An article from The New Republic says “No.”
https://newrepublic.com/article/153118/beginning-real-israel-debate-looks-like
https://newrepublic.com/article/153118/beginning-real-israel-debate-looks-like
Is Criticizing The Israeli Government Anti-Semitic?
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Depends. Some dumbasses aren’t smart enough to differentiate. All of the members of the Israeli government are Jewish... therefore they are inherently bad to Jew haters like NZ.
An intelligent, unbiased individual can differentiate between the Israeli Government and worldwide Jews.
An intelligent, unbiased individual can differentiate between the Israeli Government and worldwide Jews.
No, of course not. Talking about Israel “hypnotizing the world” and advocating a one state solution and the abolition of Israel is, though. Make no mistake, that’s what Omar favors, as do some of her backers.
If you’re chummy with Farrakhan, you’re an anti-Semite.
The article you linked does make some valid points, but it presents a pretty one-sided view.
If you’re chummy with Farrakhan, you’re an anti-Semite.
The article you linked does make some valid points, but it presents a pretty one-sided view.
Last edited:
I’m sure there are individuals who think that Israeli is the figurehead/beacon of the world Jewish population, and weakening/diluting Israe will be a step in the right direction toward reducing world Jewish power.
I admit that I am opposed to a two state solution, and that is partially driven by my own biases against Palestinians. Therefore, I figure the opposite is true.
There’s no right answer in this era. If Israel had just killed/ all the Palestinians instead of just pissing them off things would be a lot smoother right now. Now you can’t kill them, the rest of the Arab world has no problem using them as cannon fodder so here we are.
Remember when you could criticize an Obama policy without being called a racist?
Me neither.
Me neither.
I do think so.
- Democrats have been playing the racist card for 20 years every chance they get.
- Omar is a Democrat and a huge racist. Did you really think there wasn't going to be payback?
The author is an opportunist that is using Omar to bash Israel.
Doesn't seem to me like Omar is a huge racist, which I think is key to making sure that shit sandwich is eaten.
I also didn't see any Israel bashing.
Aunt Nancy having to issue a statement and making Omar publicly apologize was pretty painful for both of them.
Lot's of rhetoric about Israeli occupation, revisionist history, etc that are included in the article that are clearly not needed to make a point is a pretty good indication of an anti-Israeli slant.
You’re wasting your time trying to reason with a phony lefty who believes every silly
mythological lefty talking point about Elliot Abrams feintbe 1980’s and therefore revels in her colossal ignorance when attempting to read from a canned talking point in a slip of paper handed to her.
Considering The New Republic's history and well deserved reputation as a solid liberal magazine, I think the ownership, editorial board and staff would be quite surprised to learn they are participating in "serving up a giant shit sandwich" on behalf of Republicans. Did you even bother to read the article? Did you miss the part where he described the New Republic lambasting the opinion piece from 2006? The whole point of the article can best be described as "my, how times have changed!" It has nothing to do with Omar's racism, but rather the short term response from the Israeli-funded American politicians. That's the whole point of the article.
You are apparently unaware of the New Republic’s more recent change of ownership and editorial disgrace during the Bush administration.
Times haven't changed. The response to Omar's tweet was not due to Israeli lobbying groups, it was an opportunity to embarrass the democratic party.
Plus, it somehow seems completely shocking to left leaning people and media outlets that the constituencies of US Congressmen should somehow prefer Israel to Hammas, and the like, of their own accord.
Quite aware of New Republic's history (my son worked for that rag for a couple of years). Their liberal bona fides have not been altered.
You and the author will just have to disagree. I think he makes a pretty powerful case when he compares the reaction from 2006 to today, especially considering today's scandal came from a Muslin congresswoman. Like the Indian beating a drum in front of a 14 year old kid, this scandal had a short-lived window. That's the whole point of the article. The power of the Israeli lobby group has begun to enter America's consciousness, albeit very slowly and very little. But his comment about the fear the lobby group has is well deserved.
