About which I know very little. The comments section is every bit as interesting as the article itself.
https://mondoweiss.net/2019/03/accept-criticize-israel/
https://mondoweiss.net/2019/03/accept-criticize-israel/
A Fascinating Article On A Very Touchy Subject
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
I'm with you on this specific topic, but I don't think Israel is the only topic of relevance for this discussion. I agree that simply criticizing or taking an anti-Israel position is not anti-semetic. But we saw the same thing while Obama was president. If you argued against him or took a counter position, you were a labelled a racist. If you support Trump, you are a White Supremist. Civil debate is dead, and anyone who can claim any level of protected class, now uses that to beat down anyone who dares to oppose them. If you opposed LGBT teaching in elementary schools, you were labelled homophobic. If you oppose illegal immigration, you are racist. Its all about ostracizing oppossing thought, and its worked well for Dems as they are usually the protected classes, except in this one case, where suddenly there's articles about how being critical of a position doesn't make you an '-ist'.
You make excellent points, albeit somewhat at a tangent to the purpose of the article itself, which is centered on one topic only. I gather the author is a pro-Palestinian advocate, which probably taints his analyses somewhat. I thought it was interesting that his closing paragraph highlighted that the article consisted of his opinion based on his understanding of the facts. Is his understanding correct? Who knows? The comments section was a great example of how a back-and-forth discussion should be conducted. Very little ad hominem, kind of Jack Friday-ish - "just the facts, ma'am."
I agree, and I wasn't worried about what the writer's position was. Just the premise of the article. My issue is that I don't look at things in a vacuum. Thus what's interesting to me is that its only become a topic when someone on the left is the one on the 'short-side' of the topic (being unfairly called anti-semetic) that suddenly the stories start coming out questioning the fallacy of this type of criticism.
Maybe. This has been a topic boiling below the surface for quite some time, years in fact. But Omar's comments have certainly blown the lid off. I think it is somewhat akin to the "illegal immigrant" issue. Trump has brought it to full boil, much in the same way Omar has done with her issue.
But this is the whole premise of the deplorables comment from Hillary. Either you are on our side or you are an -ism. And outside of Fox the media was fine with it. Now that Omar "stepped in it", suddenly you are seeing stories from the media about how you can be against a position without it being inappropriate.
Let me ask you this. If Trump said the exact sentences that Omar did questioning Israel, do you think this writer would be defending this position?
I know there are only 60 days left to make our case – and don't get complacent; don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, "Well, he's done this time." We are living in a volatile political environment.
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.
But the "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but — he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.
In this particular case I definitely think he would defend the comments. He's a Palestinian advocate, vociferously concerned about the influence of the Israeli government on our own. This author on this particular issue is not expressing the slightest bit of partisanship. If partisanship is what you're seeing I would recommend you take a step back and examine your premises.
This author is taking a position diametrically opposed to Hillary's position. To Hillary HE'S a deplorable. Hillary has been bought lock, stock and barrel by the Israeli lobby. It appears to me you are once again looking through a partisan lens finding something that is not there.
I completely agree that the MSM has an agenda, and that agenda includes "protecting its own" when a liberal makes a controversial comment. Surely you agree that Fox News does the same thing with Trump? If Trump made the exact same comments the MSM would scream to high heaven, while Fox would defend it to the death.
I go back to the "illegal immigrant" issue. Once Trump made a big deal out of it Fox and Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative talking heads took up call and began carrying his water like the vassals they are. It is no different than what happened the other way with Omar.
That's just the nature of the political world. It becomes very important that we ignore the partisanship and look at an issue without colored glasses. Those colors have been force fed to us by those that seek to have power.
I say again I have no idea if this article is factually accurate. It may be all lies. But it does present a point of view that has been largely ignored by those that want us to see things from their point of view, and are more than willing to shut opposing views out of our sight.
Completely agree with everything you post here. And its probably unfair to lump this article in with 'the media' as I've done. As I've stated, I actually agree with the premise here, and wish all topics could be discussed honestly and openly without everything being clouded through the 'ism' lens, and not just the one topic that happened to have a lefty step 'out of line'.
