The Dems don't support this because it helps them win elections, the Dems support this because they actually do believe in an ethnofascist state and genocide of the Palestinian people.
It'd be the culmination of a longtime dream of this poor English boy to kick, infract or worse someone with the name Margaret Thatcher, so please don't tempt me by dropping wacky stuff like this in political threads.
There are a decent number of mainstream Jewish (Josh Marshall, Julia Ioffe, for two) voices who think Omar is engaging willfully or otherwise in anti-semitic lines. And Jewish Americans are part of the Democratic coalition.
Yeah I get this feeling that a lot of people here and in other left internet areas have really discounted how Jewish Americans actually feel about the things she has said.
Whenever people say stuff like this Im not sure what they actually expect anyone to do with it.
I guess they expect you to listen and take into account the sincerely expressed opinions of people from the group about which Omar has allegedly said some prejudicial things. You don't have to change your mind, but just saying SO WHAT? surely isn't the best look.
EDIT: I'm not saying those objections are accurate, mind you.
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Couple of thoughts:
I've had a think or two about Omar's language, and while 'allegiance' is a loaded word, there's not a whole lot you can say about the relationship between America and Israel that won't sound messed up because the relationship between America and Israel is pretty damn messed up. Any meaningful discussion of the situation is going to end up using words and phrases that will make some people pretty twitchy, but if any declarative statement on the subject is going to require multiple paragraphs of caveats and preemptive declarations that the speaker isn't anti-semitic then no meaningful discussion will ever take place. I have zero idea what to do about this though, since even scrounging up a bunch of Jewish people to try start the discussion will just end up with them being labeled as 'self-hating Jews'.
The other problem, which isn't specific to Omar's comments, but is a problem that is only going to get worse with any discussion of Israel, is the conflation of Israel with Jewish people as a whole, and the defense of Israeli policies being generally limited to defending Likud and their policies. With Bibi's recent moves to go even further to the right in order to keep his indicted ass in the Prime Minister's seat, it means that that a lot of pretty heinous actions become difficult to criticize because Likud == Israel -> Israel == Jewish People. It also means that when the accusation of anti-semitism eventually stops working to prevent any debate of Israeli policy, the entire Jewish population of the world will be... tainted, I would say, because of Netanyahu efforts to use world Jewry as a shield against criticism of Israeli policy.
To be clear, that last sentence has nothing to do with the thoughts, dreams, opinions and actions of the wider Jewish community. This is all about Netanyahu cynically using the rest of us to defend himself and his policies from criticism, while caring nothing for what happens when his policy of 'criticizing Israel is actually criticizing Jews' inevitably gets twisted and turned so that people start criticizing Jews because they're criticizing Israel. Long story short; he's using me as a shield, and I do not appreciate it at all.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Omar, of Minnesota, referred to Israel at a “progressive town hall” at the bookstore and restaurant Busboys and Poets last week, saying. "I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”
"I want to ask, 'Why is it OK for me to talk about the influence of the NRA, or fossil fuel industries or Big Pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobbying group that is influencing policy?’” she added.
It goes lockstep with what she has said before about the Israel lobbying group. What is the issue with criticising Israel lobbying? Why is it intrinsically anti-semitic to criticize a foreign governments group? As to the allegiance part of it she is explicitly talking about things like this https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/texas-israel-oath-boycott/
This is at best a bad faith attack to tell an upstart congressperson to know their place and at worst an attack on a muslim member of congress.
Omar, of Minnesota, referred to Israel at a “progressive town hall” at the bookstore and restaurant Busboys and Poets last week, saying. "I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”
"I want to ask, 'Why is it OK for me to talk about the influence of the NRA, or fossil fuel industries or Big Pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobbying group that is influencing policy?’” she added.
It goes lockstep with what she has said before about the Israel lobbying group. What is the issue with criticising Israel lobbying? Why is it intrinsically anti-semitic to criticize a foreign governments group? As to the allegiance part of it she is explicitly talking about things like this https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/texas-israel-oath-boycott/
This is at best a bad faith attack to tell an upstart congressperson to know their place and at worst an attack on a muslim member of congress.
It is much worse to uncivil and unpolished in Washington than it is to call for the deportation, detainment, and mass bombings of Muslims.