Yes, I think it should be shocking to the American public to learn how US Congressmen have been bought.
Nobody is suggesting that Hammas should be preferred, far from it. The only point being made is the historical power/control the Israeli government, through its lobbyists, has over the American government. The article suggests maybe it is time to examine that power and control.
Criticisms of anything and everyone - especially governments are always appropriate. Racism - actual racism, not how it’s ususlly defined politically just isn’t.
Seems simple
Yes they absolutely have. I agree with your assessment of them, roughly 15 years ago. The editorial integrity is a pale shadow of what it once was.
Same goes for Natonal Review, sadly, BTW.
But only by the hypnotizing influence of Israel, right?
And people like Omar, and, more particularly those she is aligned with would ABSOLUTELY argue that Hammas and orher like terrorist organizations are preferred, or at the very least, should be placed on equal footing to Israel. If you argue differently, you are hopelessly naive.
There is no question their reputation has suffered a major blow from the Stephen Glass scandal, and deservedly so. It is a shell of what it once was, no longer has the cache or influence of its past. But the people who today work for the magazine, almost to the person, would tell you they are left-leaning liberals. The notion they would deliberately publish something pro-Republican, or designed to perpetuate a Republican "myth" is wrong.
I don't get what is supposed to be shocking to anyone? An American lobbying group works on behalf of a close relationship and aid to Israel. Big deal. The rest is a conspiracy theory.
Want to be upset about a lobbying group, try the NEA. WTF is a education group doing with their half billion a year in spending?
The hypnotizing influence of which you speak can be named in one word: money. Politicians are money whores, and, within reason, will do the dirty with anyone that gives them lots of it. That's not to say they don't vaguely sympathize with Israel. In a conflict between Israel and their Muslim enemies we all sympathize with Israel. That's not the point. The point is Israel has influence over the US Congress far greater than it should. Up until very recently no one had the nerve to say it openly. They would be assaulted from all sides: other politicians, the media, opinion writers, etc. It was widely asserted that any criticism is anti-Semitism. This was true of Democrats as well as Republicans. Times have changed. Many people no longer fear the racist charge, and are questioning why Israel has such sway. Thus the whole point of the article.
People like Omar probably are everything you say about them. Not that long ago Omar would have been driven out of town for her remarks (tepid though they were). Today it lasted about one news cycle, and then we were off to the Chicago hoax.
You seem to be trying to turn this into something it is not. This is not in any way a plea for people to turn their backs on Israel and take up the Muslim cause. It's nothing more than the observation that Israel has oversized influence on American politics. And there's nothing anti-Semitic about discussing it.
You're arguing against your own comments in this one single post. You're right; in previous times she would've been driven out of town (or never been elected for even more obvious things she spouted beforehand). You don't seem to be able to connect the dots as to why she wasn't.
Why don’t you connect the dots for me? We are obviously talking past each other. The article is about Israeli influence in American governing. You’re making it about Omar. Omar made her remarks and the scandal couldn’t crowd out Chicago. Israeli influence on American governing seems to be waning, however so slightly. That’s probably a good thing.
IMO, Omar bought into an anti Israel narrative, without understanding that it had antisemitic roots. She has since been educated as to her naivity. She is now saying all the right things. She may or may not believe what she is saying.
More antisemitic content from our resident Jew hater.
Is it a big deal?
In 2013, this happened:
Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/aipac-syria-096344
Six years later, we’re still in Syria — despite two important (and overlooked?) groups being overwhelmingly against US troops getting involved.
The American people:
Source:https://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/syria-poll-us-military-help-092058
American soldiers:
Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/11/military-syria-poll/2798923/
Nope. Not a big deal.
Come on Been, anti-Semitic is just a buzzword. Let's stick to using words that aren't buzzy. I fixed it for you.
Fair enough. Do you think the men below would have agreed or disagreed with you?
They some pretty strong opinions on foreign entanglements — especially the guy on the top-left.
