Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Thank You Internet... I Now Have A Different Understanding Of The Phrase... "Anti-Semitic"... [View all]WillyT
(72,631 posts)7. So Explain This:
One of Congresss Most Pro-Israel Lawmakers Isnt Pro-Israel Enough for AIPAC
BY JOHN HUDSON - ForeignPolicy
JANUARY 23, 2014 - 07:52 PM
<snip>
A recent letter attacking Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is causing an internal brouhaha at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, The Cable has learned. The powerful lobbying outfit, known for its disciplined non-partisan advocacy for Israel, recently issued an action alert about the Florida congresswoman's waffling on Iran sanctions legislation. The letter urged members to contact Wasserman Schultz and cited a disparaging article about her in a conservative website founded by a prominent Republican political operative.
That AIPAC was driving hard for new Iran sanctions legislation surprised no one. But its use of a right-wing blog to target a well-connected Jewish Democrat with a long history of support for Israel raised eyebrows among some current and former AIPAC officials. It also raised concerns that AIPAC's open revolt against the White House's Iran diplomacy could fray its relations with liberal Democrats on the Hill.
"In the 40 years I've been involved with AIPAC, this is the first time I've seen such a blatant departure from bipartisanship," said Doug Bloomfield, AIPAC's former chief lobbyist. Bloomfield was referring to an AIPAC letter scrutinizing Wasserman Schultz's silence on sanctions. The letter relied on the Washington Free Beacon's reporting, which (irony alert) happened to be the first news outlet to report on the existence of the letter.
"We are asking you, our leaders in the pro-Israel community, to reach out to Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz's office," read the letter. "The [Free Beacon] article included below about Debbie Wasserman Schultz blocking bipartisan Iran sanctions came out yesterday and, simply put, we need to know if the story is true."
Bruce Levy, a member of AIPAC's National Council who supports new sanctions legislation, said the group made a mistake by using the partisan news site in its official alert to members. "It probably gave [The Beacon] credibility, which I'm not happy about," he said. "Every little schmuck can express his opinion on the Internet, and unfortunately, it gains credibility when you endorse it."
AIPAC declined to comment for this story.
<snip>
Link: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/01/23/one_of_congress_s_most_pro_israel_lawmakers_isn_t_pro_israel_enough_for_aipac
FUCK AIPAC !!!
Who's anti-semitic here?
And Arabs are Semites too, no?
BY JOHN HUDSON - ForeignPolicy
JANUARY 23, 2014 - 07:52 PM
<snip>
A recent letter attacking Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is causing an internal brouhaha at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, The Cable has learned. The powerful lobbying outfit, known for its disciplined non-partisan advocacy for Israel, recently issued an action alert about the Florida congresswoman's waffling on Iran sanctions legislation. The letter urged members to contact Wasserman Schultz and cited a disparaging article about her in a conservative website founded by a prominent Republican political operative.
That AIPAC was driving hard for new Iran sanctions legislation surprised no one. But its use of a right-wing blog to target a well-connected Jewish Democrat with a long history of support for Israel raised eyebrows among some current and former AIPAC officials. It also raised concerns that AIPAC's open revolt against the White House's Iran diplomacy could fray its relations with liberal Democrats on the Hill.
"In the 40 years I've been involved with AIPAC, this is the first time I've seen such a blatant departure from bipartisanship," said Doug Bloomfield, AIPAC's former chief lobbyist. Bloomfield was referring to an AIPAC letter scrutinizing Wasserman Schultz's silence on sanctions. The letter relied on the Washington Free Beacon's reporting, which (irony alert) happened to be the first news outlet to report on the existence of the letter.
"We are asking you, our leaders in the pro-Israel community, to reach out to Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz's office," read the letter. "The [Free Beacon] article included below about Debbie Wasserman Schultz blocking bipartisan Iran sanctions came out yesterday and, simply put, we need to know if the story is true."
Bruce Levy, a member of AIPAC's National Council who supports new sanctions legislation, said the group made a mistake by using the partisan news site in its official alert to members. "It probably gave [The Beacon] credibility, which I'm not happy about," he said. "Every little schmuck can express his opinion on the Internet, and unfortunately, it gains credibility when you endorse it."
AIPAC declined to comment for this story.
<snip>
Link: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/01/23/one_of_congress_s_most_pro_israel_lawmakers_isn_t_pro_israel_enough_for_aipac
FUCK AIPAC !!!
Who's anti-semitic here?
And Arabs are Semites too, no?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
114 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Thank You Internet... I Now Have A Different Understanding Of The Phrase... "Anti-Semitic"... [View all]
WillyT
Jan 2014
OP
Yes, it means bigotry against Jews AND it also means bigotry against Muslims which we've seen plenty
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#45
Um, even under the very flawed definition that has been roundly trashed in this thread.
Kurska
Jan 2014
#51
Bigotry is bigotry regardless of terminology. 'What's in a name, a rose by any other name would
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#72
No, it is an expression of disgust at you demanding I explain some unrelated news article to you.
Kurska
Jan 2014
#42
Well... Whatever Is On Slow Cook In Your Mind... You Could Have Just Ignored It...
WillyT
Jan 2014
#44
There's no mention of "anti-semitic" (or "semitic") in that article
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 2014
#96
'You don't support Debbie'? Good question but probably will remain unanswered.
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#46
What I really find funny is your attempt to redefine the term "anti-Semitic"...nt
SidDithers
Jan 2014
#54
Sorry, "anti-Semitic" only refers to hatred of Jews. It doesn't mean anything else.
Spider Jerusalem
Jan 2014
#12
good grief. you're humiliating yourself. I'm sorry to see it. please stop digging. ack.
cali
Jan 2014
#105
My point is that it doesn't matter that Arabic is a Semitic language...
Spider Jerusalem
Jan 2014
#37
are you jewish? if not, you don't get to redefine what that term means
La Lioness Priyanka
Jan 2014
#21
No, you are simply incorrect as a factual matter on this. People who know more than you
geek tragedy
Jan 2014
#35
the sum of the parts do not equal the whole. this is very true of linguistics
La Lioness Priyanka
Jan 2014
#107
A Different, And Incorrect, Understanding Of The Phrase... "Anti-Semitic"...
SidDithers
Jan 2014
#31
Genuine question, do you support redefining homophobia to only mean a fear of gay people?
Kurska
Jan 2014
#53
Uhhh, relevant because it utilizes the exact same logic as your desire to redefine anti-semitic.
Kurska
Jan 2014
#61
AS someone who is unabashedly on the side on then side of the Palestinians and against Israel
Douglas Carpenter
Jan 2014
#81
different historians have different points of view on these questions. But in general it is thought
Douglas Carpenter
Jan 2014
#87
Anti-semitic means "anti-Jewish", not "anti all semitic people". As you well know. N.T.
Donald Ian Rankin
Jan 2014
#94
it's an ugly game. what's the point? Maybe that those selfish Jews are "appropriating" it.
cali
Jan 2014
#100
Willy is linguistically wrong and I told him so- but you are faking claims of anti-semitism when
Douglas Carpenter
Jan 2014
#112
It is not anti-Semitism - but racism and bigotry against Arab people is not a trivial matter.
Douglas Carpenter
Jan 2014
#114