It's very hard to discuss the Israel/Palestine situation because of the bigots on both sides. If you say that you dislike the looney right-wing Israeli government, you get people saying "Brilliant! I also hate the international Zionist Conspiracy! Completely agree!" and if you say the Palestinians are handling the situation in a terrible way that just makes peace talks more difficult, you get "Wonderful! Completely right! I also think that the evil violent Muslims are a plague upon the world!"
Right, I don't think the majority of people talking about "tropes" are being disingenuous. There is a real understanding of the endzone of antisemitism being literal genocide and therefore any yards gained is dangerous.
But that's why we need empowered liberal Jews to speak out. Like I've literally been the victim of an antisemitic hate crime and I'm telling you that I found nothing wrong with Rep. Omar's statement or the questioning of Israel foreign policy in general.
if you take a either side you end up associating yourself with some very unsavory characters
The same is true if you don't take any sides.
Good. If you're screwed every way, then you can have an actual discussion with people who disagree with you
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
There are a decent number of mainstream Jewish (Josh Marshall, Julia Ioffe, for two) voices who think Omar is engaging willfully or otherwise in anti-semitic lines. And Jewish Americans are part of the Democratic coalition.
GQ writer Julia Ioffe, pictured here hanging out with Richard Spencer?
Antisemitism is something to take very seriously, but it's obviously being deployed in cynical fashion in this case in the interest of Islamophobia and anti-blackness and of maintaining a particular international relationship with Israel's far-right government.
It took about a minute to find this explanation. I mean you don't have to take her at her word but just dropping the picture into the thread with a question mark like ruh-roh guess who hangs with Nazis doesn't seem like a particularly productive contribution.
I dunno, if anti-semitism is something to take seriously I'd expect people to check the context of a picture like this before posting it and maybe provide it, along with whether you find it believable and if not why not.
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I'm aware of her explanation and don't find it convincing, if the question is whether Ioffe's concerns are genuine. For that matter, there's this now-deleted tweet (the reply and her replies to that are still up)
I'm aware of her explanation and don't find it convincing.
Oh well shit if you've vetted her explanation and found it wanting there's plainly no need to bother anyone with it when you post the picture and you should definitely imply they were 'hanging out'.
There are a decent number of mainstream Jewish (Josh Marshall, Julia Ioffe, for two) voices who think Omar is engaging willfully or otherwise in anti-semitic lines. And Jewish Americans are part of the Democratic coalition.
So that's cool, and fits well with mainstream American views. The Muslim woman voices her view on foreign policy, and we then ask her about Saudi Arabia. She's not even Saudi, but we ask anyways because they're all the same, and deep down we know she's a terrorist. Probably also hates women. And didn't her cousin do 9/11?
I think what drives me nuts about the "allegiance trope" allegations is that shes not even accusing Jews of having double allegiance, she's accusing politicians but since she said "allegiance" it checks the bingo square for a bunch of hacks like Eli Lake and the undoubtably racist bad faith cycle continues.
+8
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
edited March 2019
re: Julia Ioffe
I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that she is chummy with Richard Spencer, as that selfie was taken immediately after this happened:
The conversation kind of soured—“I feel like this is an inquisition”—when he refused to say whether Hitler was good or bad—“he’s an important historical figure”—or whether the Holocaust was good or bad, said that the anti-Semitic alt-right trolls haranguing me and other Jewish journalists were “just kids having fun,” and when he slid his finger down the back of my dress and said, “You have a slit here.” Surprised at my request not to touch me, he asked me to “calm down.”
so I'm not about to lay judgments on her taking that picture; she could easily have thought that this guy, who clearly is A Threat now, would be most easily placated this way
that said, she's been a huge piece of shit about Omar and I don't particularly care what she has to add on that subject, especially after the Saudi tweet
Shorty on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I'm aware of her explanation and don't find it convincing,
...why? That's obviously one of those dumb selfies you take either to clown on people or just don't comprehend the error in the moment.
I mean, are you suggesting the noted Jewish reporter is actually friends with neo-nazi Spencer?
