• The GiftBot 2.0 Launch Giveaway Extravaganza has come to a close with an astounding 8073 games given away to the community by 696 members, a huge success thanks to you! The gifting now continues with more official prizes in the new Gaming Giveaways |OT|. Leftover Steam codes are also being given away to the PC Gaming Era community.

House Dems will vote on a resolution in response to Ilhan Omar’s Israel comments

Status
Not open for further replies.

EightBitNate

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
1,644
The last "direct" comment she made on the matter was this tweet :


She has been throwing a little shade here and there on twitter. I wish she'd take a stronger stance but hey at least it's something :/
Interesting. Glad she posted that. I wonder how much of her speech is being stifled simply because of the Democratic Party.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,044
Brooklyn, NY
The last "direct" comment she made on the matter was this tweet :


She has been throwing a little shade here and there on twitter. I wish she'd take a stronger stance but hey at least it's something :/
she’s agreeing with and validating the notion that Omar’s remarks were actually antisemitic and that she thus needed to be either “called in” or “called out” for them. I honestly can’t decide if it’d be better for her to just say nothing
 

zer0blivion

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,269
Canada
Good piece by Mehdi Hasan.

The Intercept: Republicans and Democrats Say Their Criticism of Ilhan Omar Is About Anti-Semitism. They’re Gaslighting You.
SO LET ME get this straight: The president of the United States has called neo-Nazis “very fine people”; retweeted neo-Nazis; told an audience of Jewish-Americans that Israel is “your country”; and indulged in viciously anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. While running for office, he tweeted an image of Hillary Clinton inside a Star of David, next to a pile of cash; told an audience of Jewish donors, “You want to control your politicians, that’s fine”; and put out a campaign ad that attacked three rich and powerful Jewish figures. While a private citizen, he insisted only “short guys that wear yarmulkes” should count his money and kept a book of Adolf Hitler’s speeches on his bedside table.

He has never apologized for any of this. Nor has he been censured by Congress.

Since coming to office, he has hired, among others, Sebastian Gorka — who made the Nazi-linked Hungarian group Vitézi Rend “proud” when he wore its medal to an inauguration ball — and Steve Bannon, who didn’t want his daughters attending a particular school in Los Angeles because of “the number of Jews.”

Neither of them has apologized. Nor have they been censured by Congress.

---

Last October, a far-right conspiracy theorist — who, like the president and other prominent Republicans, blamed globalists” like Soros for allowing immigrant “invaders” to come into the United States — shot and killed 11 Jewish worshippers in the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. To quoteAdam Serwer of The Atlantic: “The apparent spark for the worst anti-Semitic massacre in American history was a racist hoax inflamed by a U.S. president seeking to help his party win a midterm election.”

On Wednesday, however, the House Democratic leadership will try and formally censure Rep. Ilhan Omar — a black Somali-American Muslim woman who came to the United States as a refugee, and who, in recent days, has been compared to the 9/11 terrorists by Republicans in West Virginia and described as “filth” by an adviser to the president — for saying that she wanted “to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” Her fellow congressional Democrats have said little or nothing about the aforementioned and shameful Republican record of anti-Semitism, but many have joined the pile-on against Omar. One of them — Rep. Juan Vargas — went out of his way to insist, rather revealingly, that “questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable.”

So my simple point is this: Whether or not you agree with Omar’s remarks, whether or not you were personally offended, anyone who tells you that these nonstop, bipartisan political attacks on her are about fighting anti-Semitism is gaslighting you.
 

Ploid 6.0

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,728
It's not. I bet you'll find the majority, if not all, of the posters your talking about think both should stay out of influencing the US government. and have firmly scolded Russias influence. Of course, this implies they were sticking up for Israel, when only one poster has made that distinction and has been dog piled on this on page 15, when many posters arguments are far more nuanced than that despite being painted as people who had no problem with what Isreal/AIPAC was doing. Mine included.
I hadn't seen or made my post as a response to other people's post but the news/info that she's in trouble for saying it's all about the money in regard to AIPAC. I know she said some other stuff and apologized for that, but it seems like the AIPAC comment got her in a lot of trouble. Seeing AIPAC seems like a foreign influence made is what I'm commenting on. What if Russia had something similar, to donate to politicians making some defend Russia's actions with regard to it's neighbors (Trump: They are both Russia since they both speak the same language), or when Russia want's certain things done (no protesting Russia in America). It just seems messed up.

