Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Steve King: How did white supremacist become offensive?
Rather than start a new thread:  How (and How Not) to Talk About the Israel Lobby
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/15/how-and-how-not-to-talk-about-the-israel-lobby/

... Let’s start with some obvious but vital points. Anti-Semitism has a long and loathsome history dating back centuries, and the vicious killings at a Pittsburgh synagogue last year remind us that it remains a threat today. Anti-Semites have fanned the flames with bizarre conspiracy theories about secret cabals (e.g., the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and sinister claims about the influence of “Jewish money,” along with divisive accusations of national disloyalty (as in the notorious Dreyfus affair in France). Such hateful beliefs and tropes have had fatal consequences, most notably the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust, but it’s important to recognize (as Omar has acknowledged learning recently) that the history of anti-Semitism and its current expression are more widespread than that particular horror.
Given all that, Jews are understandably alarmed and angry when similar ideas or tropes are invoked today. Indeed, everyone should be. We should all be outraged when a world leader such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban directs classic anti-Semitic accusations at someone like George Soros or when Republican politicians use similar themes in campaigns and fail to denounce anti-Semitic chants at political rallies.

But at the same time, we need to be able to talk openly and calmly about all the forces that shape U.S. politics today, including groups like AIPAC and related organizations that seek to influence U.S. policy toward Israel and the Middle East. Bigotry and violence must be firmly rejected, but vigilance to prevent a resurgence of anti-Semitism should not be used as a political weapon to silence honest discourse now . . . .

First, what groups such as AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Christians United for Israel, the Zionist Organization of America, the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and various other groups are doing, and what wealthy individuals such as Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson have done for years, is normal political activity and wholly in line with the interest group basis of U.S. politics.

Second, these groups and individuals are not a unified monolith, and there is no central leadership that directs their activities.

Third, the Israel lobby is defined not by its members’ religion or ethnicity but by its political agenda—i.e., working to promote staunch U.S. support for Israel. To be sure, this includes American Jews who are ardent in their support of Israel, but some Americans who strongly favor unconditional support for Israel—notably Christian evangelicals—are not Jewish. Moreover, there are many people in the U.S. Jewish community who are critical of Israel and its policies. For this reason, using terms such as “Jewish lobby” to talk about pro-Israel groups is both inaccurate and inevitably conjures up dangerous stereotypes.

Fourth, like other interest groups, the Israel lobby uses a variety of strategies to accomplish its goals. Some of its influence comes from campaign contributions to political parties or politicians (although AIPAC does not do this), some from direct lobbying on Capitol Hill, some from public outreach (op-eds, books, position papers, media appearances, etc.), and some from the role that pro-Israel individuals may play in the U.S. government itself. Once again, such influence is no different from the influence that oil or pharmaceutical companies gain . . . .

Lastly, no interest group gets its way all of the time. The Israel lobby doesn’t control every aspect of U.S. Middle East policy, just as the NRA doesn’t control every aspect of gun control and health insurers didn’t get everything they wanted with Obamacare. But no one who has worked on foreign-policy issues in Washington or studied them with any objectivity would deny that AIPAC and related groups have considerable clout (which AIPAC brags about on its website), and policymakers remain sensitive to the lobby’s concerns, as any number of former officials have testified. But words matter, and using words such as “control” conjures up creepy and inaccurate images of shadowy puppet masters pulling strings.

Given all that, Omar’s tweets were both unfortunate and careless, and they stemmed from ignorance that she has subsequently acknowledged. But I do not believe they are evidence of anti-Semitism, and I don’t think it is helpful to respond to them with alarmist accusations and demands for her resignation. For starters, Twitter was the wrong medium: There’s simply no way to address the complexities of these issues in 140 (or even 280) characters. Second, her suggestion that AIPAC gives money to congressional candidates was factually incorrect. AIPAC engages in lots of face-to-face lobbying, runs a big annual conference, does grassroots work in local districts, sponsors congressional trips to Israel, and provides guidance to pro-Israel groups and individuals about candidates’ views on U.S.-Israel relations, but it doesn’t donate to congressional campaigns. If you’re going to wade into this minefield, it’s important to get your facts right.

