, and situates it around a single thing. In this case, that single thing was money. Money is the reason that people support Israel. All of this intersects with anti-Semitic tropes - tropes that should actively be avoided.

It shouldn't have ever blown up the way it did, but that was her mistake. "You're on the right side of history, I hope you continue this fight, and I get that navigating around this is tricky, but that specific framing can be hurtful and damaging" was the extent of what Rep. Omar needed to hear.

Click to shrink...

Not racist, almost more ahistorical than insensitive, but yeah, a touch insensitive. You don't see that at all?

I came away from this liking her even more tbh

Click to shrink...

So did I. She made a mistake that was rooted in the right instincts, and apologized while holding firm to her correct line of criticism. Anyone who likes her less is almost certainly applying malicious double standards.

 

[Hecht]

Disagreeing with an act of moderation does not give you a license to attack staff or insult individual moderators. Furthermore, as the banner stated, the user in question had multiple prior infractions related to hostility. If you have an issue with a moderation decision, contact one of the Mod Captains (B-Dubs, Hecht, or Mist). If the thread continues to derail, it may be locked, and posts will be moderated.

 

[Chikor]

this is an important point to make in all of this

and the answer is yes, absolutely. if another minority group were sharing certain grievances whether or not I found their reasoning compelling enough for me is, frankly, irrelevant. it's a situation where I would listen and try to understand rather than put the onus on them to meet some threshold of being compelling to me that would make me feel better about what they're feeling.

honestly, it's just basic empathy

maybe if racist white people were a persecuted minority group your kaep analogy would work but they're not and it doesn't

Click to shrink...

You want empathy?
Let's talk empathy.
I'm Jewish and I find really really gross to see the first Muslim woman in congress being dragged like that supposedly in my name. And I'm fucking sick and tired that I have to keep apologizing for that shit because literally every single person I know in the US think that I'm down with that crap.
Why the fuck do you take more stock in what Kevin fucking McCarthy think is offensive to Jews than me?
Because a reminder, he thought they were antisemites even last week, and I'm not talking like personal thoughts, he's on the record thinking that and saying they should be punished for that.
But sure, let's listen to what he has to say.

Well, this is the mistake I think she made:

Not racist, almost more ahistorical than insensitive, but yeah, a touch insensitive. You don't see that at all?

So did I. She made a mistake that was rooted in the right instincts, and apologized while holding firm to her correct line of criticism. Anyone who likes her less is almost certainly applying malicious double standards.

Click to shrink...

Democrats do it all the fucking time with groups like the NRA. Why is it okay to do with the NRA and not on AIPAC?
And btw, saying its influence is all or even most about the money is probably more reductive an inaccurate when talking about the NRA than AIPAC.

Also, what the fuck does "intersects with anti-Semitic tropes" mean in practice? are we not allowed to point out that AIPAC lobbies the government?

 

[Ahhthe90s]

Disgusting.

How can anyone disagree with the original tweet? AIPAC is as evil as it gets.

 

[Kirblar]

No but like, I see a ton of posts talking about Some People who might have really good reasons to be upset, but like, you can't tell me what those reasons are exactly?
Like, you wouldn't accept such line of arguments for other groups, right?

There are people who are really offended that Colin Kaepernick knelt during the anthem, I have listened to their arguments and have found them unconvincing.
Now, if you think they have a good reason to be upset about that you should try to explain why, but I really don't think you can just say "well, it's just different perspective" on such cases.
I certainly not, especially not on shit this, where a way simpler explanation exists than "secret antisemitism that you just have to believe us is there".

Click to shrink...

I would. Those reasons were put out there. You may not agree, but it doesn't change that they're upset. My interpretation would be a "that looks really bad but I'll wait an explanation/apology cause that's OTT bad (post-RT)" but if it's clearly bad enough to me to necessitate a response I can understand why someone else might be less charitable.

Maybe this is you not being US-based, where Jewish people are split more evenly among major parties elsewhere- that's not really the case in the US http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/ This is why this needed to be addressed just as things would be for any other group in the coalition.

Democrats do it all the fucking time with groups like the NRA. Why is it okay to do with the NRA and not on AIPAC?
And btw, saying its influence is all or even most about the money is probably more reductive an inaccurate when talking about the NRA than AIPAC.

Also, what the fuck does "intersects with anti-Semitic tropes" mean in practice? are we not allowed to point out that AIPAC lobbies the government?

Click to shrink...

