Israel Bans Omar/Tlaib

[GMDino]

(08-19-2019, 12:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You can go wherever you'd like.  My reasons for making that post are explained within it.  

Yes, you explained that she used a cartoon from an artist associated with a contest run by an Iranian newspaper and you said you don't believe the Iranian government had nothing to do with it. So you tied her to the contest, the paper and the Iranian government.

So are we using guilt by association or not? If not there's no need for your post.

[Dill]

Just a little FYI for readers of this thread.

The Holocaust Cartoon contest, sponsored in 2006 by the Teheran Newspaper Hamshahri, was a response to the Jyllands-Posten controversy of 2005, in which the Danish newspaper posted a set of political cartoons featuring Mohammed, in part (the Newspaper claimed) to further critique of Islamism within Islam.

The worldwide reaction to this publication (e.g., riots in Afghanistan) then raised the issue of press/speech freedom, which Muslim countries don't have but "the West" supposedly does.

Hamshahri presented the contest as a response to this issue, not to claim that Muslim countries had the same freedom of press, but that the Western nations also limited speech about "sacred" topics. Their point was that just as cartoons disparaging Mohammed cannot be published in Muslim national papers, so cartoons about the Holocaust cannot be published in Western papers. In their view, this constituted a double standard.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-19-2019, 12:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes, you explained that she used a cartoon from an artist associated with a contest run by an Iranian newspaper and you said you don't believe the Iranian government had nothing to do with it.  So you tied her to the contest, the paper and the Iranian government.

So are we using guilt by association or not? If not there's no need for your post.

You clearly don't get the point being made at all.  Allow me to help you.  Omar has made antisemitic tweets in the past.  She has apologized for them and her statements were condemned by the HoR (along with all other hate speech).  Now, if you're her and you want to tweet a cartoon criticizing Israel is it smart to use a cartoon by a person who willingly participated in a blatantly antisemitic contest mocking the industrial mass murder of millions of Jews?  Some people have to touch the hot stove three times to get that its hot apparently.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-19-2019, 12:39 PM)Dill Wrote: Just a little FYI for readers of this thread.

The Holocaust Cartoon contest, sponsored in 2006 by the Teheran Newspaper Hamshahri, was a response to the Jyllands-Posten controversy of 2005, in which the Danish newspaper posted a set of political cartoons featuring Mohammed, in part (the Newspaper claimed) to further critique of Islamism within Islam.

The worldwide reaction to this publication (e.g., riots in Afghanistan) then raised the issue of press/speech freedom, which Muslim countries don't have but "the West" supposedly does.

Hamshahri presented the contest as a response to this issue, not to claim that Muslim countries had the same freedom of press, but that the Western nations also limited speech about "sacred" topics. Their point was that just as cartoons disparaging Mohammed cannot be published in Muslim national papers, so cartoons about the Holocaust cannot be published in Western papers. In their view, this constituted a double standard.

And you wonder why you're viewed as an islamic apologist.  

In any event your premise is flawed as antisemitic tropes are used in the US all the time, even by members of the House of Representatives.  No one goes to jail for them.  Hell the New York Times printed two in the span of a month.  

[Belsnickel]

I really wish we could rethink how we deal with Israel. Lots of things are called antisemitism when they are critical of Israel, not Judaism. There are those that point the finger at supposed antisemitism when they, themselves, have engaged in it or support those that do and turn a blind eye when their allies do it.

What is going on in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza is not good. We need to be able to talk rationally about it. People yelling "antisemitism" whenever someone critiques Israel is exactly what people complain about "the left" doing by saying they cry "racism" at everything.

[Dill]

(08-19-2019, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And you wonder why you're viewed as an islamic apologist.  

In any event your premise is flawed as antisemitic tropes are used in the US all the time, even by members of the House of Representatives.  No one goes to jail for them.  Hell the New York Times printed two in the span of a month.  

I don't have a "premise" in that post, other than providing background information, including rationales stated by other parties.

To frame someone who does that as an "Islamic apologist" is the equivalent of framing any neutral explanation of a Trump policy as an apology for white nationalism.