But here’s the kicker: Though Omar deserved to be educated about the unfortunate manner and content of her critique, she would still have been pilloried even if she had been more sensitive to the history of anti-Semitism and offered a nuanced and well-documented argument. Why? Because being aware of, sensitive to, and deeply opposed to anti-Semitism and offering an informed, factual picture of the lobby’s activities affords little or no protection to anyone who is critical of Israel’s actions, is concerned about the one-sided nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and disagrees with the policy positions that groups like AIPAC endorse.


(I mentioned Stephan Walt in an earlier post as co-author of The Israel Lobby. )
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Didn't want to squeeze this all on one post. Walt contines:

How do I know? Let’s just say I have some experience with this phenomenon.
In my 2007 book with John Mearsheimer, we began by observing that any discussion of this topic “takes place in the shadow of two thousand years of history, especially the centuries of very real anti-Semitism in Europe.” We described that history as a “shameful record.” We also condemned its more recent manifestations—such as the hatemongering of people like David Duke—and we “categorically reject[ed]” the hateful canards about Jewish finance, media control, and “dual loyalty.”

We were quite critical of some of the positions that groups like AIPAC and others had advocated for, but at no point did we suggest these activities were illegitimate, just that the consequences had been a disaster for the Middle East and for the United States. . . . Our book said repeatedly that the United States should come to Israel’s aid if its survival were ever in jeopardy, and we argued forcefully for a two-state solution.

Yet despite these points repeated throughout the book, we faced essentially the same firestorm of criticism that Omar’s brief tweets occasioned. We were openly and repeatedly denounced as anti-Semites or “Jew-baiters,” falsely charged with having done our research on neo-Nazi websites, and in many cases accused of saying the exact opposite of what we actually wrote. Our critics were not just Twitter trolls but were in many cases prominent individuals with intellectual and political credentials. Even 12 years later, it makes me shake my head that we were in effect condemned as haters for pointing out that AIPAC and other like-minded organizations were extremely effective at accomplishing what they openly advertised they were trying to do!

Why does any serious criticism of Israel or the lobby generate this sort of firestorm, no matter how well one understands the sensitivity of these issues and no matter how carefully one expresses one’s views? Because after more than 40 years of occupation, the repeated and disproportionate pummeling of a captive population in Gaza, and the steady rightward drift of Israeli domestic politics, support for Israel is declining in the United States. Only by discrediting and shaming those who point out some of these difficult realities can the pro-Israel lobby keep the debate one-sided and U.S. unconditional support sustained.

So the reaction to anyone of any prominence who criticizes Israel’s actions or the current special relationship must be to condemn, marginalize, and if possible silence them. If their careers are permanently damaged so much the better, as that may deter others from speaking up in the future. The result is that there is still no honest or accurate discourse about such matters in the United States.

I believe that such efforts will ultimately backfire. Most Americans—including the vast majority of American Jews—prize freedom of speech, mutual tolerance, and basic human rights. They rightly resent efforts to silence dissenting voices, and they understand that the traditional protections of a liberal society are essential to preserving the security of minority populations everywhere.

Most importantly, only an open and honest discourse on these topics is likely to produce a Middle East policy that would be better for the United States and Israel alike. As J Street noted in its own response to the controversy surrounding Omar: “It does nothing to advance the true interests and needs of Israelis or Palestinians, nor those of the American Jewish community.”

Exactly.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
(02-14-2019, 10:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt the left is having a hard time painting Trump as antisemite while excusing Oman's words; but they get an A for effort. 

The left will do ANYTHING to make Trump look bad.

Even citing his own words and actions. 

Won't work as long as non-Trump supporters have his back.

As far Oman goes--since when do apologies make a difference? That's why Trump doesn't bother with them.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
(02-15-2019, 03:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fred, so gestalt in your thinking that you can't appreciate the saying could be interpreted the exact opposite way in this instance.