Edit: Catching up with quotes to my post. Just now seeing the mod message. I hope this post clears everything up, and I'm not exactly sure if the above would be considered as talking about Israel's situation in it's area. If it is have mercy on me mods. I should have just said I hadn't even read posts to then make my post as a response to others, but I type too much as you can see with this edit.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
2,450
And yet Israel is the only nation that gets calls for abolishment on this forum.
Lmk when Italy starts killing brown people for living in their own homes.

Also Saudi Arabia does similar shit and is also constantly called out by progressives. I didn't know SA, an Islamist Wahabist theocratic monarchy, was also a Jewish ethnostate.
 

Kirblar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,411
What?

Are they not elected politicians of the United States of America?

Should we not police ourselves as a country?
I mean, we should, but one of the parties is explicitly uninterested in doing it whatsoever.

Well, unless you're pro-choice, then you get blacklisted.
The fuck?
This whole thing started because Kevin McCarthy tried to censor the first two Muslim women who were elected to congress.
And Dems aren't going to be able to get the GOP to go along with a statement directly aimed at him, which would frame criticism as partisan, so they don't do it.
 

Sami

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,512
Parties will self-police themselves. Going "why didn't the Dems censure Trump" is ridiculous because they hold no authority or influence over him.
This is nonsense. Democrats have a duty as elected officials to condemn and obstruct wrongdoing on either side of the aisle to the best of their ability. The newer progressives are actively doing this already and there is absolutely no reason why the Democrat controlled House could not draft a resolution against Islamophobia in response to the any of the countless instances of it from the GOP.
 
Last edited:

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,410
And Dems aren't going to be able to get the GOP to go along with a statement directly aimed at him, which would frame criticism as partisan, so they don't do it.
Is your argument that the Democrats never criticize a republican unless they can get a bipartisan support for that criticism?
This is really really not true, and I got to believe that you know that this is not true.
 

Kirblar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,411
This is nonsense. Democrats have a duty as elected officials to condemn and obstruct wrongdoing on either side of the aisle to the best of their ability. The newer progressives are actively doing this already doing this and there is absolutely no reason why the Democrat controlled House could not draft a resolution against Islamophobia in response to the any of the countless instances of it from the GOP.
They absolutely should put up a paired resolution to address this as well.
Is your argument that the Democrats never criticize a republican unless they can get a bipartisan support for that criticism?
This is really really not true, and I got to believe that you know that this is not true.
No, of course not. I'm speaking institutionally as organizations. A Steve King wouldn't be tolerated in the Dem's caucus (see: Northam response) but the GOP has very few actual standards.
 

thebishop

Member
Nov 10, 2017
1,848
Interesting. Glad she posted that. I wonder how much of her speech is being stifled simply because of the Democratic Party.
Important question. Another thing to consider is that the move by the Democrats to censure Omar now will create a chilling effect on others who might criticize the right-wing Israeli government and the occupation of Palestine. So even if AOC might say definitively "I'm not being stifled", we have to assume the terms of acceptable debate are absolutely set and enforced by the party.
 

Zelas

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,443
“This thing you didn’t say is really hurtful, you shouldn’t say it. But let me make it look like you did....”

Why indeed would she bristle at that?
Please, if only she bristled instead of repeating her “allegiance to a foreign country” line.

This is a 100% an insane strategy. At the very least it shows she doesn’t care about the context of how she chooses to criticize Israel.

Fucking what?

Man these trolls are getting lazier by the minute.
“Pledging allegiance to another country” has been said by her more than once. Try again.
 

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,410
No, of course not. I'm speaking institutionally as organizations. A Steve King wouldn't be tolerated in the Dem's caucus (see: Northam response) but the GOP has very few actual standards.
I get it that you're speaking "institutionally as organization", so do I, so was the article, I mean, it's literally talking about the Democratic party. The issue is that you make claims that are demonstrably false.

Not sure how's the fact that Steve King is unlikely to win a dem primary is relevant to any of that.
 

Kirblar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,411
I get it that you're speaking "institutionally as organization", so do I, so was the article, I mean, it's literally talking about the Democratic party. The issue is that you make claims that are demonstrably false.

Not sure how's the fact that Steve King is unlikely to win a dem primary is relevant to any of that.
No, you were not. You said the following:
Is your argument that the Democrats never criticize a republican unless they can get a bipartisan support for that criticism?
Which is explicitly talking about about individual party members criticizing Republicans.