You absolutely can do it! Just name AIPAC and don't leave it up to interpretation and don't accidentally RT stuff that makes it look like you meant the bigoted interpretation because you're not reading a tweet all the way through.

 

[Grouch Douglass]

Why did Congresswoman Omar unequivocally apologize if she did nothing wrong. Why are people misrepresenting Pelosi's rebuke as a defense of AIPAC? She clearly stated the coded language used was the only problem, not the criticism of AIPAC. It is very easy to explain why AIPAC can be problematic without resorting to twitter games. That's Trump level nonsense.

 

[Akalance]

The fact that criticism of Israel/Netanyahu is immediately construed as anti-Semitic is fucking absurd. Not to say the state is never targeted for that reason, but there is a long list of legitimate criticisms to be made.

 

[Chikor]

I would. Those reasons were put out there. You may not agree, but it doesn't change that they're upset. My interpretation would be a "that looks really bad but I'll wait an explanation/apology cause that's OTT bad (post-RT)" but if it's clearly bad enough to me to necessitate a response I can understand why someone else might be less charitable.

Maybe this is you not being US-based, where Jewish people are split more evenly among major parties elsewhere- that's not really the case in the US http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/ This is why this needed to be addressed just as things would be for any other group in the coalition.

Click to shrink...

I don't understand why you're unwilling to even entertain the idea that those attacks could be in bad faith.
No, for real, can you imagine anything that Ilhan Omar could have said against AIPAC that wouldn't have resulted in her being called an antisemite?
I don't, because again, Kevin McCarthy (the person who is apparently a leading authority on what racist and what isn't) call her an antisemite even before she committed the horrific acts of [checks notes] quoting Jay Z and RT a dude who was super racist at her.

 

[Deleted member 2145]

You want empathy?
Let's talk empathy.
I'm Jewish and I find really really gross to see the first Muslim woman in congress being dragged like that supposedly in my name. And I'm fucking sick and tired that I have to keep apologizing for that shit because literally every single person I know in the US think that I'm down with that crap.
Why the fuck do you take more stock in what Kevin fucking McCarthy think is offensive to Jews than me?
Because a reminder, he thought they were antisemites even last week, and I'm not talking like personal thoughts, he's on the record thinking that and saying they should be punished for that.
But sure, let's listen to what he has to say.

Click to shrink...

I'm Jewish too! turns out there are a vast spectrum of opinions among our group, who would have thought? (I may be wrong but I believe Kirblar is Jewish too)

also you leap frogged into a bunch of stuff that was not in my post so maybe it was more related to your other back and forth that I jumped in on so honestly I'm not going to touch any of your other points

my main point was just that it's important to listen to minority groups when they share their grievances, that's it. listen, try and understand, show empathy.

obviously within each group there will be disagreements but that's natural. that certainly doesn't mean people outside of the group should be making them meet certain thresholds for being allowed to feel the way they feel.

 

[EightBitNate]

Why did Congresswoman Omar unequivocally apologize if she did nothing wrong. Why are people misrepresenting Pelosi's rebuke as a defense of AIPAC? She clearly stated the coded language used was the only problem, not the criticism of AIPAC. It is very easy to explain why AIPAC can be problematic without resorting to twitter games. That's Trump level nonsense.

Click to shrink...

Probably because of pressure from her peers. There's a video with reporters where you can tell she's not genuinely sorry. Even her "apology" was pretty clearly forced. (I don't blame her, fyi. This is bullshit.)

Also, this is "unequivocally" to you?

The whole bottom part is her saying she's not sorry for what she said, but how she said it.

 

[Chikor]

I'm Jewish too! turns out there are a vast spectrum of opinions among our group, who would have thought? (I may be wrong but I believe Kirblar is Jewish too)

also you leap frogged into a bunch of stuff that was not in my post so maybe it was more related to your other back and forth that I jumped in on so honestly I'm not going to touch any of your other points

Click to shrink...

Do you find it offensive?
I have no problem with discussing this point, and I have tried to do so in the thread.
What I am struggling is with this vague "many people find it offensive". I don't think that's something you can even debate with.

 

[Kirblar]

I don't understand why you're unwilling to even entertain the idea that those attacks could be in bad faith.
No, for real, can you imagine anything that Ilhan Omar could have said against AIPAC that wouldn't have resulted in her being called an antisemite?
I don't, because again, Kevin McCarthy (the person who is apparently a leading authority on what racist and what isn't) call her an antisemite even before she committed the horrific acts of [checks notes] quoting Jay Z and RT a dude who was super racist at her.