I'm certainly suggesting that she views him as less threatening and seems comfortable flirting on Twitter and being generally pleasant in a way that she never would with Omar
To Ioffe's credit, she has written about antisemitism on the part of Trump and his supporters, and called out barely-veiled use of (((George Soros))) in a way that I don't believe most folks expressing concern about Omar's remarks have.
I'm aware of her explanation and don't find it convincing,
...why? That's obviously one of those dumb selfies you take either to clown on people or just don't comprehend the error in the moment.
I mean, are you suggesting the noted Jewish reporter is actually friends with neo-nazi Spencer?
I'm certainly suggesting that she views him as less threatening and seems comfortable flirting on Twitter and being generally pleasant in a way that she never would with Omar
To Ioffe's credit, she has written about antisemitism on the part of Trump and his supporters, and called out barely-veiled use of (((George Soros))) in a way that I don't believe most folks expressing concern about Omar's remarks have.
The entire Spencer "thing" is that he's a wealthy trustfunder Duke graduate. He's a weirdo, but he's part of their social set and is probably a low-key frequent social guest around town.
That's his brand, and why he's the national spokesman for American white supremacy instead of some backwoods militia member. They know his type - he's the gross, weird rich kid in their graduate class - and aren't threatened by him.
Trotting out jewish journos as the arbiters of what is and is not anti semitic seems like a republican calling on their black friend as proof they aren't racist.
Trotting out jewish journos as the arbiters of what is and is not anti semitic seems like a republican calling on their black friend as proof they aren't racist.
That's
Woof okay
It was brought up to point out that some people viewed Omar's remarks as anti semitic and that discounting people's views is maybe not the most conducive way to structure an argument about this
+9
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Israel discussions have been made into a linguistic minefield by assholes, but that doesn’t mean it’s not on you not to get blown up. But honestly this current discussion in the news/Washington is so far removed from the topic of people being hurt over there that the entire furor seems pointless and they should all go spend their energy on climate change or something instead.
There are paths through the minefield that won’t trigger the majority of people. They don’t run through talking about lobbying money (typical Dem playbook that hits a mine here) or loyalty (boom). Talking about what’s happening, rather than the meta discussion about the problems with the discussion, feels like the least problematic and therefore most effective way to advance the debate.
Israel can’t be effectively criticized for spending money on American politics. Can’t be done. They can still be effectively criticized for oppressing Palestinians, though, and since if they stopped doing that the money wouldn’t really matter, forget the money. “You’re just bought and paid for” is good politics, except in this instance coincidentally, and so critics need to fall back on “You support monstrous shit” as an attack instead.
In other words, you can’t talk about why politicians are ignoring your issue without sounding anti-Semitic, so instead you should just talk about your issue.
(Some people are still going to call you anti-Semitic, but as long as you’re not using the language of “Jewish $$$ conspiracy” most people will let it slide.)
Israel discussions have been made into a linguistic minefield by assholes, but that doesn’t mean it’s not on you not to get blown up. But honestly this current discussion in the news/Washington is so far removed from the topic of people being hurt over there that the entire furor seems pointless and they should all go spend their energy on climate change or something instead.
There are paths through the minefield that won’t trigger the majority of people. They don’t run through talking about lobbying money (typical Dem playbook that hits a mine here) or loyalty (boom). Talking about what’s happening, rather than the meta discussion about the problems with the discussion, feels like the least problematic and therefore most effective way to advance the debate.
Israel can’t be effectively criticized for spending money on American politics. Can’t be done. They can still be effectively criticized for oppressing Palestinians, though, and since if they stopped doing that the money wouldn’t really matter, forget the money. “You’re just bought and paid for” is good politics, except in this instance coincidentally, and so critics need to fall back on “You support monstrous shit” as an attack instead.
In other words, you can’t talk about why politicians are ignoring your issue without sounding anti-Semitic, so instead you should just talk about your issue.
(Some people are still going to call you anti-Semitic, but as long as you’re not using the language of “Jewish $$$ conspiracy” most people will let it slide.)
AIPAC is just as psychotic about anyone agitating on behalf of Palestinians.
Trotting out jewish journos as the arbiters of what is and is not anti semitic seems like a republican calling on their black friend as proof they aren't racist.