It is a frame which recognizes no neutral analysis, only condemnation or endorsement--you are doing one or the other. So if you are not condemning "Islam" then you are endorsing. (Again, see my post #35 above and the link in post #55 for more clarification about this style of "argument.")

Also, "Anti-Semitic tropes" are not the criterion here.

Do you have a link to any national newspaper publishing cartoons joking about the Holocaust? That would shut these Iranians up.

[Vas Deferens]

(08-16-2019, 08:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know I'm coming off as  Captain Contrarian with you in this thread, but you don't have 1st amendment rights when you're not on US soil.

I do when I’m in the US and that is exactly what their lobbyists are trying to take away. My and my fellow citizens rights. In the name of another country’s political objectives.

I doubt someone who believes in the constitution as much you would allow for a foreign entity to dictate its application.

[GMDino]

(08-19-2019, 12:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You clearly don't get the point being made at all.  Allow me to help you.  Omar has made antisemitic tweets in the past.  She has apologized for them and her statements were condemned by the HoR (along with all other hate speech).  Now, if you're her and you want to tweet a cartoon criticizing Israel is it smart to use a cartoon by a person who willingly participated in a blatantly antisemitic contest mocking the industrial mass murder of millions of Jews?  Some people have to touch the hot stove three times to get that its hot apparently.

This implies she knew the cartoonist was involved with the contest.  So it would be guilt by association.  Of course you believe she is an anti-semite because of her words about the country of Israel too.

Just seeing where you were coming from.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-19-2019, 01:02 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't have a "premise" in that post, other than providing background information, including rationales stated by other parties.

To frame someone who does that as an "Islamic apologist" is the equivalent of framing any neutral explanation of a Trump policy as an apology for white nationalism.

Sorry, not buying an equation between drawing Muhammed and mocking the industrial scale murder of millions.  You're attempting to mitigate this, hence the accusation of being an apologist.  There isn't a neutral explanation or excuse for this.

Quote:It is a frame which recognizes no neutral analysis, only condemnation or endorsement--you are doing one or the other. So if you are not condemning "Islam" then you are endorsing. (Again, see my post #35 above and the link in post #55 for more clarification about this style of "argument.")

In this case this is appropriate.  There isn't a "neutral ground" for mocking the industrial scale murder of millions.  Your comparison is offensive on its face.

Quote:Also, "Anti-Semitic tropes" are not the criterion here.

Do you have a link to any national newspaper publishing cartoons joking about the Holocaust? That would shut these Iranians up.

Except mocking the murder of millions isn't remotely comparable to drawing a picture of a dude.  You're attempting to mitigate that which should be condemned without exception.

(08-19-2019, 02:14 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I do when I’m in the US and that is exactly what their lobbyists are trying to take away.  My and my fellow citizens rights.  In the name of another country’s political objectives.  

I doubt someone who believes in the constitution as much you would allow for a foreign entity to dictate its application.

I would absolutely object to that, but that isn't what's happening here.  Neither Israel or anyone else is trying to "silence" Omar or Tlaib.  Israel refused entry to two people who are openly hostile to the nation.  This is not a violation of anyone's constitutional rights.  I don't agree with it, I think it does make them seem afraid of criticism, but I'm not going to call it something it's not.

(08-19-2019, 03:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: This implies she knew the cartoonist was involved with the contest.

Yeah, get into the DeLorean and take it up to 88 back to when I made this exact point already.  If she didn't know she should have known as based on her history she's not going to get the benefit of the doubt.  I recall you making similar arguments about Trump and who he retweets.  Selective outrage?

 

Quote:So it would be guilt by association.  Of course you believe she is an anti-semite because of her words about the country of Israel too.

Yes, she apologized for using anti-Semitic language but continues to engage in similar actions.  I believe she is an anti-Semite based on her own words. 

Quote:Just seeing where you were coming from.

It's been the same argument since it was first made.  I don't understand how you could be confused.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-19-2019, 12:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I really wish we could rethink how we deal with Israel. Lots of things are called antisemitism when they are critical of Israel, not Judaism. There are those that point the finger at supposed antisemitism when they, themselves, have engaged in it or support those that do and turn a blind eye when their allies do it.