Click to shrink...

I've acknowledged that Kevin McCarthy is acting in bad faith! Dems aren't responding to pressure from him. Gonna steal this explanation of the dynamics here because it's really important. The Dems are not responsive to external pressure. They're responsive to internal pressure.

Probably because of pressure from her peers. There's a video with reporters where you can tell she's not genuinely sorry. Even her "apology" was pretty clearly forced. (I don't blame her, fyi. This is bullshit.)

Also, this is "unequivocally" to you?

The whole bottom part is her saying she's not sorry for what she said, but how she said it.

Click to shrink...

She literally uses the word "unequivocally".

 

[Nerokis]

Democrats do it all the fucking time with groups like the NRA. Why is it okay to do with the NRA and not on AIPAC?
And btw, saying its influence is all or even most about the money is probably more reductive an inaccurate when talking about the NRA than AIPAC.

Also, what the fuck does "intersects with anti-Semitic tropes" mean in practice? are we not allowed to point out that AIPAC lobbies the government?

Click to shrink...

I addressed the NRA example earlier in this thread:

Every interest group uses money to influence Washington.

The difference is in the framing. Even with the NRA, people generally recognize it derives a lot of its power from preexisting pro-gun sentiment, deeply embedded tradition, single issue voters, and so on. Centering support for Israel, something that manifests in a lot of different ways and comes from a lot of places, around AIPAC is grossly simplistic in a way that inevitably evokes damaging tropes.

And remember, we're typically pretty good at weighing history in our evaluations. This is simply a more sensitive subject than, say, the NRA. I don't think it hurts to be a little more careful with your approach.

Click to shrink...

In practice, "intersects with anti-Semitic tropes" means it touches on a conflicted history that isn't suddenly forgotten, touches on existing bigotry, and inevitably has certain connotations. I don't think it's especially difficult to criticize AIPAC while being sensitive to that dynamic. Look at Rep. Omar's follow-up tweet for an example:

 

[Grouch Douglass]

Probably because of pressure from her peers. There's a video with reporters where you can tell she's not genuinely sorry. Even her "apology" was pretty clearly forced. (I don't blame her, fyi. This is bullshit.)

Also, this is "unequivocally" to you?

The whole bottom part is her saying she's not sorry for what she said, but how she said it.

Click to shrink...

I have zero problem with her apology. She admits to using anti-semitic tropes and apologizes properly. I have a problem with those who deny she did use those tropes and that she shouldn't have apologized because they know what Jewish people should be offended by.

 

[Chikor]

I've acknowledged that Kevin McCarthy is acting in bad faith! Dems aren't responding to pressure from him. Gonna steal this explanation of the dynamics here because it's really important. The Dems are not responsive to external pressure. They're responsive to internal pressure.

Click to shrink...

I don't know what to tell you, I don't want to like interrogate you or anything, so I'm just gonna say that I don't see any explanation there as to why this was offensive or racism and I'm still after 28 pages unclear if you think it is.

 

[EightBitNate]

I've acknowledged that Kevin McCarthy is acting in bad faith! Dems aren't responding to pressure from him. Gonna steal this explanation of the dynamics here because it's really important. The Dems are not responsive to external pressure. They're responsive to internal pressure.


She literally uses the word "unequivocally".

Click to shrink...

Ok but read the whole and the context of the discussion. "Why did Congresswoman Omar unequivocally apologize if she did nothing wrong?" The question is framed in a way that implies Omar believes she's wrong vs Omar believing that she phrased it incorrectly. I literally said this in my post.

 

[Deleted member 2145]

Do you find it offensive?
I have no problem with discussing this point, and I have tried to do so in the thread.
What I am struggling is with this vague "many people find it offensive". I don't think that's something you can even debate with.

Click to shrink...

I don't think I would go as far as offensive, but I think that's more semantics. she didn't "offend" me with what she said. I don't think any person could offend me by leaning into anti-semitic tropes, I've heard them all and have been accused of most of them. problematic, propagating dangerous stereotypes, ill informed, misguided, I think I'd go for those over "offensive". I can see how someone would find it offensive though, just speaking personally. offensive or not propagating those types of stereotypes harms us as a people. you can see that in almost every anti-semitic attack or hate crime committed across the world where ordinary people are subject to abuse, harassment, beatings, shootings, etc. just because they're Jewish and the people carrying out those acts see us as some kind of shadowy group working behind the scenes to tip the scales in our favor and fuck over the rest of the world. and the rewteet with the hook nosed reference was pretty bad, yeah.

