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 spend a huge amount of money on politicians, they just find it more effective to spend it directly on the person rather than give to campaigns.
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 $$$”.
She absolutely would be getting the same reaction if she said that
+7
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
In 2017 Rep Betty McCollum sponsored a bill called H.R.4391 - Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act. It looks like it was co-sponsored or supported by Reps Pocan, Grijalva, Conyers, Blumenauer, Pingree, DeFazio, Carson (Indiana), Gutierrez, and Danny Davis. The bill lists a bunch of stuff Israel has done to harm Palestinian children and proposes that the US not give financial support to these actions.
I’m not saying this bill had a huge impact on the debate; what I am saying is that none of those representatives were the center of a public controversy about this criticism. Maybe APIAC quietly struck back or something, but the national conversation didn’t stop to yell at Mcollum or any of these people and none of them were censured.
So it seems very possible to criticize Israel. Just not couched in the same language as anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.
In 2017 Rep Betty McCollum sponsored a bill called H.R.4391 - Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act. It looks like it was co-sponsored or supported by Reps Pocan, Grijalva, Conyers, Blumenauer, Pingree, DeFazio, Carson (Indiana), Gutierrez, and Danny Davis. The bill lists a bunch of stuff Israel has done to harm Palestinian children and proposes that the US not give financial support to these actions.
I’m not saying this bill had a huge impact on the debate; what I am saying is that none of those representatives were the center of a public controversy about this criticism. Maybe APIAC quietly struck back or something, but the national conversation didn’t stop to yell at Mcollum or any of these people and none of them were censured.
So it seems very possible to criticize Israel. Just not couched in the same language as anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.
As I just linked last page the AIPAC has gone after McCollum aggressively. They accused her of supporting terrorism.
You aren't going to be able to word game your way around obviously bad faith attacks fueled by racial and religious animus.
Styrofoam Sammich on
+9
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
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.
*it's worth pointing out that this "gotcha" after Omar's initial comments that got her in hot water were entirely disingenuous, since AIPAC does serve primarily to coordinate connecting candidates with wealthy donors.
In 2017 Rep Betty McCollum sponsored a bill called H.R.4391 - Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act. It looks like it was co-sponsored or supported by Reps Pocan, Grijalva, Conyers, Blumenauer, Pingree, DeFazio, Carson (Indiana), Gutierrez, and Danny Davis. The bill lists a bunch of stuff Israel has done to harm Palestinian children and proposes that the US not give financial support to these actions.
I’m not saying this bill had a huge impact on the debate; what I am saying is that none of those representatives were the center of a public controversy about this criticism. Maybe APIAC quietly struck back or something, but the national conversation didn’t stop to yell at Mcollum or any of these people and none of them were censured.
So it seems very possible to criticize Israel. Just not couched in the same language as anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.
As I just linked last page the AIPAC has gone after McCollum aggressively. They accused her of supporting terrorism.
His take is based on the misperception that these reactions are based on improper language, and not that AIPAC is a lobbying group with a specific agenda and a professional staff who are paid to find ways to attack ANY criticism of Israel.
This was a common topic of discussion five years ago. The fact that it is getting such a heavy-handed bipartisan reaction has more than a little bit to do with the fact that it was a Muslim stating it this time.
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.
Half a page was spent trying to determine how valuable a token loffa was. No one quoted what she said just that it was "positive." So ya it is a fair assessment of what was going on.
psn: PhasenWeeple
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
In 2017 Rep Betty McCollum sponsored a bill called H.R.4391 - Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act. It looks like it was co-sponsored or supported by Reps Pocan, Grijalva, Conyers, Blumenauer, Pingree, DeFazio, Carson (Indiana), Gutierrez, and Danny Davis. The bill lists a bunch of stuff Israel has done to harm Palestinian children and proposes that the US not give financial support to these actions.
I’m not saying this bill had a huge impact on the debate; what I am saying is that none of those representatives were the center of a public controversy about this criticism. Maybe APIAC quietly struck back or something, but the national conversation didn’t stop to yell at Mcollum or any of these people and none of them were censured.
So it seems very possible to criticize Israel. Just not couched in the same language as anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.
As I just linked last page the AIPAC has gone after McCollum aggressively. They accused her of supporting terrorism.
You aren't going to be able to word game your way around obviously bad faith attacks fueled by racial and religious animus.
Yet she hasn’t been drummed out of Congress (Representative for MN since 2001), hasn’t stopped talking about the issue (sponsored the bill I linked before) and in 2017 the Star Tribue wrote an article about her whose headline was “Low-key but well-connected, Rep. Betty McCollum accumulates D.C. power.” I’d say that APIAC has pretty much failed here.
So why is Omar a 9 day story while McCollum quietly accumulates power? Probably in part because Omar is Muslim, but also in part because her criticisms sound problematic even to people who are not pro-Israel.
Obviously there’s no way to avoid what are, as you say, bad faith attacks from APIAC and others. But there is a way to comport yourself such that those attacks don’t gain significant traction in the mainstream media or result in official censure.
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.
Half a page was spent trying to determine how valuable a token loffa was. No one quoted what she said just that it was "positive." So ya it is a fair assessment of what was going on.
Nah, it’s a dumb take. But it’s cool we know not to trust “Jewish journos” when it comes to anti-semitism now.
In 2017 Rep Betty McCollum sponsored a bill called H.R.4391 - Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act. It looks like it was co-sponsored or supported by Reps Pocan, Grijalva, Conyers, Blumenauer, Pingree, DeFazio, Carson (Indiana), Gutierrez, and Danny Davis. The bill lists a bunch of stuff Israel has done to harm Palestinian children and proposes that the US not give financial support to these actions.
I’m not saying this bill had a huge impact on the debate; what I am saying is that none of those representatives were the center of a public controversy about this criticism. Maybe APIAC quietly struck back or something, but the national conversation didn’t stop to yell at Mcollum or any of these people and none of them were censured.
So it seems very possible to criticize Israel. Just not couched in the same language as anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.
As I just linked last page the AIPAC has gone after McCollum aggressively. They accused her of supporting terrorism.