Please don't do this.
 

thebishop

Member
Nov 10, 2017
1,848
This is nonsense. Democrats have a duty as elected officials to condemn and obstruct wrongdoing on either side of the aisle to the best of their ability. The newer progressives are actively doing this already and there is absolutely no reason why the Democrat controlled House could not draft a resolution against Islamophobia in response to the any of the countless instances of it from the GOP.
If Democrats are institutionally opposed to islamophobia, they should stop bombing (and supporting the bombing of) majority Muslim countries who pose no threat to the US. Out-group bigotry/racism *begins* with the oppression and exploitation of that group by the majority for material reasons. Race enters the picture when a majority group needs to justify their oppression of another group (as Barbara Fields has shown persuasively).
 

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,410
No, you were not. You said the following:

Which is explicitly talking about about individual party members criticizing Republicans.

Please don't do this.
And dem leadership "as an institution" never attacked the GOP without bipartisan support?
Seriously, what are you even arguing anymore?
I know you follow politics close enough to know that none of that shit is remotely true.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,028
Parties will self-police themselves. Going "why didn't the Dems censure Trump" is ridiculous because they hold no authority or influence over him.
Just a thought but maybe censuring people from the other party who are actually doing what bad faith actors are accusing you of is better then the current spineless autocannibalism that dems are currently engaged in.
 

aeolist

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,993
https://thebaffler.com/latest/american-scapegoat-goldman

It’s unsurprising that the resolution doesn’t actually mention Omar’s words, because linking them to the dual loyalty canard requires untenable logical leaps. The claim that the statement was anti-Semitic rests upon the word “allegiance,” which pundits have spent the past week torturing with dim-witted hermeneutics. Chait wrote, “To believe in a strong American alliance with Israel . . . is not the same thing as giving one’s allegiance to that country.” Yet nothing in the sentence Omar actually said speaks to the question of Jews’ loyalty or Americanness. It didn’t mention Jews at all, but only political actors who “push for allegiance” to Israel. This is an entirely fair-minded description of, for instance, attempts to curtail Americans’ right to protest other nations with legislation that criminalizes participation in the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement. “Allegiance” is also a reasonable label for the unquestioning devotion to an American-Israeli alliance demanded across the spectrum of the political mainstream. Democratic congressman Juan Vargas admitted as much in a tweet condemning Omar on Monday, in which he wrote that “questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable.”

It is this questioning—not anti-Semitism—that has been Omar’s crime all along.
 

OtherWorldly

Banned
Dec 3, 2018
2,857
States where you are fired for not pledging to protect Israeli products which in essence is pledging loyalty to state of Israel
Texas: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-bds-boycott-texas-20181222-story.html?outputType=amp

Arkansas https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna977771

Kansas https://amp.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article226514045.html

Kentucky, Montana, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Michigan, Texas, Nevada, Louisiana and Wisconsin https://unitedwithisrael.org/kentucky-becomes-26th-us-state-to-pass-anti-bds-law/

Basically if any era member in the United States in the above states does not sign a form if asked to affirm allegiance to buy Israeli products in a show of loyalty, they will be fired


Now.. tell me why they are going after Rep. Omar again ?
 
Last edited:

Kirblar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,411
Just a thought but maybe censuring people from the other party who are actually doing what bad faith actors are accusing you of is better then the current spineless autocannibalism that dems are currently engaged in.
This is a good question to ask. On paper, this seems fine. The problem is that if the GOP won't play ball, you end up with censures/resolutions/etc on topics condemning behavior that pass on a party line vote. Which the GOP is deliberately baiting out so that they can claim that accusations of "racism/anti-semitism/homophobia" aren't real problems but are instead just partisan attacks. This is obviously bad for a number of reasons, and that implicit threat is what gets you the current scenario- individual reps, even leaders decrying behavior but without official measures being taken by the House. It's not unique to us, you see this play out in the UK as well.

This is also why Steve King got referred to the bipartisan ethics committee btw, Dem leadership didn't want to risk a vote like that going down- they want to have buy-in from the GOP if a congressional censure/statement condemning him gets put out there explicitly to avoid this issue.
And dem leadership "as an institution" never attacked the GOP without bipartisan support?
Seriously, what are you even arguing anymore?
I know you follow politics close enough to know that none of that shit is remotely true.
Dem leadership and instittutions can actually enforce consequences on their membership. If Justin Fairfax tries to run for Governor in 2 years, he's not going to be getting endorsements, donations, etc. from inside the party. Because they have power to deny it. They don't have that power to deny support for say, a Corey Stewart bid on the GOP side.