 

[Chikor]

I addressed the NRA example earlier in this thread:



In practice, "intersects with anti-Semitic tropes" means it touches on a conflicted history that isn't suddenly forgotten, touches on existing bigotry, and inevitably has certain connotations. I don't think it's especially difficult to criticize AIPAC while being sensitive to that dynamic. Look at Rep. Omar's follow-up tweet for an example:

Click to shrink...

I don't understand, I'm sorry, but I just don't.
I think that saying that the modern NRA is "deeply embedded tradition" kinda miss the whole point of the modern NRA, but I'm not sure why it should set a different bar than how we should talk about the NRA and about AIPAC.
Again, you think I shouldn't be able to point out that AIPAC is lobbying the US government?
Here I am, saying it, am I using problematic language? am I employing racist tropes?
Help me here.

 

[Deleted member 4346]

If, like Pelosi said in her statement, we must denounce all forms of hatred, racism, and discrimination, then we must denounce a genocidal, apartheid state and anyone who supports is.

Click to shrink...

Chris Hayes is right here. AIPAC is making themselves irrelevant. Support for Israel and certainly for the US writing a blank check to an apartheid state are lower (and sinking) on the American left, especially for younger voters. In another generation US/Israel relations are going to be much different than they have been in the past.

A good reminder that just because you have a common enemy doesn't mean the current power structure is your friend. That includes the intelligence community, that includes the major media corporations, that includes the Democratic Party.

If your goal is to fight entrenched power structures, you can't look for allies that are part of that structure.

Click to shrink...

Trump's presidency has led to a lot of strange bedfellows for Democrats and I've seen it here, as liberal posters stumble over themselves to justify a lot of people, or policies, that aren't really progressive at all. You are absolutely right. We should aim be ideologically consistent and not just align ourselves with monsters because those monsters oppose Trump.

 

[Kirblar]

I'm Jewish too! turns out there are a vast spectrum of opinions among our group, who would have thought? (I may be wrong but I believe Kirblar is Jewish too)

also you leap frogged into a bunch of stuff that was not in my post so maybe it was more related to your other back and forth that I jumped in on so honestly I'm not going to touch any of your other points

my main point was just that it's important to listen to minority groups when they share their grievances, that's it. listen, try and understand, show empathy.

obviously within each group there will be disagreements but that's natural. that certainly doesn't mean people outside of the group should be making them meet certain thresholds for being allowed to feel the way they feel.

Click to shrink...

1/4.

I have zero problem with her apology. She admits to using anti-semitic tropes and apologizes properly. I have a problem with those who deny she did use those tropes and that she shouldn't have apologized because they know what Jewish people should be offended by.

Click to shrink...

I actually want to slightly push back on this- I don't think she was deliberately using them, but she accidentally stepped on an electric rail because she didn't understand the trope, the way it intersected, and the need to walk around it because of that. It's not direct usage, it's not understanding the overlap.

I don't know what to tell you, I don't want to like interrogate you or anything, so I'm just gonna say that I don't see any explanation there as to why this was offensive or racism and I'm still after 28 pages unclear if you think it is.

Click to shrink...

You don't need to see one. You can disagree and still see that others are upset and take them at their word for it that they're upset when they're people you trust. Which is why Dems will respond to internal pressure, not external pressure. Growing up a DC council guy used a word that sounds close to the N-word and needed to apologize for it even though in context of what he was saying it wasn't intended to be related to race in any way. (I'd spell it out but I don't want to look like I'm being cute and trying to sneak in a usage.)

 

[Chikor]

I don't think I would go as far as offensive, but I think that's more semantics. she didn't "offend" me with what she said. I don't think any person could offend me by leaning into anti-semitic tropes, I've heard them all and have been accused of most of them. problematic, propagating dangerous stereotypes, ill informed, misguided, I think I'd go for those over "offensive". I can see how someone would find it offensive though, just speaking personally. offensive or not propagating those types of stereotypes harms us as a people. you can see that in almost every anti-semitic attack or hate crime committed across the world where ordinary people are subject to abuse, harassment, beatings, shootings, etc. just because they're Jewish and the people carrying out those acts see us as some kind of shadowy group working behind the scenes to tip the scales in our favor and fuck over the rest of the world. and the rewteet with the hook nosed reference was pretty bad, yeah.