You aren't going to be able to word game your way around obviously bad faith attacks fueled by racial and religious animus.
Yet she hasn’t been drummed out of Congress (Representative for MN since 2001), hasn’t stopped talking about the issue (sponsored the bill I linked before) and in 2017 the Star Tribue wrote an article about her whose headline was “Low-key but well-connected, Rep. Betty McCollum accumulates D.C. power.” I’d say that APIAC has pretty much failed here.
So why is Omar a 9 day story while McCollum quietly accumulates power? Probably in part because Omar is Muslim, but also in part because her criticisms sound problematic even to people who are not pro-Israel.
Obviously there’s no way to avoid what are, as you say, bad faith attacks from APIAC and others. But there is a way to comport yourself such that those attacks don’t gain significant traction in the mainstream media or result in official censure.
You might want to look at the demographics of both of her districts. That she can survive in that very particular part of America has zero to do with AIPAC's national influence.
In 2017 Rep Betty McCollum sponsored a bill called H.R.4391 - Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act. It looks like it was co-sponsored or supported by Reps Pocan, Grijalva, Conyers, Blumenauer, Pingree, DeFazio, Carson (Indiana), Gutierrez, and Danny Davis. The bill lists a bunch of stuff Israel has done to harm Palestinian children and proposes that the US not give financial support to these actions.
I’m not saying this bill had a huge impact on the debate; what I am saying is that none of those representatives were the center of a public controversy about this criticism. Maybe APIAC quietly struck back or something, but the national conversation didn’t stop to yell at Mcollum or any of these people and none of them were censured.
So it seems very possible to criticize Israel. Just not couched in the same language as anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.
As I just linked last page the AIPAC has gone after McCollum aggressively. They accused her of supporting terrorism.
You aren't going to be able to word game your way around obviously bad faith attacks fueled by racial and religious animus.
Yet she hasn’t been drummed out of Congress (Representative for MN since 2001), hasn’t stopped talking about the issue (sponsored the bill I linked before) and in 2017 the Star Tribue wrote an article about her whose headline was “Low-key but well-connected, Rep. Betty McCollum accumulates D.C. power.” I’d say that APIAC has pretty much failed here.
So why is Omar a 9 day story while McCollum quietly accumulates power? Probably in part because Omar is Muslim, but also in part because her criticisms sound problematic even to people who are not pro-Israel.
Obviously there’s no way to avoid what are, as you say, bad faith attacks from APIAC and others. But there is a way to comport yourself such that those attacks don’t gain significant traction in the mainstream media or result in official censure.
This comes across to me as tone policing.
Edit: And also a good way to sweep the issue of AIPAC's influence under the rug so it doesn't need to be addressed.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
In 2017 Rep Betty McCollum sponsored a bill called H.R.4391 - Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act. It looks like it was co-sponsored or supported by Reps Pocan, Grijalva, Conyers, Blumenauer, Pingree, DeFazio, Carson (Indiana), Gutierrez, and Danny Davis. The bill lists a bunch of stuff Israel has done to harm Palestinian children and proposes that the US not give financial support to these actions.
I’m not saying this bill had a huge impact on the debate; what I am saying is that none of those representatives were the center of a public controversy about this criticism. Maybe APIAC quietly struck back or something, but the national conversation didn’t stop to yell at Mcollum or any of these people and none of them were censured.
So it seems very possible to criticize Israel. Just not couched in the same language as anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.
As I just linked last page the AIPAC has gone after McCollum aggressively. They accused her of supporting terrorism.
You aren't going to be able to word game your way around obviously bad faith attacks fueled by racial and religious animus.
Yet she hasn’t been drummed out of Congress (Representative for MN since 2001), hasn’t stopped talking about the issue (sponsored the bill I linked before) and in 2017 the Star Tribue wrote an article about her whose headline was “Low-key but well-connected, Rep. Betty McCollum accumulates D.C. power.” I’d say that APIAC has pretty much failed here.
So why is Omar a 9 day story while McCollum quietly accumulates power? Probably in part because Omar is Muslim, but also in part because her criticisms sound problematic even to people who are not pro-Israel.
Obviously there’s no way to avoid what are, as you say, bad faith attacks from APIAC and others. But there is a way to comport yourself such that those attacks don’t gain significant traction in the mainstream media or result in official censure.
Major media outlets use the phrase "allegiance to Israel" all the time!
Maybe we should consider that the people who view her words as problematic are just wrong? Maybe that they're being influenced by racial views on black women or muslims that they're not comfortable expressing generally or aware they carry?
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.
Half a page was spent trying to determine how valuable a token loffa was. No one quoted what she said just that it was "positive." So ya it is a fair assessment of what was going on.
Nah, it’s a dumb take. But it’s cool we know not to trust “Jewish journos” when it comes to anti-semitism now.
Did you ever determine the value?
psn: PhasenWeeple
+1
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
edited March 2019
ISRAEL
IS
NOT
THE
JEWISH
PEOPLE.
Criticism of Israel is NOT antisemitism no matter WHO says it is, period.
edit: unless, you know, you've got some Ed Norton circa American History X dude criticizing Israel as the greatest evil known to man, in that case you may wanna exercise better judgment.
In 2017 Rep Betty McCollum sponsored a bill called H.R.4391 - Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act. It looks like it was co-sponsored or supported by Reps Pocan, Grijalva, Conyers, Blumenauer, Pingree, DeFazio, Carson (Indiana), Gutierrez, and Danny Davis. The bill lists a bunch of stuff Israel has done to harm Palestinian children and proposes that the US not give financial support to these actions.
I’m not saying this bill had a huge impact on the debate; what I am saying is that none of those representatives were the center of a public controversy about this criticism. Maybe APIAC quietly struck back or something, but the national conversation didn’t stop to yell at Mcollum or any of these people and none of them were censured.
So it seems very possible to criticize Israel. Just not couched in the same language as anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.
As I just linked last page the AIPAC has gone after McCollum aggressively. They accused her of supporting terrorism.
