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
Joe BidenCongratulations to our presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden!
 

Uncle Joe

(59,676 posts)
19. Apparently not
Wed Mar 6, 2019, 09:45 PM
Mar 2019


Ilhan Omar’s most recent comments have been stripped entirely of their context, their intentions twisted and reversed. During an event in Washington DC last week, she spoke sensitively about her commitment to human rights advocacy, her experiences of Islamophobia, and her compassion for her Jewish constituents. Then Omar said: “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country ... I want to ask, why is it OK for me to talk about the influence of the NRA, of fossil-fuel industries, or big pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobby that is influencing policy?”

It wasn’t long before Republicans and centrist Democrats pounced. The backlash has reached such a degree of absurdity that Omar’s own party plans to censure her for her remarks. This is something the Democrats did not do in response to baldly antisemitic statements by Republicans, nor even, as Jeffrey Isaac wisely points out, in the wake of the massacre in Pittsburgh last October – the deadliest antisemitic attack in US history, incited by Donald Trump and his supporters’ xenophobic rhetoric.

To be sure, Omar’s comments were not perfect – few people are flawless during unscripted panels or debates. And given the unfair and disproportionate amount of scrutiny she faces, perhaps it would have been wiser to have avoided some of the terms she used – in particular, “allegiance to a foreign country”. But what she said was not antisemitic: on the contrary, the full text of Omar’s remarks shows that she was careful not to conflate the pro-Israel lobby (which is also comprised of non-Jewish evangelical Zionists) or the state of Israel with all Jews, nor did she employ the dual loyalty canard, which asserts that Jews are more loyal to each other (or Israel) than to the countries they live in.

In fact, Omar did not say anything that other critics have not said before: that the pro-Israel lobby enforces rigid support for the increasingly rightwing Israeli government’s policies, and that questioning US support for a government that commits human rights abuses – some of which, the UN recently warned, may be war crimes – should be acceptable if not encouraged. If she were not a black, hijab-wearing Muslim woman, the reaction to her words surely would have been different.

(snip)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/06/ilhan-omar-weaponisation-of-anti-semitism

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
Bernie's right on the money... as usual!! InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2019 #1
'House resolution intended to rebuke Omar over the comments could end up stifling elleng Mar 2019 #2
We can't as a party allow anti-Semitic tropes to be thrown around by our Representatives CrossingTheRubicon Mar 2019 #3
Except that's not what happened. babylonsister Mar 2019 #4
Thanks for the addition babylonsister. Uncle Joe Mar 2019 #5
THANKS, b'sis. elleng Mar 2019 #6
'And you can't be in the practice of humanizing and uplifting the suffering of one, elleng Mar 2019 #7
Thank you. shanny Mar 2019 #27
So true if only her remarks were ACTUALLY anti-Semitic. Nanjeanne Mar 2019 #8
They were. CrossingTheRubicon Mar 2019 #9
As a Jew I have zero loyalty to Netenyahu's policies as regards to Israel. And I don't support Nanjeanne Mar 2019 #12
And I suspect you would not like being accused of dual loyalty. CrossingTheRubicon Mar 2019 #13
I don't have sual loyalty but people can say what they want. I know what I am. Nanjeanne Mar 2019 #14
Sound like semantics games Trumpocalypse Mar 2019 #10
Nah. Just an unwillingness to allow age old anti-Semitic tropes to take hold. CrossingTheRubicon Mar 2019 #11
Sorry Trumpocalypse Mar 2019 #15
It ain't difficult to criticise Israeli policies without resorting to anti-Semitic tropes. CrossingTheRubicon Mar 2019 #16
Semantics games Trumpocalypse Mar 2019 #17
Not a bit. No games what-so-ever. Using anti-Semitic tropes is no good. CrossingTheRubicon Mar 2019 #21
Since she never said the words Trumpocalypse Mar 2019 #23
... CrossingTheRubicon Mar 2019 #24
No it's semantics games nt Trumpocalypse Mar 2019 #25
Not a game. Anything but a game. This stuff is deeply offensive. CrossingTheRubicon Mar 2019 #26
Not according to Sanders Trumpocalypse Mar 2019 #29
Common Dreams? CrossingTheRubicon Mar 2019 #30
So you can't refute Trumpocalypse Mar 2019 #31
Read this: CrossingTheRubicon Mar 2019 #32
More semantics games Trumpocalypse Mar 2019 #33
So you were not sincere when you asked for a refutation. CrossingTheRubicon Mar 2019 #34
Still playing games Trumpocalypse Mar 2019 #35
Accusing patriotic Jewish Americans of dual loyalty forklift Mar 2019 #18
Apparently not Uncle Joe Mar 2019 #19
Mathematically there are four choices forklift Mar 2019 #22
That's some spin. CrossingTheRubicon Mar 2019 #28
Spot on. CrossingTheRubicon Mar 2019 #20
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Democratic Primaries»Sanders defends Omar: Can...»Reply #19