Click to shrink...

So you don't find it offensive but then you tie it to antisemitic attacks around the world. This is weird to me.
Is the argument here that even though she herself is not racist and that what she said is no offensive per se (and we can't explain why some people find it offensive) but at the same time, her words might incite antisemitic violence?

I don't know, I really really don't think that the people who might come after me because I'm a jew are taking marching orders from a black social democrat who was born in Somalia.

 

[Snake Eater]

The congresswoman may have ruined her career before and ever really started

 

[Deleted member 9135]

Why did Congresswoman Omar unequivocally apologize if she did nothing wrong. Why are people misrepresenting Pelosi's rebuke as a defense of AIPAC? She clearly stated the coded language used was the only problem, not the criticism of AIPAC. It is very easy to explain why AIPAC can be problematic without resorting to twitter games. That's Trump level nonsense.

Click to shrink...

Politics.

Here's how this works and really not just politics but any work place environment: Omar causes a stir, intentional or not -doesn't matter-, she now drags Pelosi into the ring, who has to make a statement that will split her base into different reactions, creating more noise than Pelosi already has to deal with. The apology isn't so much for the bullshitters on Twitter or the 24/7 news audience so much as it is for Omar's own party and peers.

 

[Chikor]

You don't need to see one. You can disagree and still see that others are upset and take them at their word for it that they're upset when they're people you trust. Which is why Dems will respond to internal pressure, not external pressure. Growing up a DC council guy used a word that sounds close to the N-word and needed to apologize for it even though in context of what he was saying it wasn't intended to be related to race in any way. (I'd spell it out but I don't want to look like I'm being cute and trying to sneak in a usage.)

Click to shrink...

My issue is that I think you're setting a different bar for issues regarding Israel.
Like, I would imagine you'd have very little problem to articulate why you have a problem with the n word.
But after 28 pages here you can't even tell me exactly what the problem with what she said or even how you personally feel about it.
It's all concerns about what Many People might think, and again, you can defend literally anything.
"Many people are offended that at the idea of universal background checks, those are people I trust".

p.s.
I'm really kinda uncomfortable with trying to talk about Jews in America in similar terms than you'd speak about really disadvantaged minority groups like african americans. Especially when we're dealing with a whole lot of white people shitting on a black muslim woman, like in this story.

 

[marrec]

The congresswoman may have ruined her career before and ever really started

Click to shrink...

She'll be fine, the window is being forced back to the left and eventually this unfortunate gaffe will be forgotten in favor of her actual positions on AIPAC lobbying.

She's lost a bit of immediate credibility within congress concerning AIPAC, but that'll change with time, she's young and smart and will be there for as long as she wants.

 

[EightBitNate]

The congresswoman may have ruined her career before and ever really started

Click to shrink...

From what I've read her district is super liberal and has a decently large Somali population. I don't think she'll have any problems getting re-elected but it doesn't sound like either party wants to collaborate with her on anything so she might have a hard time doing anything substantial.

She'll be fine, the window is being forced back to the left and eventually this unfortunate gaffe will be forgotten in favor of her actual positions on AIPAC lobbying.

She's lost a bit of immediate credibility within congress concerning AIPAC, but that'll change with time, she's young and smart and will be there for as long as she wants.

Click to shrink...

Aw I miss your selfie avatar :/

 

[Snake Eater]

From what I've read her district is super liberal and has a decently large Somali population. I don't think she'll have any problems getting re-elected but it doesn't sound like either party wants to collaborate with her on anything so she might have a hard time doing anything substantial.

Click to shrink...

It's not an issue about her being reelected, it's the fact that she may not be very effective in Congress with this stigma always following her

 

[EightBitNate]

It's not an issue about her being reelected, it's the fact that she may not be very effective in Congress with this stigma always following her

Click to shrink...

Right. I do wonder what part of Congress actually is pro-Israel rather than just "appearing" to be pro-Israel. Like will we see officials actually shun her or is this just the general public doesn't get the wrong idea.

 

[Kirblar]

My issue is that I think you're setting a different bar for issues regarding Israel.
Like, I would imagine you'd have very little problem to articulate why you have a problem with the n word.
But after 28 pages here you can't even tell me exactly what the problem with what she said or even how you personally feel about it.
It's all concerns about what Many People might think, and again, you can defend literally anything.
"Many people are offended that at the idea of universal background checks, those are people I trust".