You aren't going to be able to word game your way around obviously bad faith attacks fueled by racial and religious animus.
Yet she hasn’t been drummed out of Congress (Representative for MN since 2001), hasn’t stopped talking about the issue (sponsored the bill I linked before) and in 2017 the Star Tribue wrote an article about her whose headline was “Low-key but well-connected, Rep. Betty McCollum accumulates D.C. power.” I’d say that APIAC has pretty much failed here.
So why is Omar a 9 day story while McCollum quietly accumulates power? Probably in part because Omar is Muslim, but also in part because her criticisms sound problematic even to people who are not pro-Israel.
Obviously there’s no way to avoid what are, as you say, bad faith attacks from APIAC and others. But there is a way to comport yourself such that those attacks don’t gain significant traction in the mainstream media or result in official censure.
Major media outlets use the phrase "allegiance to Israel" all the time!
Maybe we should consider that the people who view her words as problematic are just wrong? Maybe that they're being influenced by racial views on black women or muslims that they're not comfortable expressing generally or aware they carry?
It reminds me of the days when African Americans had to dress in suits even in rallies held during Southern summers. They had to constantly police their tone to be taken seriously and needed white allies to voice criticisms of racism since they would be ignored, dismissed, and demonized as "racist" when coming from a black speaker.
Like knives are obviously out for Omar. WaPo ran an op-ed calling her the "Steve King of the Left" written by a guy who used to work for Elliot Abrams! Who works at the same outlet that was spinning conspiracy theories about Kavanaugh and the mystery rapist. Who used to work for Elliot fucking Abrams!
Just like on every other issue it seems, the right has realized that people really like the language of the left, and they'll use it in service of every ghastly thing they want.
Like knives are obviously out for Omar. WaPo ran an op-ed calling her the "Steve King of the Left" written by a guy who used to work for Elliot Abrams! Who works at the same outlet that was spinning conspiracy theories about Kavanaugh and the mystery rapist. Who used to work for Elliot fucking Abrams!
Just like on every other issue it seems, the right has realized that people really like the language of the left, and they'll use it in service of every ghastly thing they want.
Fascism thrives on hypocrisy and insincere public performances of virtue from the government they want to overthrow. The chief weapon of the fascist in the early days isn't violence, it's the ability to mock the status quo in a way that energizes its followers, creates sympathetic audiences among those who are honestly repelled by the hypocrisy, weaponizes their opponents who take up their leaders' crocodile tears, and demoralizes everyone else from wanting to go anywhere near politics.
My understanding of AIPAC was that they didn't directly contribute funds and money to congresscritters or campaigns but I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong on that
My understanding of AIPAC was that they didn't directly contribute funds and money to congresscritters or campaigns but I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong on that
They pay for lavish "educational" vacations. Its a more direct bribe.
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.
Half a page was spent trying to determine how valuable a token loffa was. No one quoted what she said just that it was "positive." So ya it is a fair assessment of what was going on.
Nah, it’s a dumb take. But it’s cool we know not to trust “Jewish journos” when it comes to anti-semitism now.
Did you ever determine the value?
I mean, the one thing I’ve said about her comments on Omar is that the Saudi one is racist and gross, but sure, keep comparing me to a Republican. I genuinely can’t parse what you’re getting at here.
You seem to have read me saying “maybe listen to some Jewish people who expressed reservations”, as “Omar is anti-Semitic”. I think Omar was right, and I think she’s being hung out to dry unfairly. I also think the specific comment I was replying to, before someone spent half a page building a fan fic of how Ioffe secretly loves a Nazi, which said they just didn’t know what to do with the information that some Jewish people expressed reservations, was pretty mild!
But hey keep comparing me to racist Republicans in poorly thought out analogies. That’s super nice.
My understanding of AIPAC was that they didn't directly contribute funds and money to congresscritters or campaigns but I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong on that
They pay for lavish "educational" vacations. Its a more direct bribe.
Not mentioned is what all the information is used for: political fundraising. That means making sure that pro-Israel PACs know what to do with their money. And making sure that individual donors know what to do with theirs. That is why AIPAC has a large national political operation. If it were not in the money-distribution business, it would simply rely on its legislative department to lobby for and draft legislation for members of Congress. Nor would its political director make a half-million dollars a year. In short, AIPAC’s political operation is used precisely as Representative Omar suggested.
Again, I know this because I witnessed it over and over again. I sat in AIPAC staff meetings at which the political director discussed whom “we” would be supporting in this campaign and whom “we” were going to “destroy” in that one. I also sat in on meetings at AIPAC’s huge annual policy conference, attended by as many as 20,000 AIPAC members and virtually the entire Congress, at which fundraising pitches were made.
AIPAC, of course, denies that anyone raises money at its policy conference. And it’s true. No one does… in the official AIPAC rooms. However, there are also the side rooms, nominally independent of the main event but just down the hall, where candidates and invited donors (only the really wealthy donors get the invites) meet and decide which candidate will get what. This arrangement is almost a metaphor for the whole AIPAC fundraising operation. The side rooms are nominally not AIPAC, so AIPAC can deny that any fundraising takes place at their conference. But in fact, they are the most exclusive venues in the country for candidates to raise money in the name of advancing the AIPAC cause.
All of which means the politicians criticizing Omar's mischaracterization of AIPAC were in those rooms and know the scam.
Phillishere on
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
In 2017 Rep Betty McCollum sponsored a bill called H.R.4391 - Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act. It looks like it was co-sponsored or supported by Reps Pocan, Grijalva, Conyers, Blumenauer, Pingree, DeFazio, Carson (Indiana), Gutierrez, and Danny Davis. The bill lists a bunch of stuff Israel has done to harm Palestinian children and proposes that the US not give financial support to these actions.
I’m not saying this bill had a huge impact on the debate; what I am saying is that none of those representatives were the center of a public controversy about this criticism. Maybe APIAC quietly struck back or something, but the national conversation didn’t stop to yell at Mcollum or any of these people and none of them were censured.
So it seems very possible to criticize Israel. Just not couched in the same language as anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.