I mean, it’s not like that at all, and the two things aren’t really analogous and it’s pretty insulting and doesn’t really accurately describe what anyone’s been saying in the thread, but OK. Great take.
Except Omar's point is APIAC's money in American politics is exactly why saying Israel supports monstrous shit can't be said
the two can't be separated.
It can be said by her, unless she’s complaining about her own APIAC money.
Look I’m not saying that there is an actual issue with Israel’s financial influence on Congress. I’m saying it’s stupid hard to talk about that without drawing fire that it’s hard to defend against. It’s much easier to defend yourself if you focus on the core of the issue, which is not “nobody will let me talk about X,” it’s just X.
Except Omar's point is APIAC's money in American politics is exactly why saying Israel supports monstrous shit can't be said
the two can't be separated.
The critical importance of the Midwest states to the electoral college and the power of Muslim voters to be the deciding factor in those states (especially Michigan) means that this issue is only going to become more pressing. There is a rising new demographic in the nation, and this is the issue they deeply care about. It is incumbent on the Democrats to find a way to address this, and I don't think censuring their electoral representative for bringing it up is a good start.
And yes, there is a lot of anti-semitic language and ideas in the Muslim community. Oppression creates a fertile ground for hatred. That needs to be directly addressed and ways to address these issues outside of those frames need to be developed by the Democrats.
+4
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Except Omar's point is APIAC's money in American politics is exactly why saying Israel supports monstrous shit can't be said
the two can't be separated.
It can be said by her, unless she’s complaining about her own APIAC money.
Shes getting dogpiled by half of Washington all poltical stripes included.
Yes, for saying shit that at least accidentally appeared anti-Semitic, about the subject of Israeli money in American politics
She would be better able to avoid/withstand a dogpiling if she had said “Israel needs to deal with the terrible impact their policies have had on the Palestinians,” rather than saying “The only reason we’re not talking about the terrible impact Israel’s policies have had on Palestinians is because Jew $$$”.
Except Omar's point is APIAC's money in American politics is exactly why saying Israel supports monstrous shit can't be said
the two can't be separated.
It can be said by her, unless she’s complaining about her own APIAC money.
Shes getting dogpiled by half of Washington all poltical stripes included.
Yes, for saying shit that at least accidentally appeared anti-Semitic, about the subject of Israeli money in American politics
She would be better able to avoid/withstand a dogpiling if she had said “Israel needs to deal with the terrible impact their policies have had on the Palestinians,” rather than saying “The only reason we’re not talking about the terrible impact Israel’s policies have had on Palestinians is because Jew $$$”.
This is not an accurate portrayal of how AIPAC behaves with regard to lobbying on behalf of Palestinians.
It's worth pointing out that AIPAC doesn't give money or raise money to candidates. It's members due through various PACs, but AIPAC is not a PAC, they do advocacy and issue lobbying.
Except Omar's point is APIAC's money in American politics is exactly why saying Israel supports monstrous shit can't be said
the two can't be separated.
It can be said by her, unless she’s complaining about her own APIAC money.
Shes getting dogpiled by half of Washington all poltical stripes included.
Yes, for saying shit that at least accidentally appeared anti-Semitic, about the subject of Israeli money in American politics
She would be better able to avoid/withstand a dogpiling if she had said “Israel needs to deal with the terrible impact their policies have had on the Palestinians,” rather than saying “The only reason we’re not talking about the terrible impact Israel’s policies have had on Palestinians is because Jew $$$”.
This is not an accurate portrayal of how AIPAC behaves with regard to lobbying on behalf of Palestinians.
It's worth pointing out that AIPAC doesn't give money or raise money to candidates. It's members due through various PACs, but AIPAC is not a PAC, they do advocacy and issue lobbying.
They run advertisements against candidates and policies they don't like and serve as contacts for fundraisers that bundle donations for candidates. The idea that AIPAC is some indirect lobbying group flied in the face of the entire conversation that Obama was trying to start five years ago.
Posts
It'd be the culmination of a longtime dream of this poor English boy to kick, infract or worse someone with the name Margaret Thatcher, so please don't tempt me by dropping wacky stuff like this in political threads.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I guess they expect you to listen and take into account the sincerely expressed opinions of people from the group about which Omar has allegedly said some prejudicial things. You don't have to change your mind, but just saying SO WHAT? surely isn't the best look.