Click to shrink...

I don't consider the issue here Israel.

You have been told what the problem is that made people upset. I've told you how I felt! (I wasn't upset but the circumstances were not good and she needed to put out a clarification, which she did w/ the apology.) You just refuse to accept that because you disagree with those interpretations.

p.s.
I'm really kinda uncomfortable with trying to talk about Jews in America in similar terms than you'd speak about really disadvantaged minority groups like african americans. Especially when we're dealing with a whole lot of white people shitting on a black muslim woman, like in this story.

Click to shrink...

P.S.: A Jewish community center was tagged with swastikas in my county and I know people who knew people at the PA shooting last year, and one of our local DC council members has some really interesting opinions about Jewish people and the weather. I don't think you understand the dynamics here in the states. To say Jewish people in America aren't "really" disadvantaged is to let class concerns override the fact that they're still a target of racist violence and conspiracy theories. This is not "white people shitting on a black muslim woman" (from the left) - this is people pushing back on something and trying to primarily educate if they're acting in good faith. If that apology wasn't good enough for you, you're not worth listening to.

 

[Chikor]

It's not an issue about her being reelected, it's the fact that she may not be very effective in Congress with this stigma always following her

Click to shrink...

There's no reason she should get a stigma for anything.
I mean there is, it's because she's a Muslim, and that's why the GOP called her an antisemite since before she was even elected, but I really don't think we should be single boosting that garbage.

Sadly, a ton of people in the democratic party thought that they should :\

 

[Chikor]

I don't consider the issue here Israel.

You have been told what the problem is that made people upset. I've told you how I felt! (I wasn't upset but the circumstances were not good and she needed to put out a clarification, which she did w/ the apology.) You just refuse to accept that because you disagree with those interpretations.

Click to shrink...

I refuse to accept them as good faith critique of her, and you're not really trying to engage with me on this beyond "some people I know are offended by it".
Some people I know are offended by Colin Kaepernick kneeling and I still think it's a garbage bad faith argument.

P.S.: A Jewish community center was tagged with swastikas in my county and I know people who knew people at the PA shooting last year, and one of our local DC council members has some really interesting opinions about Jewish people and the weather. I don't think you understand the dynamics here in the states. This is not "white people shitting on a black muslim woman" (from the left) - this is people pushing back on something and trying to primarily educate if they're acting in good faith. If that apology wasn't good enough for you, you're not worth listening to.

Click to shrink...

Honest question - you don't consider yourself white?
I do.
I know not all American Jews think that, and this is totally understandable for older generations, but I really don't accept it and I'm actually really really bothered by that very idea.

 

[Nerokis]

I don't understand, I'm sorry, but I just don't.
I think that saying that the modern NRA is "deeply embedded tradition" kinda miss the whole point of the modern NRA, but I'm not sure why it should set a different bar than how we should talk about the NRA and about AIPAC.
Again, you think I shouldn't be able to point out that AIPAC is lobbying the US government?
Here I am, saying it, am I using problematic language? am I employing racist tropes?
Help me here.

Click to shrink...

No (to the bolded). I mean, Rep. Omar calls out AIPAC as a lobbying firm in the tweet I posted as a positive example.

It is factually accurate that AIPAC is powerful, influential, and uses money to push for a pro-Israel agenda. On the other hand, it is grossly simplistic to ignore that AIPAC is so powerful, in part, because of the historical and current relationship between Israel and the United States, because of religious forces that have a soft spot for Israel, because of the weakening but substantial connection between Israel and American Jewry, because of a favorable media environment, and so on. It's misguided to reflexively land on "money" when you question where support for Israel comes from. It's misguided, distorting, and erases a lot of complexity in favor of the idea that this superorganization created and sustains support for Israel out of nothing.

And seriously, why is this subject apparently immune to history? It's not unusual to set different bars for different things. Actually, it's often times counterproductive to treat two things as being exactly the same. I don't think I have to explain why "avoid evoking damaging tropes" is more imperative in AIPAC/Israel discourse than NRA/gun discourse.

 

[uncelestial]

This is not "white people shitting on a black muslim woman"

Click to shrink...

It is, though.

 

[Deleted member 2145]

So you don't find it offensive but then you tie it to antisemitic attacks around the world. This is weird to me.
Is the argument here that even though she herself is not racist and that what she said is no offensive per se (and we can't explain why some people find it offensive) but at the same time, her words might incite antisemitic violence?