As I just linked last page the AIPAC has gone after McCollum aggressively. They accused her of supporting terrorism.
You aren't going to be able to word game your way around obviously bad faith attacks fueled by racial and religious animus.
Yet she hasn’t been drummed out of Congress (Representative for MN since 2001), hasn’t stopped talking about the issue (sponsored the bill I linked before) and in 2017 the Star Tribue wrote an article about her whose headline was “Low-key but well-connected, Rep. Betty McCollum accumulates D.C. power.” I’d say that APIAC has pretty much failed here.
So why is Omar a 9 day story while McCollum quietly accumulates power? Probably in part because Omar is Muslim, but also in part because her criticisms sound problematic even to people who are not pro-Israel.
Obviously there’s no way to avoid what are, as you say, bad faith attacks from APIAC and others. But there is a way to comport yourself such that those attacks don’t gain significant traction in the mainstream media or result in official censure.
This comes across to me as tone policing.
Edit: And also a good way to sweep the issue of AIPAC's influence under the rug so it doesn't need to be addressed.
I mean, I dunno what to tell you
Assholes are out there yelling about her tone
If Omar wants to make progress on the issue she probably needs to give the assholes less ammunition
If Omar doesn't mind getting yelled at by assholes then she did a perfectly fine job raising the issue
My point is: here's how to minimize getting yelled at while making your argument about Israel
In 2017 Rep Betty McCollum sponsored a bill called H.R.4391 - Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act. It looks like it was co-sponsored or supported by Reps Pocan, Grijalva, Conyers, Blumenauer, Pingree, DeFazio, Carson (Indiana), Gutierrez, and Danny Davis. The bill lists a bunch of stuff Israel has done to harm Palestinian children and proposes that the US not give financial support to these actions.
I’m not saying this bill had a huge impact on the debate; what I am saying is that none of those representatives were the center of a public controversy about this criticism. Maybe APIAC quietly struck back or something, but the national conversation didn’t stop to yell at Mcollum or any of these people and none of them were censured.
So it seems very possible to criticize Israel. Just not couched in the same language as anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.
As I just linked last page the AIPAC has gone after McCollum aggressively. They accused her of supporting terrorism.
You aren't going to be able to word game your way around obviously bad faith attacks fueled by racial and religious animus.
Yet she hasn’t been drummed out of Congress (Representative for MN since 2001), hasn’t stopped talking about the issue (sponsored the bill I linked before) and in 2017 the Star Tribue wrote an article about her whose headline was “Low-key but well-connected, Rep. Betty McCollum accumulates D.C. power.” I’d say that APIAC has pretty much failed here.
So why is Omar a 9 day story while McCollum quietly accumulates power? Probably in part because Omar is Muslim, but also in part because her criticisms sound problematic even to people who are not pro-Israel.
Obviously there’s no way to avoid what are, as you say, bad faith attacks from APIAC and others. But there is a way to comport yourself such that those attacks don’t gain significant traction in the mainstream media or result in official censure.
This comes across to me as tone policing.
Edit: And also a good way to sweep the issue of AIPAC's influence under the rug so it doesn't need to be addressed.
I mean, I dunno what to tell you
Assholes are out there yelling about her tone
If Omar wants to make progress on the issue she probably needs to give the assholes less ammunition
If Omar doesn't mind getting yelled at by assholes then she did a perfectly fine job raising the issue
My point is: here's how to minimize getting yelled at while making your argument about Israel
I'm not endorsing the people doing the yelling
There is no tone in existence that wouldn't cause these people to attack her. Attacking people is the play they have, they'll use it no matter how carefully and politely you phrase yourself.
In 2017 Rep Betty McCollum sponsored a bill called H.R.4391 - Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act. It looks like it was co-sponsored or supported by Reps Pocan, Grijalva, Conyers, Blumenauer, Pingree, DeFazio, Carson (Indiana), Gutierrez, and Danny Davis. The bill lists a bunch of stuff Israel has done to harm Palestinian children and proposes that the US not give financial support to these actions.
I’m not saying this bill had a huge impact on the debate; what I am saying is that none of those representatives were the center of a public controversy about this criticism. Maybe APIAC quietly struck back or something, but the national conversation didn’t stop to yell at Mcollum or any of these people and none of them were censured.
So it seems very possible to criticize Israel. Just not couched in the same language as anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.
As I just linked last page the AIPAC has gone after McCollum aggressively. They accused her of supporting terrorism.
You aren't going to be able to word game your way around obviously bad faith attacks fueled by racial and religious animus.
Yet she hasn’t been drummed out of Congress (Representative for MN since 2001), hasn’t stopped talking about the issue (sponsored the bill I linked before) and in 2017 the Star Tribue wrote an article about her whose headline was “Low-key but well-connected, Rep. Betty McCollum accumulates D.C. power.” I’d say that APIAC has pretty much failed here.
So why is Omar a 9 day story while McCollum quietly accumulates power? Probably in part because Omar is Muslim, but also in part because her criticisms sound problematic even to people who are not pro-Israel.
Obviously there’s no way to avoid what are, as you say, bad faith attacks from APIAC and others. But there is a way to comport yourself such that those attacks don’t gain significant traction in the mainstream media or result in official censure.
This comes across to me as tone policing.
Edit: And also a good way to sweep the issue of AIPAC's influence under the rug so it doesn't need to be addressed.
I mean, I dunno what to tell you
Assholes are out there yelling about her tone
If Omar wants to make progress on the issue she probably needs to give the assholes less ammunition
If Omar doesn't mind getting yelled at by assholes then she did a perfectly fine job raising the issue
My point is: here's how to minimize getting yelled at while making your argument about Israel
I'm not endorsing the people doing the yelling
There is no tone in existence that wouldn't cause these people to attack her. Attacking people is the play they have, they'll use it no matter how carefully and politely you phrase yourself.
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.
Half a page was spent trying to determine how valuable a token loffa was. No one quoted what she said just that it was "positive." So ya it is a fair assessment of what was going on.