EDIT: I'm not saying those objections are accurate, mind you.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I've had a think or two about Omar's language, and while 'allegiance' is a loaded word, there's not a whole lot you can say about the relationship between America and Israel that won't sound messed up because the relationship between America and Israel is pretty damn messed up. Any meaningful discussion of the situation is going to end up using words and phrases that will make some people pretty twitchy, but if any declarative statement on the subject is going to require multiple paragraphs of caveats and preemptive declarations that the speaker isn't anti-semitic then no meaningful discussion will ever take place. I have zero idea what to do about this though, since even scrounging up a bunch of Jewish people to try start the discussion will just end up with them being labeled as 'self-hating Jews'.
The other problem, which isn't specific to Omar's comments, but is a problem that is only going to get worse with any discussion of Israel, is the conflation of Israel with Jewish people as a whole, and the defense of Israeli policies being generally limited to defending Likud and their policies. With Bibi's recent moves to go even further to the right in order to keep his indicted ass in the Prime Minister's seat, it means that that a lot of pretty heinous actions become difficult to criticize because Likud == Israel -> Israel == Jewish People. It also means that when the accusation of anti-semitism eventually stops working to prevent any debate of Israeli policy, the entire Jewish population of the world will be... tainted, I would say, because of Netanyahu efforts to use world Jewry as a shield against criticism of Israeli policy.
To be clear, that last sentence has nothing to do with the thoughts, dreams, opinions and actions of the wider Jewish community. This is all about Netanyahu cynically using the rest of us to defend himself and his policies from criticism, while caring nothing for what happens when his policy of 'criticizing Israel is actually criticizing Jews' inevitably gets twisted and turned so that people start criticizing Jews because they're criticizing Israel. Long story short; he's using me as a shield, and I do not appreciate it at all.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-vote-anti-semitism-measure-after-rep-omar-s-israel-n979106
It goes lockstep with what she has said before about the Israel lobbying group. What is the issue with criticising Israel lobbying? Why is it intrinsically anti-semitic to criticize a foreign governments group? As to the allegiance part of it she is explicitly talking about things like this https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/texas-israel-oath-boycott/
This is at best a bad faith attack to tell an upstart congressperson to know their place and at worst an attack on a muslim member of congress.
It is much worse to uncivil and unpolished in Washington than it is to call for the deportation, detainment, and mass bombings of Muslims.
Oh, excuse me. Not all foreign policy. Not a few specific policies.
One policy. That's what's sacrosanct and unamerican to question.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
It makes it a very tiresome discussion.
The same is true if you don't take any sides.
But that's why we need empowered liberal Jews to speak out. Like I've literally been the victim of an antisemitic hate crime and I'm telling you that I found nothing wrong with Rep. Omar's statement or the questioning of Israel foreign policy in general.
Good. If you're screwed every way, then you can have an actual discussion with people who disagree with you
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
GQ writer Julia Ioffe, pictured here hanging out with Richard Spencer?
Antisemitism is something to take very seriously, but it's obviously being deployed in cynical fashion in this case in the interest of Islamophobia and anti-blackness and of maintaining a particular international relationship with Israel's far-right government.
It took about a minute to find this explanation. I mean you don't have to take her at her word but just dropping the picture into the thread with a question mark like ruh-roh guess who hangs with Nazis doesn't seem like a particularly productive contribution.
I dunno, if anti-semitism is something to take seriously I'd expect people to check the context of a picture like this before posting it and maybe provide it, along with whether you find it believable and if not why not.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Oh well shit if you've vetted her explanation and found it wanting there's plainly no need to bother anyone with it when you post the picture and you should definitely imply they were 'hanging out'.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
So that's cool, and fits well with mainstream American views. The Muslim woman voices her view on foreign policy, and we then ask her about Saudi Arabia. She's not even Saudi, but we ask anyways because they're all the same, and deep down we know she's a terrorist. Probably also hates women. And didn't her cousin do 9/11?
...why? That's obviously one of those dumb selfies you take either to clown on people or just don't comprehend the error in the moment.