What is going on in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza is not good. We need to be able to talk rationally about it. People yelling "antisemitism" whenever someone critiques Israel is exactly what people complain about "the left" doing by saying they cry "racism" at everything.

I completely agree.  I think, though, that it would be equally harmful to not acknowledge that a not insignificant portion of the arguments made against Israel are rooted in antisemitism.  It's not an either/or proposition.  In Omar's case I absolutely believe that's part of her motivation.  Maybe Dill can explain why one of her tweets about Israel had "inshallah" that the world would open its eyes to Israel's deceit.

[Dill]

(08-19-2019, 03:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sorry, not buying an equation between drawing Muhammed and mocking the industrial scale murder of millions.  You're attempting to mitigate this, hence the accusation of being an apologist.  There isn't a neutral explanation or excuse for this.

In this case this is appropriate.  There isn't a "neutral ground" for mocking the industrial scale murder of millions.  Your comparison is offensive on its face.

Jeezus. Not even the Iranians were arguing for "neutral ground" for mocking the murder of millions. My "neutrality" here would be in explaining the rationale of each paper; the problem is with your position if such neutrality threatens to "mitigate" it. 

You cannot see this because your constant pre-judgment collapses neutrality from the get go. Hence the wild inferences about neutral ground for mocking murder.  If I am not ALREADY condemning BEFORE reading and understanding, as you do, then I am an "apologist."

(08-19-2019, 03:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote: Also, "Anti-Semitic tropes" are not the criterion here.

Do you have a link to any national newspaper publishing cartoons joking about the Holocaust? That would shut these Iranians up.

Except mocking the murder of millions isn't remotely comparable to drawing a picture of a dude.  You're attempting to mitigate that which should be condemned without exception.

Nothing is "mitigated" by suggesting that you cannot find cartoons about the Holocaust in US national papers.  Of course "the West" thinks its standards of censorship are ok.The stated goal of the Iranian editors was to foreground what appears to them a journalistic double standard, and to frame calls like yours to "condemn that which should be condemned without exception" as simply the mirror-image of their view of cartoons insulting Mohammad. 

If the response is "it isn't the same because it isn't the same," that will play exactly as they want to audiences outside the US, and not only in the Middle East. 
 

[Dill]

(08-19-2019, 03:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I completely agree.  I think, though, that it would be equally harmful to not acknowledge that a not insignificant portion of the arguments made against Israel are rooted in antisemitism.  It's not an either/or proposition.  In Omar's case I absolutely believe that's part of her motivation.  Maybe Dill can explain why one of her tweets about Israel had "inshallah" that the world would open its eyes to Israel's deceit.

Dill could probably explain that, sure. She thinks that Israel manages the news that comes out of the occupied territories so the world doesn't know what is really happening to Palestinians living under the Israeli boot. Bulldozing houses, collective punishment, confiscation of money, land and other valuables--not really public knowledge in the US.  She is wrong, though, as this is more a problem with US reporting than that in other nations.

The are certainly arguments against Israel rooted in anti-semitism; we see many of these coming from white nationalists, along with Holocaust denial.

But I think Bels was not referring to any of that, but rather to efforts to stifle legitimate debate about US support for Israel, and how that enables Israeli policies most voters in the US could not condone.

It is not the "not insignificant portion of the arguments . . . rooted in anti-semitism" which pose a threat to honest and unfettered debate about US support for Israel. Rather, it is actual reporting on the consequences of Israeli policy on the ground in the occupied territories, and the spurious legal foundation of its control of the occupied territories.  If you are an ideologue, THAT is the direction you want to throw your smoke, not at the real anti-antisemitism.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-19-2019, 05:30 PM)Dill Wrote: Jeezus. Not even the Iranians were arguing for "neutral ground" for mocking the murder of millions. My "neutrality" here would be in explaining the rationale of each paper; the problem is with your position if such neutrality threatens to "mitigate" it. 

You cannot see this because your constant pre-judgment collapses neutrality from the get go. Hence the wild inferences about neutral ground for mocking murder.  If I am not ALREADY condemning BEFORE reading and understanding, as you do, then I am an "apologist."