Nah, it’s a dumb take. But it’s cool we know not to trust “Jewish journos” when it comes to anti-semitism now.
Did you ever determine the value?
I mean, the one thing I’ve said about her comments on Omar is that the Saudi one is racist and gross, but sure, keep comparing me to a Republican. I genuinely can’t parse what you’re getting at here.
You seem to have read me saying “maybe listen to some Jewish people who expressed reservations”, as “Omar is anti-Semitic”. I think Omar was right, and I think she’s being hung out to dry unfairly. I also think the specific comment I was replying to, before someone spent half a page building a fan fic of how Ioffe secretly loves a Nazi, which said they just didn’t know what to do with the information that some Jewish people expressed reservations, was pretty mild!
But hey keep comparing me to racist Republicans in poorly thought out analogies. That’s super nice.
You took it personal when I said just using a name as a bellwether is the same defence Republicans use. The statement spoke to you. I did not.
In 2017 Rep Betty McCollum sponsored a bill called H.R.4391 - Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act. It looks like it was co-sponsored or supported by Reps Pocan, Grijalva, Conyers, Blumenauer, Pingree, DeFazio, Carson (Indiana), Gutierrez, and Danny Davis. The bill lists a bunch of stuff Israel has done to harm Palestinian children and proposes that the US not give financial support to these actions.
I’m not saying this bill had a huge impact on the debate; what I am saying is that none of those representatives were the center of a public controversy about this criticism. Maybe APIAC quietly struck back or something, but the national conversation didn’t stop to yell at Mcollum or any of these people and none of them were censured.
So it seems very possible to criticize Israel. Just not couched in the same language as anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.
As I just linked last page the AIPAC has gone after McCollum aggressively. They accused her of supporting terrorism.
You aren't going to be able to word game your way around obviously bad faith attacks fueled by racial and religious animus.
Yet she hasn’t been drummed out of Congress (Representative for MN since 2001), hasn’t stopped talking about the issue (sponsored the bill I linked before) and in 2017 the Star Tribue wrote an article about her whose headline was “Low-key but well-connected, Rep. Betty McCollum accumulates D.C. power.” I’d say that APIAC has pretty much failed here.
So why is Omar a 9 day story while McCollum quietly accumulates power? Probably in part because Omar is Muslim, but also in part because her criticisms sound problematic even to people who are not pro-Israel.
Obviously there’s no way to avoid what are, as you say, bad faith attacks from APIAC and others. But there is a way to comport yourself such that those attacks don’t gain significant traction in the mainstream media or result in official censure.
This comes across to me as tone policing.
Edit: And also a good way to sweep the issue of AIPAC's influence under the rug so it doesn't need to be addressed.
I mean, I dunno what to tell you
Assholes are out there yelling about her tone
If Omar wants to make progress on the issue she probably needs to give the assholes less ammunition
If Omar doesn't mind getting yelled at by assholes then she did a perfectly fine job raising the issue
My point is: here's how to minimize getting yelled at while making your argument about Israel
I'm not endorsing the people doing the yelling
There is no tone in existence that wouldn't cause these people to attack her. Attacking people is the play they have, they'll use it no matter how carefully and politely you phrase yourself.
Who are "these people"?
The various lobbying groups and GOP functionaries that we are talking about in this thread. Or are you tone policing us and implying racist intent by pretending to ignore obvious context?
Criticism of Israel is NOT antisemitism no matter WHO says it is, period.
edit: unless, you know, you've got some Ed Norton circa American History X dude criticizing Israel as the greatest evil known to man, in that case you may wanna exercise better judgment.
This edit is still an example of the problem that mentioned on the last page about any argument regarding Israel in general is that you must always include extra explanations of what you're talking about or else people will think you are taking on the argument of a bunch of (very loud) unsavory people.
Already on this page, I can tell people are starting to get angry at one another and as I read through I'm having trouble parsing if X person is expressing this opinion because they're antisemitic or person Y is expressing that opinion because they're antiarabic. It must be a nightmare to moderate because as people get more upset they start forgetting to include the nuance and explanations and then it's not clear if their opinion is reasonable or bigoted.
EDIT: And this is also an example of it. "These people" is such a fraught phrase that you really have to be super careful about using it in anger because it can give the appearance of antisemitism. (i.e. "These people" as in how Nazis use the term, versus the rest of English speakers..)
DisruptedCapitalist on
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
And they have, IMO, quite deliberately done everything in their power to make all the words theirs.
As an achievement / exercise in foreign policy and shaping the narrative, I have to grudgingly admire it. It's light years ahead of our own bumbling efforts of late. Pity that the government and policies it serves are so despicable.
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.
Half a page was spent trying to determine how valuable a token loffa was. No one quoted what she said just that it was "positive." So ya it is a fair assessment of what was going on.
Nah, it’s a dumb take. But it’s cool we know not to trust “Jewish journos” when it comes to anti-semitism now.
Did you ever determine the value?
I mean, the one thing I’ve said about her comments on Omar is that the Saudi one is racist and gross, but sure, keep comparing me to a Republican. I genuinely can’t parse what you’re getting at here.
You seem to have read me saying “maybe listen to some Jewish people who expressed reservations”, as “Omar is anti-Semitic”. I think Omar was right, and I think she’s being hung out to dry unfairly. I also think the specific comment I was replying to, before someone spent half a page building a fan fic of how Ioffe secretly loves a Nazi, which said they just didn’t know what to do with the information that some Jewish people expressed reservations, was pretty mild!
But hey keep comparing me to racist Republicans in poorly thought out analogies. That’s super nice.
You took it personal when I said just using a name as a bellwether is the same defence Republicans use. The statement spoke to you. I did not.
Any take from the UK is going to be influenced by the very real antisemitism problems that the Labour party has, much of it tied to European strains of leftism that simply don't have much presence in the U.S. We are not free from that prejudice, but we express it in different ways.
Just like any U.S. take on UK politics is going to note that some of the same groups that are influencing U.S. policy are trying to leverage Labour's racism into a larger suppression of official questioning of Israel by conflating criticism of that nation with antisemitism.