I mean, are you suggesting the noted Jewish reporter is actually friends with neo-nazi Spencer?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that she is chummy with Richard Spencer, as that selfie was taken immediately after this happened:
so I'm not about to lay judgments on her taking that picture; she could easily have thought that this guy, who clearly is A Threat now, would be most easily placated this way
that said, she's been a huge piece of shit about Omar and I don't particularly care what she has to add on that subject, especially after the Saudi tweet
I'm certainly suggesting that she views him as less threatening and seems comfortable flirting on Twitter and being generally pleasant in a way that she never would with Omar
To Ioffe's credit, she has written about antisemitism on the part of Trump and his supporters, and called out barely-veiled use of (((George Soros))) in a way that I don't believe most folks expressing concern about Omar's remarks have.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
The entire Spencer "thing" is that he's a wealthy trustfunder Duke graduate. He's a weirdo, but he's part of their social set and is probably a low-key frequent social guest around town.
That's his brand, and why he's the national spokesman for American white supremacy instead of some backwoods militia member. They know his type - he's the gross, weird rich kid in their graduate class - and aren't threatened by him.
That's
Woof okay
It was brought up to point out that some people viewed Omar's remarks as anti semitic and that discounting people's views is maybe not the most conducive way to structure an argument about this
There are paths through the minefield that won’t trigger the majority of people. They don’t run through talking about lobbying money (typical Dem playbook that hits a mine here) or loyalty (boom). Talking about what’s happening, rather than the meta discussion about the problems with the discussion, feels like the least problematic and therefore most effective way to advance the debate.
Israel can’t be effectively criticized for spending money on American politics. Can’t be done. They can still be effectively criticized for oppressing Palestinians, though, and since if they stopped doing that the money wouldn’t really matter, forget the money. “You’re just bought and paid for” is good politics, except in this instance coincidentally, and so critics need to fall back on “You support monstrous shit” as an attack instead.
In other words, you can’t talk about why politicians are ignoring your issue without sounding anti-Semitic, so instead you should just talk about your issue.
(Some people are still going to call you anti-Semitic, but as long as you’re not using the language of “Jewish $$$ conspiracy” most people will let it slide.)
the two can't be separated.
AIPAC is just as psychotic about anyone agitating on behalf of Palestinians.
I mean, it’s not like that at all, and the two things aren’t really analogous and it’s pretty insulting and doesn’t really accurately describe what anyone’s been saying in the thread, but OK. Great take.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
It can be said by her, unless she’s complaining about her own APIAC money.
Look I’m not saying that there is an actual issue with Israel’s financial influence on Congress. I’m saying it’s stupid hard to talk about that without drawing fire that it’s hard to defend against. It’s much easier to defend yourself if you focus on the core of the issue, which is not “nobody will let me talk about X,” it’s just X.
Shes getting dogpiled by half of Washington all poltical stripes included.
The critical importance of the Midwest states to the electoral college and the power of Muslim voters to be the deciding factor in those states (especially Michigan) means that this issue is only going to become more pressing. There is a rising new demographic in the nation, and this is the issue they deeply care about. It is incumbent on the Democrats to find a way to address this, and I don't think censuring their electoral representative for bringing it up is a good start.
And yes, there is a lot of anti-semitic language and ideas in the Muslim community. Oppression creates a fertile ground for hatred. That needs to be directly addressed and ways to address these issues outside of those frames need to be developed by the Democrats.
Yes, for saying shit that at least accidentally appeared anti-Semitic, about the subject of Israeli money in American politics
She would be better able to avoid/withstand a dogpiling if she had said “Israel needs to deal with the terrible impact their policies have had on the Palestinians,” rather than saying “The only reason we’re not talking about the terrible impact Israel’s policies have had on Palestinians is because Jew $$$”.
This is not an accurate portrayal of how AIPAC behaves with regard to lobbying on behalf of Palestinians.
I guess we've shoved the fact that Obama was also trying to push back heavily against AIPAC as damaging to U.S. foreign policy down the memory hole.
They run advertisements against candidates and policies they don't like and serve as contacts for fundraisers that bundle donations for candidates. The idea that AIPAC is some indirect lobbying group flied in the face of the entire conversation that Obama was trying to start five years ago.