My argument in response to that article has not been vague or unclear.
 

thebishop

Member
Nov 10, 2017
1,848
Dem leadership and instittutions can actually enforce consequences on their membership. If Justin Fairfax tries to run for Governor in 2 years, he's not going to be getting endorsements, donations, etc. from inside the party. Because they have power to deny it.
Important point for anyone with dreams of reforming or "taking back" the Democratic party for the left.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,028
This is a good question to ask. On paper, this seems fine. The problem is that if the GOP won't play ball, you end up with censures/resolutions/etc on topics condemning behavior that pass on a party line vote. Which the GOP is deliberately baiting out so that they can claim that accusations of "racism/anti-semitism/homophobia" aren't real problems but are instead just partisan attacks. This is obviously bad for a number of reasons, and that implicit threat is what gets you the current scenario- individual reps, even leaders decrying behavior but without official measures being taken by the House. It's not unique to us, you see this play out in the UK as well.
So like that''s fair but that does nothing to change (and in fact in my mind makes more clear) how much of a self inflicted wound the current dem response is. To paraphrase myself from earlier, it's both morally bankrupt and politically ineffective and thus something no one should be supporting unless their end goal is a further entrenchment of the american political class' inability to question Israel.
 

Sami

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,512
If Democrats are institutionally opposed to islamophobia, they should stop bombing (and supporting the bombing of) majority Muslim countries who pose no threat to the US. Out-group bigotry/racism *begins* with the oppression and exploitation of that group by the majority for material reasons. Race enters the picture when a majority group needs to justify their oppression of another group (as Barbara Fields has shown persuasively).
I suppose I should have clarified that there is no moral reason for them not to condemn Islamophobia in the same manner that they are condemning alleged anti-Semitism with this resolution. You're absolutely correct and as an Arab American it is absolutely infuriating to see the Palestinian people as well as the larger Muslim and Arab communities silenced in these discussions.
 

Codeblue

Member
Oct 25, 2017
590
Please, if only she bristled instead of repeating her “allegiance to a foreign country” line.

This is a 100% an insane strategy. At the very least it shows she doesn’t care about the context of how she chooses to criticize Israel.


“Pledging allegiance to another country” has been said by her more than once. Try again.
I think you're actually missing the context here, and not her. Anyone calling this anti-Semitic is willfully ignoring that anti-BDS bills are asking you to pledge allegiance to another country and this is clearly what she's referencing. The effort to shut down that conversation by charging that it is bigotry to state the current reality is absurd.
 

thebishop

Member
Nov 10, 2017
1,848
So like that''s fair but that does nothing to change (and in fact in my mind makes more clear) how much of a self inflicted wound the current dem response is. To paraphrase myself from earlier, it's both morally bankrupt and politically ineffective and thus something no one should be supporting unless their end goal is a further entrenchment of the american political class' inability to question Israel.
But you're calling it "autocannibalism", when really it's the party as an institution enforcing ideological discipline. The problem is idea that Omar and The Democratic Party are of one group. People with ideas like Omar's are not welcome in the party. They might get elected as Democrats from time to time, but they're not allowed to influence party policy.
 

TheModestGun

Member
Dec 5, 2017
2,811
Please, if only she bristled instead of repeating her “allegiance to a foreign country” line.

This is a 100% an insane strategy. At the very least it shows she doesn’t care about the context of how she chooses to criticize Israel.


“Pledging allegiance to another country” has been said by her more than once. Try again.
I'm pretty sure she isnt talking about jews pledging allegiance to Israel. I think its pretty explicit that she is talking about our politicians pledging allegiance. It seems pretty clear by the fact that she said she cant pledge allegiance to them. Last I checked, she is not jewish, and as another has said, a direct rebuke of proposed legislation that basically would make it illegal for organizations to criticize or boycott Israel for its behavior.

Unless you are referring to something else. Then I'm confused.
 

Dude Abides

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,026
Please, if only she bristled instead of repeating her “allegiance to a foreign country” line.

This is a 100% an insane strategy. At the very least it shows she doesn’t care about the context of how she chooses to criticize Israel.


“Pledging allegiance to another country” has been said by her more than once. Try again.
Dems: US support for Israel should not be questioned.