Phillishere on
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
In 2017 Rep Betty McCollum sponsored a bill called H.R.4391 - Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act. It looks like it was co-sponsored or supported by Reps Pocan, Grijalva, Conyers, Blumenauer, Pingree, DeFazio, Carson (Indiana), Gutierrez, and Danny Davis. The bill lists a bunch of stuff Israel has done to harm Palestinian children and proposes that the US not give financial support to these actions.
I’m not saying this bill had a huge impact on the debate; what I am saying is that none of those representatives were the center of a public controversy about this criticism. Maybe APIAC quietly struck back or something, but the national conversation didn’t stop to yell at Mcollum or any of these people and none of them were censured.
So it seems very possible to criticize Israel. Just not couched in the same language as anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.
As I just linked last page the AIPAC has gone after McCollum aggressively. They accused her of supporting terrorism.
You aren't going to be able to word game your way around obviously bad faith attacks fueled by racial and religious animus.
Yet she hasn’t been drummed out of Congress (Representative for MN since 2001), hasn’t stopped talking about the issue (sponsored the bill I linked before) and in 2017 the Star Tribue wrote an article about her whose headline was “Low-key but well-connected, Rep. Betty McCollum accumulates D.C. power.” I’d say that APIAC has pretty much failed here.
So why is Omar a 9 day story while McCollum quietly accumulates power? Probably in part because Omar is Muslim, but also in part because her criticisms sound problematic even to people who are not pro-Israel.
Obviously there’s no way to avoid what are, as you say, bad faith attacks from APIAC and others. But there is a way to comport yourself such that those attacks don’t gain significant traction in the mainstream media or result in official censure.
This comes across to me as tone policing.
Edit: And also a good way to sweep the issue of AIPAC's influence under the rug so it doesn't need to be addressed.
I mean, I dunno what to tell you
Assholes are out there yelling about her tone
If Omar wants to make progress on the issue she probably needs to give the assholes less ammunition
If Omar doesn't mind getting yelled at by assholes then she did a perfectly fine job raising the issue
My point is: here's how to minimize getting yelled at while making your argument about Israel
I'm not endorsing the people doing the yelling
There is no tone in existence that wouldn't cause these people to attack her. Attacking people is the play they have, they'll use it no matter how carefully and politely you phrase yourself.
Who are "these people"?
The various lobbying groups and GOP functionaries that we are talking about in this thread. Or are you tone policing us and implying racist intent by pretending to ignore obvious context?
Right, so my point is that various lobbying groups and GOP functionaries are going to attack people regardless! There's no tone in existence that wouldn't cause them to attack her.
However, those attacks have gained some traction from people who aren't lobbying groups and GOP functionaries in part because of her tone.
To use a more neutral example of how tone can do this, look at what happened when Rashida Tlaib said "Impeach the motherfucker." The GOP was gonna attack anybody who calls for impeachment, but because Tlaib cursed when she said it, a bunch of morons in the press spent a few days going "Is this beyond the pale? Have the Democrats finally gone too far?" This is why Tlaib was the center of a controversy for a few days and Brad Sherman and Al Green weren't when they introduced articles of impeachment in 2017.
I think it's very sad people are only seeing this in terms of what's helpful for the "Democratic coalition."
Essentially Omar is being attacked because she is 1. a black woman and 2. Arab.
I'm sorry if you expected black women to just dance around to Cardi B and not offer new perspectives on political situations. This is what diversity means, it's not a college brochure where they slap some POCs faces on there to appear diverse. It means that you have to deal with new opinions and attitudes based on different experiences.
I think it's very sad people are only seeing this in terms of what's helpful for the "Democratic coalition."
Essentially Omar is being attacked because she is 1. a black woman and 2. Arab.
I'm sorry if you expected black women to just dance around to Cardi B and not offer new perspectives on political situations. This is what diversity means, it's not a college brochure where they slap some POCs faces on there to appear diverse. It means that you have to deal with new opinions and attitudes based on different experiences.
I don't think anyone has argued that Omar is wrong in her response to this or that Israel should be beyond reproach but the unfortunate reality of politics is that you only have so much political capitol to spend while in office and the democrats ~who at present have a toe hold on the federal government~ need to be able to pick and choose their battles.
And make no mistake, Isarel's lobby is probably the strongest one in washington right now and it absolutely goes across both parties.
Beyond that, the reality is that the dem's have much more pressing issues then the continuing shit show that is US palestinian relations; The Mueller investigation, Trump's desire to antagonize every other ally the US has, His god forsaken wall... all of those have much more immediate impact on the thought process of the party.
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I think it's very sad people are only seeing this in terms of what's helpful for the "Democratic coalition."
Essentially Omar is being attacked because she is 1. a black woman and 2. Arab.
I'm sorry if you expected black women to just dance around to Cardi B and not offer new perspectives on political situations. This is what diversity means, it's not a college brochure where they slap some POCs faces on there to appear diverse. It means that you have to deal with new opinions and attitudes based on different experiences.
I don't think anyone has argued that Omar is wrong in her response to this or that Israel should be beyond reproach but the unfortunate reality of politics is that you only have so much political capitol to spend while in office and the democrats ~who at present have a toe hold on the federal government~ need to be able to pick and choose their battles.
And make no mistake, Isarel's lobby is probably the strongest one in washington right now and it absolutely goes across both parties.
Beyond that, the reality is that the dem's have much more pressing issues then the continuing shit show that is US palestinian relations; The Mueller investigation, Trump's desire to antagonize every other ally the US has, His god forsaken wall... all of those have much more immediate impact on the thought process of the party.
This sort of thing appears to people on the left as a clear example of the Democratic establishment's interests aligning more with the Republicans than with those of the people, so they'd do well to prioritize at least paying lip service to a more nuanced position.
That said, this is getting beyond the scope of foreign policy and I wonder if folks would be interested in a thread on antisemitism; what it is, how it relates to criticisms of Israel both genuinely and as a false narrative, and how it's being used with some success as a bludgeon to punch left both in the US and UK.