No it can't.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" means that you have to judge things based on their plain meaning and appearance instead of trying to imply some secret hidden meaning or symbolism.  If you look at what Oman said she was talking about a powerful lobby and the influence their support carries.  The only way you can say her comments are anti-semantic is to claim they have a secret hidden meaning.
(02-15-2019, 06:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it can't.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" means that you have to judge things based on their plain meaning and appearance instead of trying to imply some secret hidden meaning or symbolism.  If you look at what Oman said she was talking about a powerful lobby and the influence their support carries.  The only way you can say her comments are anti-semantic is to claim they have a secret hidden meaning.

Or to presume that criticism of the Israel lobby is automatically and openly anti-semitic. 
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
I don't see any way you can portray Trump as an anti-Semite. He has given his Jewish son-in-law a lot of authority and has taken the extraordinary step of recognizing Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.  He even moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
(02-15-2019, 06:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it can't.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" means that you have to judge things based on their plain meaning and appearance instead of trying to imply some secret hidden meaning or symbolism.  If you look at what Oman said she was talking about a powerful lobby and the influence their support carries.  The only way you can say her comments are anti-semantic is to claim they have a secret hidden meaning.

Sure it can.  To many, including large swathes of Democrats, the tweets were clearly antisemitic.  As they see it thus, the statement can absolutely be seen that way.  Poor gestalt Fred.

I'll remember this though they next time you accuse another politician of using a "dig whistle".
(02-15-2019, 07:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure it can.  To many, including large swathes of Democrats, the tweets were clearly antisemitic.  As they see it thus, the statement can absolutely be seen that way.  Poor gestalt Fred.

Sorry, but "no".

In order for the term "Sometimes a banana is just a banana" to apply there case to be 100% agreement on what the plain meaning is.  "Many" is not good enough.  No matter how "many" people think a banana means something else sometimes it is "just a banana".

You can still claim they can be interpreted as anti-Semitic, but only through a hidden symbolic meaning.  Taking her words on face value she is talking about lobbyist influence instead of old Jewish stereotypes.
(02-15-2019, 03:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fred, so gestalt in your thinking that you can't appreciate the saying could be interpreted the exact opposite way in this instance.

(02-15-2019, 07:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure it can.  To many, including large swathes of Democrats, the tweets were clearly antisemitic.  As they see it thus, the statement can absolutely be seen that way.  Poor gestalt Fred.

Someone has a new "word of the day".
(02-15-2019, 07:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry, but "no".

Why say no, when it feels so good to say yes?


Quote:In order for the term "Sometimes a banana is just a banana" to apply there case to be 100% agreement on what the plain meaning is.  "Many" is not good enough.  No matter how "many" people think a banana means something else sometimes it is "just a banana".

An interesting argument as it invalidates your earlier statement.  Self inflicted wounds sting the worst.  Ahhhhh!

Quote:You can still claim they can be interpreted as anti-Semitic, but only through a hidden symbolic meaning.  Taking her words on face value she is talking about lobbyist influence instead of old Jewish stereotypes.

Not according to large numbers of people.  Sorry Fred, sometimes the hive mind works against you.

(02-15-2019, 07:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Someone has a new "word of the day".

Hahaha, if I had a dime for every time you or your little buddies accused me of that.  At some point you just have to acknowledge a guy has a large vocabulary and find a different tactic. Smirk  Back to postwhoring I see.  Why do numbers on a screen matter so much to you and people like you?
(02-15-2019, 07:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: An interesting argument as it invalidates your earlier statement.  Self inflicted wounds sting the worst.  Ahhhhh!

No it does not.  My explanation has been 100% consistent.

She says nothing anti-Semitic unless you claim he words have a hidden symbolic meaning.
(02-15-2019, 08:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it does not.  My explanation has been 100% consistent.

I'll quote you again because you're confusing yourself.


Quote:In order for the term "Sometimes a banana is just a banana" to apply there case to be 100% agreement on what the plain meaning is.  "Many" is not good enough.  No matter how "many" people think a banana means something else sometimes it is "just a banana".


There is not 100% agreement of your interpretation, hence with your own statement you have defeated your argument.