I don't know, I really really don't think that the people who might come after me because I'm a jew are taking marching orders from a black social democrat who was born in Somalia.

Click to shrink...

shouldn't be all that weird, I explained it in that post. on a personal level I don't give a shit what someone else thinks. on a larger scale I understand the effect that propagating these stereotypes can have on Jewish people as a whole.

and it's not a 1 to 1 thing as you should probably know and understand. it's not about if there's going to be a direct cause and effect of the words that this one singular politician said and another act of anti-semitism. it's about the effect that propagating these stereotypes has overall. hopefully that makes sense because I'm not even sure why you took the angle you did with the marching orders and stuff given what I said. doesn't quite make sense.

 

[Chikor]

No. I mean, Rep. Omar calls out AIPAC as a lobbying firm in the tweet I posted as a positive example.

It is factually accurate that AIPAC is powerful, influential, and uses money to push for a pro-Israel agenda. On the other hand, it is grossly simplistic to ignore that AIPAC is so powerful, in part, because of the historical and current relationship between Israel and the United States, because of religious forces that have a soft spot for Israel, because of the weakening but substantial connection between Israel and American Jewry, because of a favorable media environment, and so on. It's misguided to reflexively land on "money" when you question where support for Israel comes from. It's misguided, distorting, and erases a lot of complexity in favor of the idea that this superorganization created and sustains support for Israel out of nothing.

And seriously, why is this subject apparently immune to history? It's not unusual to set different bars for different things. Actually, it's often times counterproductive to treat two things as being exactly the same. I don't think I have to explain why "avoid evoking damaging tropes" is more imperative in AIPAC/Israel discourse than NRA/gun discourse.

Click to shrink...

So first of all, I'm not sure I really agree with your analysis as to why AIPAC has so much influence. I think it's mostly because Israel had "natural" allies in both parties (Jews on the left and end of days evangelicals and later anti-muslim racists on the right).
I think it's good to have discussions about those things, what I don't understand is why I can say "fuck the NRA" and it's fine, but when I say "fuck AIPAC" I must provide deep historical context.
This seem like a double standard to me, and not just any double standard, the good old one that the US political system applied to Israel since forever.

 

[Murderopolis]

Could someone please explain Pelosis history of Israel support? Legistlation, Aipac, and statements?

 

[Chikor]

shouldn't be all that weird, I explained it in that post. on a personal level I don't give a shit what someone else thinks. on a larger scale I understand the effect that propagating these stereotypes can have on Jewish people as a whole.

and it's not a 1 to 1 thing as you should probably know and understand. it's not about if there's going to be a direct cause and effect of the words that this one singular politician said and another act of anti-semitism. it's about the effect that propagating these stereotypes has overall. hopefully that makes sense because I'm not even sure why you took the angle you did with the marching orders and stuff given what I said. doesn't quite make sense.

Click to shrink...

No but for real, what stereotypes, that black women quote jay z?
Like, I think you seem to imply that she somehow said or dogwhistled "jews control the money" but again, this seem like a really dishonest read of what she saying, and to go there and say it's also going to contribute to the rise of antisemitism?
I don't know what to tell you.

Like, do you believe any of those things or are you concern that other people will believe them?

 

[Deleted member 48897]

AIPAC is definitely not "The Jews"

 

[Kirblar]

I refuse to accept them as good faith critique of her, and you're not really trying to engage with me on this beyond "some people I know are offended by it".
Some people I know are offended by Colin Kaepernick kneeling and I still think it's a garbage bad faith argument.

Honest question - you don't consider yourself white?
I do.
I know not all American Jews think that, and this is totally understandable for older generations, but I really don't accept it and I'm actually really really bothered by that very idea.

Click to shrink...

Yes, that's the problem. You are refusing to acknowledge that any critique could possibly have been in good faith. I'm using Max Rose as an example cause he was public- he had astrong statement about the first tweet and RT combo, then accepted the apology and flipped the meeting with the press into an attack on Kevin McCarthy. This is the behavior of someone acting in good faith. This is why the acceptance of the apology is a good litmus test, because if they're really upset about AIPAC, they ain't gonna be happy with that apology.