I think it's very sad people are only seeing this in terms of what's helpful for the "Democratic coalition."
Essentially Omar is being attacked because she is 1. a black woman and 2. Arab.
I'm sorry if you expected black women to just dance around to Cardi B and not offer new perspectives on political situations. This is what diversity means, it's not a college brochure where they slap some POCs faces on there to appear diverse. It means that you have to deal with new opinions and attitudes based on different experiences.
I don't think anyone has argued that Omar is wrong in her response to this or that Israel should be beyond reproach but the unfortunate reality of politics is that you only have so much political capitol to spend while in office and the democrats ~who at present have a toe hold on the federal government~ need to be able to pick and choose their battles.
And make no mistake, Isarel's lobby is probably the strongest one in washington right now and it absolutely goes across both parties.
Beyond that, the reality is that the dem's have much more pressing issues then the continuing shit show that is US palestinian relations; The Mueller investigation, Trump's desire to antagonize every other ally the US has, His god forsaken wall... all of those have much more immediate impact on the thought process of the party.
This narrative requires us to believe that the Democrats by and large oppose Israeli policies but go along with them anyway out of political necessity and there's nothing much to support that.
I think it's very sad people are only seeing this in terms of what's helpful for the "Democratic coalition."
Essentially Omar is being attacked because she is 1. a black woman and 2. Arab.
I'm sorry if you expected black women to just dance around to Cardi B and not offer new perspectives on political situations. This is what diversity means, it's not a college brochure where they slap some POCs faces on there to appear diverse. It means that you have to deal with new opinions and attitudes based on different experiences.
I don't think anyone has argued that Omar is wrong in her response to this or that Israel should be beyond reproach but the unfortunate reality of politics is that you only have so much political capitol to spend while in office and the democrats ~who at present have a toe hold on the federal government~ need to be able to pick and choose their battles.
And make no mistake, Isarel's lobby is probably the strongest one in washington right now and it absolutely goes across both parties.
Beyond that, the reality is that the dem's have much more pressing issues then the continuing shit show that is US palestinian relations; The Mueller investigation, Trump's desire to antagonize every other ally the US has, His god forsaken wall... all of those have much more immediate impact on the thought process of the party.
This sort of thing appears to people on the left as a clear example of the Democratic establishment's interests aligning more with the Republicans than with those of the people, so they'd do well to prioritize at least paying lip service to a more nuanced position.
That said, this is getting beyond the scope of foreign policy and I wonder if folks would be interested in a thread on antisemitism; what it is, how it relates to criticisms of Israel both genuinely and as a false narrative, and how it's being used with some success as a bludgeon to punch left both in the US and UK.
In what way? Who even is "the people" here exactly?
Posts
They spend a huge amount of money on politicians, they just find it more effective to spend it directly on the person rather than give to campaigns.
She absolutely would be getting the same reaction if she said that
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4391/text?format=txt
I’m not saying this bill had a huge impact on the debate; what I am saying is that none of those representatives were the center of a public controversy about this criticism. Maybe APIAC quietly struck back or something, but the national conversation didn’t stop to yell at Mcollum or any of these people and none of them were censured.
So it seems very possible to criticize Israel. Just not couched in the same language as anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.
As I just linked last page the AIPAC has gone after McCollum aggressively. They accused her of supporting terrorism.
You aren't going to be able to word game your way around obviously bad faith attacks fueled by racial and religious animus.
*it's worth pointing out that this "gotcha" after Omar's initial comments that got her in hot water were entirely disingenuous, since AIPAC does serve primarily to coordinate connecting candidates with wealthy donors.
His take is based on the misperception that these reactions are based on improper language, and not that AIPAC is a lobbying group with a specific agenda and a professional staff who are paid to find ways to attack ANY criticism of Israel.
This was a common topic of discussion five years ago. The fact that it is getting such a heavy-handed bipartisan reaction has more than a little bit to do with the fact that it was a Muslim stating it this time.
there's kinda one little thing that flags Omar as different then other reps that's have spoken against our Israel policies.
I know it's tough to spot but there is one sneaky little thing
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
Half a page was spent trying to determine how valuable a token loffa was. No one quoted what she said just that it was "positive." So ya it is a fair assessment of what was going on.
She was smeared back as early as 2006:
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2006/06/08/a-letter-to-aipac/
Yet she hasn’t been drummed out of Congress (Representative for MN since 2001), hasn’t stopped talking about the issue (sponsored the bill I linked before) and in 2017 the Star Tribue wrote an article about her whose headline was “Low-key but well-connected, Rep. Betty McCollum accumulates D.C. power.” I’d say that APIAC has pretty much failed here.
So why is Omar a 9 day story while McCollum quietly accumulates power? Probably in part because Omar is Muslim, but also in part because her criticisms sound problematic even to people who are not pro-Israel.
Obviously there’s no way to avoid what are, as you say, bad faith attacks from APIAC and others. But there is a way to comport yourself such that those attacks don’t gain significant traction in the mainstream media or result in official censure.
Nah, it’s a dumb take. But it’s cool we know not to trust “Jewish journos” when it comes to anti-semitism now.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
You might want to look at the demographics of both of her districts. That she can survive in that very particular part of America has zero to do with AIPAC's national influence.
This comes across to me as tone policing.
Edit: And also a good way to sweep the issue of AIPAC's influence under the rug so it doesn't need to be addressed.
Major media outlets use the phrase "allegiance to Israel" all the time!
Reporter for a variety of outlets:
Maybe we should consider that the people who view her words as problematic are just wrong? Maybe that they're being influenced by racial views on black women or muslims that they're not comfortable expressing generally or aware they carry?
Did you ever determine the value?
IS
NOT
THE
JEWISH
PEOPLE.
Criticism of Israel is NOT antisemitism no matter WHO says it is, period.
edit: unless, you know, you've got some Ed Norton circa American History X dude criticizing Israel as the greatest evil known to man, in that case you may wanna exercise better judgment.