Nothing is "mitigated" by suggesting that you cannot find cartoons about the Holocaust in US national papers.  Of course "the West" thinks its standards of censorship are ok.The stated goal of the Iranian editors was to foreground what appears to them a journalistic double standard, and to frame calls like yours to "condemn that which should be condemned without exception" as simply the mirror-image of their view of cartoons insulting Mohammad. 

If the response is "it isn't the same because it isn't the same," that will play exactly as they want to audiences outside the US, and not only in the Middle East. 
 

Just because you want to draw an equivalency doesn't mean your equivalency should be accepted or even acknowledged as remotely the same.  Of course, you argument would have slightly more credibility if the chants of "Death to Israel" and pictures of mushroom clouds wasn't expressed at every Al Quds day.  Heck, I even think such chants are made in the Iranian parliament.  I seem to recall threats being made to "wipe Israel off the map".

So no, I completely reject the premise that mocking the Holocaust is even remotely on par with drawing a picture of a guy or is acceptable to draw what you, mistakenly, believe to be a parallel between the two. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-19-2019, 05:48 PM)Dill Wrote: Dill could probably explain that, sure. She thinks that Israel manages the news that comes out of the occupied territories so the world doesn't know what is really happening to Palestinians living under the Israeli boot. Bulldozing houses, collective punishment, confiscation of money, land and other valuables--not really public knowledge in the US.  She is wrong, though, as this is more a problem with US reporting than that in other nations.

The are certainly arguments against Israel rooted in anti-semitism; we see many of these coming from white nationalists, along with Holocaust denial.

But I think Bels was not referring to any of that, but rather to efforts to stifle legitimate debate about US support for Israel, and how that enables Israeli policies most voters in the US could not condone.

It is not the "not insignificant portion of the arguments . . . rooted in anti-semitism" which pose a threat to honest and unfettered debate about US support for Israel. Rather, it is actual reporting on the consequences of Israeli policy on the ground in the occupied territories, and the spurious legal foundation of its control of the occupied territories.  If you are an ideologue, THAT is the direction you want to throw your smoke, not at the real anti-antisemitism.

Here's the thing.  You and I probably agree on way more regarding the conduct of Israel than we don't.  The problem is you can't expect for legit criticism to be couched in anti-Semitic terms and expect it to not taint the well. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/video/rep-rashida-tlaib-wants-people-to-boycott-bill-mahers-show-after-calling-the-boycott-israel-movement-a-bullsht-purity-test/vp-AAG0Tar


Tlaib believes you should boycott Bill Maher because he has a different opinion than her. But when Israel refuses to grant her entry into their country they are trying to silence her.

I'll await the cartoon of Tlaib putting her hand over Bill Maher's mouth.

[Vas Deferens]

(08-19-2019, 10:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/video/rep-rashida-tlaib-wants-people-to-boycott-bill-mahers-show-after-calling-the-boycott-israel-movement-a-bullsht-purity-test/vp-AAG0Tar


Tlaib believes you should boycott Bill Maher because he has a different opinion than her. But when Israel refuses to grant her entry into their country they are trying to silence her.

I'll await the cartoon of Tlaib putting her hand over Bill Maher's mouth.

The absurdity of the request aside. Is a call for a boycott not legal?

Seems AIPAC wants to say otherwise.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-19-2019, 11:47 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: The absurdity of the request aside.  Is a call for a boycott not legal?

Completely legal, although the call for it from a US government official somewhat complicates that (Yes, I am aware that Trump does this as well).  The point being made is that Tlaib feels she is being "silenced" by Israel by not being admitted into their country but apparently does not feel she is attempting to "silence" Bill Maher for having a different opinion from hers.  It seems to me that Ms. Tlaib has a tenuous grasp of the rights afforded to citizens of the government she is part of.

Quote:Seems  AIPAC wants to say otherwise.

I'm not 100% sure what your point is here.  AIPAC supports Tlaib in regards to her being barred from entry into Israel.  As far as I know they have made no statement on Tlaib's subsequent call for a boycott of BillMaher for not sharing her opinion on Israel and the Palestinian people.