No, I consider myself white. I'm 1/4 Irish, 1/2 Scottish for the other parts I very much have masculine white guy "passing privilege" on multiple axes. I also know Jewish people who are very much non-white. And other ones who are white and blonde. And others who are white but still very stereotypically Jewish in appearance or speech patterns. It is complicated, and reducing them to "white" only is not fair and is far too simplistic when the actual problem is way more complicated. The Parkland shooter being a neoNazi and targeting his former school that had a large amount of Jewish kids? Unlikely to be a coincidence. Hate crimes are surging against gay people, black people, Jewish people, etc.

It is, though.

Click to shrink...

Not internally on the Dem side for the most part.

So first of all, I'm not sure I really agree with your analysis as to why AIPAC has so much influence. I think it's mostly because Israel had "natural" allies in both parties (Jews on the left and end of days evangelicals and later anti-muslim racists on the right).
I think it's good to have discussions about those things, what I don't understand is why I can say "fuck the NRA" and it's fine, but when I say "fuck AIPAC" I must provide deep historical context.
This seem like a double standard to me, and not just any double standard, the good old one that the US political system applied to Israel since forever.

Click to shrink...

You can call a white guy a thug with no problem. You can't call a black guy a thug without getting pushback. This isn't a double standard, it's understanding that "thug" is a dogwhistle and using your words to avoid the problem.

 

[Nerokis]

So first of all, I'm not sure I really agree with your analysis as to why AIPAC has so much influence. I think it's mostly because Israel had "natural" allies in both parties (Jews on the left and end of days evangelicals and later anti-muslim racists on the right).
I think it's good to have discussions about those things, what I don't understand is why I can say "fuck the NRA" and it's fine, but when I say "fuck AIPAC" I must provide deep historical context.
This seem like a double standard to me, and not just any double standard, the good old one that the US political system applied to Israel since forever.

Click to shrink...

It is a double standard. The thing is, as you know, double standards often contain multitudes; double standards within double standards within double standards. I'm pulling this number mostly from my ass, but though the NRA spends something like 5x what AIPAC does, 1) like I said earlier, people somehow manage to be more nuanced in their gun commentary and 2) there is no obvious risk that the NRA will be situated into a racist/anti-Semitic/whatever conspiracy.

"Be wary of dynamics that exist in AIPAC discourse that don't exist in, say, NRA discourse" strikes me as a positive double standard.

Also, I think we're losing sight of the fact that Rep. Omar's mistake was kind of specific. It was to reflexively center, in a manner that was both incredibly reductionist and highly generalizing, an expression of support for Israel around money/AIPAC.

I said this earlier: when it comes to this topic, you're going to run into bad faith all day long. In my mind, though, there's not really any need for groundwork setting before saying "fuck AIPAC."

(Oh, and our explanations for AIPAC's influence pretty much align, I think. I just worded it differently.)

 

[Deleted member 2145]

No but for real, what stereotypes, that black women quote jay z?
Like, I think you seem to imply that she somehow said or dogwhistled "jews control the money" but again, this seem like a really dishonest read of what she saying, and to go there and say it's also going to contribute to the rise of antisemitism?
I don't know what to tell you.

Like, do you believe any of those things or are you concern that other people will believe them?

Click to shrink...

the behind the scenes influencing and the hook nosed retweet, yeah

also we know without a shadow of a doubt that these kinds of stereotypes lead directly to anti-semitism. it's not that I would hold her responsible for any anti-semitic crimes but she is a public figure and her words have reach. that's how the ball keeps rolling with these things. people hear things consistently enough, maybe they believe them, maybe they spread theif beliefs, maybe they act on them, maybe they get others to act with them, etc.

what are you asking me if I believe, not sure I understand? are you asking me if I believe that Jews secretly control the world or if I believe that those stereotypes lead directly to anti-semitic crimes?

 

[julian]

I refuse to accept them as good faith critique of her, and you're not really trying to engage with me on this beyond "some people I know are offended by it".
Some people I know are offended by Colin Kaepernick kneeling and I still think it's a garbage bad faith argument.

Honest question - you don't consider yourself white?
I do.
I know not all American Jews think that, and this is totally understandable for older generations, but I really don't accept it and I'm actually really really bothered by that very idea.

Click to shrink...

At this point you're playing persecution Olympics as if pointing out black people have it harder in America, Jews must be fine. The stats have already been posted in this thread about hate crimes towards Jews. Having it easier doesn't magically mean there's no issue or we have not been a persecuted minority in America.

And Kirblar has explained where the backlash came from since page 1. Over and over again. Yet you continue bringing up points literally nobody is arguing about Kevin McCarthy and bad faith arguments. You're just arguing against yourself.