Quote:She says nothing anti-Semitic unless you claim he words have a hidden symbolic meaning.

No 100% agreement on this, Fred.  You're a snake eating its own tail.  
(02-15-2019, 08:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll quote you again because you're confusing yourself.




There is not 100% agreement of your interpretation, hence with your own statement you have defeated your argument.


No 100% agreement on this, Fred.  You're a snake eating its own tail.  

There is a 100% agreement on the plain meaning of her words.  The only people who claim she said anything anti-Semitic have to rely on the claim that her words have a hidden symbolic meaning.  That has been the entire basis of the argument. 

So nothing inconsistent with my claim.
(02-15-2019, 08:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is a 100% agreement on the plain meaning of her words.


No, there isn't.  
Why did Omar apologize?
[Image: bfine-guns2.png]

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
[Image: Screenshot-20190215-195331-Instagram.jpg]
[Image: giphy.gif]
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(02-15-2019, 09:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, there isn't.  

Yes there is.

There is dispute over hidden symbolic meaning, but based on the plain meaning of the words she did not insult anyone.
(02-15-2019, 09:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why did Omar apologize?

For using words that some people could misinterpret.
(02-15-2019, 10:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes there is.

There is dispute over hidden symbolic meaning, but based on the plain meaning of the words she did not insult anyone.

Back in 2012 she tweeted "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel." That is not a hidden symbolic meaning, but clearly says that Israel is evil and hypnotizes the world and Allah needs to do something against that.

That she calls out pro-Israel influence groups is another thing (I guess that's right), but again, she shouldn't use the term "Benjamin's baby" when doing so.
To her credit, she apologized for that. But combined with the 2012 tweet, I wouldn't go as far as to say she meant nothing remotely anti-semitic.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
(02-15-2019, 11:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: Back in 2012 she tweeted "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel." That is not a hidden symbolic meaning, but clearly says that Israel is evil and hypnotizes the world and Allah needs to do something against that.

That she calls out pro-Israel influence groups is another thing (I guess that's right), but again, she shouldn't use the term "Benjamin's baby" when doing so.
To her credit, she apologized for that. But combined with the 2012 tweet, I wouldn't go as far as to say she meant nothing remotely anti-semitic.

Omar condemns "evil doings" of Israel, as do I.  I think it's just factually wrong to claim Israel has "hypnotized the world" since most of the world supports, for example, UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and (more recenlty) 2334.  But I don't find it plainly anti-semitic. But I can understand why a Palestinian might think so, since Israel still occupies the West Bank and controls Gaza, despite what the world thinks.

"It's all about the Benjamin's" means that campaign money explains the Israel lobby's success in the U.S.  As at least one such lobbyist has confirmed.  it is curious that when a Palestinian makes this money comment, a storm is raised by the party which frequently avails itself of imagery connecting Jewish people to money. 

What do you make of all these Republican party adds? No unapologetic president calling for THEM to step down.

Nazi posters of Jews often represented them in a greenish or yellowish hue. Check out this poster of Josh Lowenthal created by Republican and CA assemblymanTyler Diep last year. Hence I have rather a problem with the first image, not so much the second.

[Image: la-1541107800-wi2atstaon-snap-image]
The Washington State Republican Party used this campaign add about
[Image: ZZIEADQ3MNGEZNPCI532Z4JZXA.jpg]

There's a bunch more where I got those.  
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/06/republicans-attack-jewish-candidates-across-us-with-an-age-old-caricature-fistfuls-cash/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7320c0320ba8

Nottawhatabout question--could Omar's status as a Muslim of Palestinian heritage, who is likely to contest a Republican sponsored bill which would punish those who boycott Israel, have something to do with the sudden storm of outrage about anti-semitism?  Could that be why the storm comes down on her as it has not on these other individuals? 

Note bene: on second thought, there is kind of a yellowish hue on the second ad. Here's another example too.
[Image: MP4PIIG4RMI6RC5MX7QB7TODUY.jpg]

?? this guy was against cuts to Medicare? Jeezus, get your selfish greedy stereotypes straight.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]





Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)