Also Dems: How DARE you suggest that politicians have to show allegiance to Israel, you anti-Semite!
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,028
But you're calling it "autocannibalism", when really it's the party as an institution enforcing ideological discipline. The problem is idea that Omar and The Democratic Party are of one group. People with ideas like Omar's are not welcome in the party. They might get elected as Democrats from time to time, but they're not allowed to influence party policy.
parties have to get elected
unquestioning support for israel produces ideological contradictions
popular opinion is trending towards a less policed discourse

It's autocannibalism because they are avoiding the problem out of fear of immediate consequences which does nothing but kick the can down the road on the issue. This is to say nothing of legitimizing the manufactured concern of bad faith actors, something which often kneecaps the dems.

edit: there are less public ways to enforce discipline, this is what the right would call "virtue signaling"
 

Psychoward

Member
Nov 7, 2017
20,167
I think you're actually missing the context here, and not her. Anyone calling this anti-Semitic is willfully ignoring that anti-BDS bills are asking you to pledge allegiance to another country and this is clearly what she's referencing. The effort to shut down that conversation by charging that it is bigotry to state the current reality is absurd.
yep

she never even mentions jews iirc, but the media was more than happy to run with her criticizing jews for having double allegiance when that isn't what she meant

she was calling out non jews and jews for having absurd loyalty to another nation state that continually gets away with war crimes

she was not calling out non jews and jews who don't drink the israel kool aid
 

Kirblar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,411
Important point for anyone with dreams of reforming or "taking back" the Democratic party for the left.
Denying institutional support to Justin Fairfax if he tries to run is a bad thing?
So like that''s fair but that does nothing to change (and in fact in my mind makes more clear) how much of a self inflicted wound the current dem response is. To paraphrase myself from earlier, it's both morally bankrupt and politically ineffective and thus something no one should be supporting unless their end goal is a further entrenchment of the american political class' inability to question Israel.
The actual resolution they're putting out is fine. Omar herself will almost certainly be signing it, because there's nothing actually wrong with it and I'm pretty sure she's messing up because she's not great at talking about this topic and twitter amplifies those problems a hundredfold. (Royalan's read is basically the same as mine as things currently stand.)
 

thebishop

Member
Nov 10, 2017
1,848
I'm pretty sure she isnt talking about jews pledging allegiance to Israel. I think its pretty explicit that she is talking about our politicians pledging allegiance. It seems pretty clear by the fact that she said she cant pledge allegiance to them. Last I checked, she is not jewish, and as another has said, a direct rebuke of proposed legislation that basically would make it illegal for organizations to criticize or boycott Israel for its behavior.

Unless you are referring to something else. Then I'm confused.
Not only politicians. In 26 states, public employees and/or businesses with government contracts must sign a pledge not to support BDS.

The Texas law prohibits all state agencies from contracting with companies that boycott Israel, and requires such contractors to sign a pledge that states that they "[do] not currently boycott Israel; and will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract."
https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2018/12/20/lawsuits-filed-in-texas-challenging-law-requiring-state-contractors-to-pledge-not-to-boycott-israel
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/speech-pathologist-texas-israel-oath.html
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,028
The actual resolution they're putting out is fine. Omar herself will almost certainly be signing it, because there's nothing actually wrong with it and I'm pretty sure she's messing up because she's not great at talking about this topic and twitter amplifies those problems a hundredfold. (Royalan's read is basically the same as mine as things currently stand.)

lmost certainly be signing it, because there's nothing actually wrong with it and I'm pretty sure she's messing up because she's not great at talking about this topic and twitter amplifies those problems a hundredfold. (Royalan's read is basically the same as mine as things currently stand.)
Say it with me slowly
Legitimizing manufactured concern by bad faith actors is, in the long run, a losing strategy in politics.
 

OtherWorldly

Banned
Dec 3, 2018
2,857
Denying institutional support to Justin Fairfax if he tries to run is a bad thing?

The actual resolution they're putting out is fine. Omar herself will almost certainly be signing it, because there's nothing actually wrong with it and I'm pretty sure she's messing up because she's not great at talking about this topic and twitter amplifies those problems a hundredfold. (Royalan's read is basically the same as mine as things currently stand.)
Where is the resolution about islamophobia after wv gop ad and the death threat graffiti mentioning her in MN being investigated by the FBI?

That’s right ..

Will never happen

Wait... where is the resolution by dems condemning Steve King

lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.