[Dill]

(08-19-2019, 06:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's the thing.  You and I probably agree on way more regarding the conduct of Israel than we don't.  The problem is you can't expect for legit criticism to be couched in anti-Semitic terms and expect it to not taint the well. 

Agreed. The question here is what counts as anti-semitic. Just saying that the Israeli state "lies" does not fit that bill for me. 

In the first place, ALL states lie, including the US. If I point out a specific case of such lying, it doesn't mean I "hate" the US or Americans.

In this case, Israel does misrepresent its history and treatment of Palestinians.

If someone protests this by connecting it to some "inherent" dishonesty of Jews as a people then, yes, that is anti-semitism.
If someone criticizes the one-sided, distorted depiction of the conquest of Palestine which used to be on the Israeli state website, that is not, in itself, anti-semtism.

But to repeat, I agree that people can muddy the waters and shoot themselves in the foot if they stupidly deploy rhetoric either drawn from or easily analogized to common anti-semitism. E.g., If find it perfectly normal and ok if an American Jew who happens to work in a bank contributes to AIPAC, but if were to criticize AIPAC as a group of "Jewish bankers" I would certainly be guilty of anti-semitism, even if the group does have Jewish bankers, because the banking is immaterial to such group membership and goals, and material only to a stereotype, deployed in lieu of a real argument.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-20-2019, 09:56 AM)Dill Wrote: Agreed. The question here is what counts as anti-semitic. Just saying that the Israeli state "lies" does not fit that bill for me. 

In the first place, ALL states lie, including the US. If I point out a specific case of such lying, it doesn't mean I "hate" the US or Americans.

In this case, Israel does misrepresent its history and treatment of Palestinians.

I would agree with this.  I would also state that the BDS side also grossly misrepresents the Palestinian side of the conflict.  How did the war that saw Israel seize these territories start?

Quote:If someone protests this by connecting it to some "inherent" dishonesty of Jews as a people then, yes, that is anti-semitism.
If someone criticizes the one-sided, distorted depiction of the conquest of Palestine which used to be on the Israeli state website, that is not, in itself, anti-semtism.

Also agreed.  However this one sided view be offered by the Israeli government is not the only view out there.  We don't live in 1984 were only one "truth" is available for public consumption.  As stated above the Palestinians are equally miscast as pacifist victims of a tyrannical, aggressive, state.

Quote:But to repeat, I agree that people can muddy the waters and shoot themselves in the foot if they stupidly deploy rhetoric either drawn from or easily analogized to common anti-semitism. E.g., If find it perfectly normal and ok if an American Jew who happens to work in a bank contributes to AIPAC, but if were to criticize AIPAC as a group of "Jewish bankers" I would certainly be guilty of anti-semitism, even if the group does have Jewish bankers, because the banking is immaterial to such group membership and goals, and material only to a stereotype, deployed in lieu of a real argument.

Here is why a person like Omar does you and your cause far more damage then I think you realize.  Omar is a bigot and an anti-Semite.  The calls to remove her from the Foreign Affairs committee were the right call.  Her inclusion in this trip was, IMO, the reason for the refusal.  I think Tlaib would not have run into difficulty, at the very least not the same level of it, if Omar was not in the picture.

[Dill]

(08-20-2019, 10:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I would agree with this.  I would also state that the BDS side also grossly misrepresents the Palestinian side of the conflict.  How did the war that saw Israel seize these territories start?

Also agreed.  However this one sided view be offered by the Israeli government is not the only view out there.  We don't live in 1984 were only one "truth" is available for public consumption.  As stated above the Palestinians are equally miscast as pacifist victims of a tyrannical, aggressive, state.

So far as I know, kinetic action began with an surprise Israeli strike on Egyptian airbases, though Israel initially accused the Egyptians of attacking first.

I would have to know what specific "misrepresentations" of the Palestinian side your were referring to adequately respond to the above points. Of course the Israeli gov. view is not the only one out there. That's why I am able to contest theirs.

Most can agree that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forcibly removed from their land in '48 and now live under Israeli control in the occupied territories and refugee camps in neighboring Jordan.  Not clear how they could be "miscast" as victims here.