It reminds me of the days when African Americans had to dress in suits even in rallies held during Southern summers. They had to constantly police their tone to be taken seriously and needed white allies to voice criticisms of racism since they would be ignored, dismissed, and demonized as "racist" when coming from a black speaker.
Just like on every other issue it seems, the right has realized that people really like the language of the left, and they'll use it in service of every ghastly thing they want.
Fascism thrives on hypocrisy and insincere public performances of virtue from the government they want to overthrow. The chief weapon of the fascist in the early days isn't violence, it's the ability to mock the status quo in a way that energizes its followers, creates sympathetic audiences among those who are honestly repelled by the hypocrisy, weaponizes their opponents who take up their leaders' crocodile tears, and demoralizes everyone else from wanting to go anywhere near politics.
They pay for lavish "educational" vacations. Its a more direct bribe.
I mean, the one thing I’ve said about her comments on Omar is that the Saudi one is racist and gross, but sure, keep comparing me to a Republican. I genuinely can’t parse what you’re getting at here.
You seem to have read me saying “maybe listen to some Jewish people who expressed reservations”, as “Omar is anti-Semitic”. I think Omar was right, and I think she’s being hung out to dry unfairly. I also think the specific comment I was replying to, before someone spent half a page building a fan fic of how Ioffe secretly loves a Nazi, which said they just didn’t know what to do with the information that some Jewish people expressed reservations, was pretty mild!
But hey keep comparing me to racist Republicans in poorly thought out analogies. That’s super nice.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
This is a good overview of how AIPAC works from a former staffer.
All of which means the politicians criticizing Omar's mischaracterization of AIPAC were in those rooms and know the scam.
I mean, I dunno what to tell you
Assholes are out there yelling about her tone
If Omar wants to make progress on the issue she probably needs to give the assholes less ammunition
If Omar doesn't mind getting yelled at by assholes then she did a perfectly fine job raising the issue
My point is: here's how to minimize getting yelled at while making your argument about Israel
I'm not endorsing the people doing the yelling
Their goal is to get their way. The only words you can say are theirs.
There is no tone in existence that wouldn't cause these people to attack her. Attacking people is the play they have, they'll use it no matter how carefully and politely you phrase yourself.
It's almost like the other side is not operating in good faith.
Who are "these people"?
You took it personal when I said just using a name as a bellwether is the same defence Republicans use. The statement spoke to you. I did not.
The various lobbying groups and GOP functionaries that we are talking about in this thread. Or are you tone policing us and implying racist intent by pretending to ignore obvious context?
This edit is still an example of the problem that mentioned on the last page about any argument regarding Israel in general is that you must always include extra explanations of what you're talking about or else people will think you are taking on the argument of a bunch of (very loud) unsavory people.
Already on this page, I can tell people are starting to get angry at one another and as I read through I'm having trouble parsing if X person is expressing this opinion because they're antisemitic or person Y is expressing that opinion because they're antiarabic. It must be a nightmare to moderate because as people get more upset they start forgetting to include the nuance and explanations and then it's not clear if their opinion is reasonable or bigoted.
EDIT: And this is also an example of it. "These people" is such a fraught phrase that you really have to be super careful about using it in anger because it can give the appearance of antisemitism. (i.e. "These people" as in how Nazis use the term, versus the rest of English speakers..)
As an achievement / exercise in foreign policy and shaping the narrative, I have to grudgingly admire it. It's light years ahead of our own bumbling efforts of late. Pity that the government and policies it serves are so despicable.
Any take from the UK is going to be influenced by the very real antisemitism problems that the Labour party has, much of it tied to European strains of leftism that simply don't have much presence in the U.S. We are not free from that prejudice, but we express it in different ways.
Just like any U.S. take on UK politics is going to note that some of the same groups that are influencing U.S. policy are trying to leverage Labour's racism into a larger suppression of official questioning of Israel by conflating criticism of that nation with antisemitism.
Right, so my point is that various lobbying groups and GOP functionaries are going to attack people regardless! There's no tone in existence that wouldn't cause them to attack her.
However, those attacks have gained some traction from people who aren't lobbying groups and GOP functionaries in part because of her tone.
To use a more neutral example of how tone can do this, look at what happened when Rashida Tlaib said "Impeach the motherfucker." The GOP was gonna attack anybody who calls for impeachment, but because Tlaib cursed when she said it, a bunch of morons in the press spent a few days going "Is this beyond the pale? Have the Democrats finally gone too far?" This is why Tlaib was the center of a controversy for a few days and Brad Sherman and Al Green weren't when they introduced articles of impeachment in 2017.
Essentially Omar is being attacked because she is 1. a black woman and 2. Arab.
I'm sorry if you expected black women to just dance around to Cardi B and not offer new perspectives on political situations. This is what diversity means, it's not a college brochure where they slap some POCs faces on there to appear diverse. It means that you have to deal with new opinions and attitudes based on different experiences.
I don't think anyone has argued that Omar is wrong in her response to this or that Israel should be beyond reproach but the unfortunate reality of politics is that you only have so much political capitol to spend while in office and the democrats ~who at present have a toe hold on the federal government~ need to be able to pick and choose their battles.
And make no mistake, Isarel's lobby is probably the strongest one in washington right now and it absolutely goes across both parties.
Beyond that, the reality is that the dem's have much more pressing issues then the continuing shit show that is US palestinian relations; The Mueller investigation, Trump's desire to antagonize every other ally the US has, His god forsaken wall... all of those have much more immediate impact on the thought process of the party.
This sort of thing appears to people on the left as a clear example of the Democratic establishment's interests aligning more with the Republicans than with those of the people, so they'd do well to prioritize at least paying lip service to a more nuanced position.
That said, this is getting beyond the scope of foreign policy and I wonder if folks would be interested in a thread on antisemitism; what it is, how it relates to criticisms of Israel both genuinely and as a false narrative, and how it's being used with some success as a bludgeon to punch left both in the US and UK.
This narrative requires us to believe that the Democrats by and large oppose Israeli policies but go along with them anyway out of political necessity and there's nothing much to support that.
In what way? Who even is "the people" here exactly?