Jump to content
Ten oz

anti-Semitic remark by Congresswoman

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, nymnpseudo said:

Her apology should not have been made.

Thanks for sharing your opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, iNow said:

Thanks for sharing your opinion

You're entirely welcome.  I hope the reason I said that is perfectly clear, that her comment was not anti-Semitism, but referenced the influence money from Israel has on American military and political will.  There are an unknown number of Jews, almost certainly many tens of thousands at least though, who do not recognize the modern nation of Israel as their nation, or even as a Jewish nation.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredim_and_Zionism     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neturei_Karta  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nymnpseudo said:

her comment was not anti-Semitism

The challenge, of course, is that you have no way of validating what was in her heart.

She apologized, and even herself referenced anti-Semitic tones when doing so. That suggests that perhaps it's not as clear cut as you imply.

I think the apology should be allowed to stand and we should be cautious not to present our personal opinions and interpretations as if they are facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@nymnpseudo every individual lobbyist group in Israel doesn't speak for the whole of Israel. Just as the U.S., UK, and all other countries have various political factions so to does Israel. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) shouldn't be confused with the Israeli govt boardly or Israel's citizens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

@nymnpseudo every individual lobbyist group in Israel doesn't speak for the whole of Israel. Just as the U.S., UK, and all other countries have various political factions so to does Israel. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) shouldn't be confused with the Israeli govt boardly or Israel's citizens. 

True, and thanks for the reminder.  Many thousands or tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens oppose the State of Israeli's treatment of the Palestinians, for instance.

44 minutes ago, iNow said:

The challenge, of course, is that you have no way of validating what was in her heart.

She apologized, and even herself referenced anti-Semitic tones when doing so. That suggests that perhaps it's not as clear cut as you imply.

I think the apology should be allowed to stand and we should be cautious not to present our personal opinions and interpretations as if they are facts.

My personal opinion is a fact to me or I would not have it, nor would I generally express it.  However, she referenced anti-Semitic tomes as harmful, she was not saying her remark was anti-Semitic.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sensei said:

You can not change the history..

None of this justifies any of the violence perpetuated against Jewish people throughout history. 

I am not a religious scholar by any means but it seems to me that all abrahamic religions are stuffed full of contradictions and hypocrisy. The Torah, Quran, and Bible shouldn't be used by govt officials. In the U.S. we have a separation between chury and state. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Unfortunately we live in a world where violent anti semantic hate groups do exist. Those groups do propagate conspiracies about Jewish influence over govts and industry. Because of that it is important for public figures to make a clear differentiation between their criticisms of Israeli or Jewish entities and the hateful propaganda out there.

As far as I can tell she was criticizing neither Israel or Jewish entities. She was criticizing US lawmakers.

In reading her apology, she seemed to be apologizing because she knew some may have been offended, not because she made anti-semitic remarks. I appreciate her recognizing that some may have been offended, and given the pressure put on her I think it was wise of her to express remorse. However, I still see nothing that was anti-semitic, and I'm unsure in what other way she could have made that same criticism of US lawmakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, nymnpseudo said:

My personal opinion is a fact to me

Okay, though it's still an opinion. Have fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sensei said:

"The reputation of Jews as extortionate money-lenders arose, which made them extremely unpopular with both the Church and the general public. While an anti-Jewish attitude was widespread in Europe, medieval England was particularly anti-Jewish."

The reputation was propounded by anti-Semites as in The Merchant of Venice .. Shakespeare.  

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Okay, though it's still an opinion. Have fun.

Fun, okay.  My opinions are certainly almost never opinions according to definition of opinion except in this case:  an estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something.

My opinions are certainly almost never opinions based on these two definitions:  

"a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."
   (The language of that definition is as vague and obscure as my thinking right now.) 
 
My opinion is certainly NEVER an opinion based on this definition:
 
"
the beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing."

   Unless a large number is more than two or three.  

Fun we can have.  

 

13 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In the U.S. we have a separation between chury and state. 

Yes, I doubt Curry is served often at State dinners except when wealthy influential East Indians are hosted.  Pardon the fun.  iNow suggested it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The Torah, Quran, and Bible shouldn't be used by govt officials. In the U.S. we have a separation between chury and state.  

Really? I thought so newly elected U.S. president-to-be is holding hand on Bible taking the oath of the president of the USA...

There are only three exceptions in the history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States

Hm.. Quite surprising statement from somebody who is almost exclusively active on politics section of this forum.

17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

None of this justifies any of the violence perpetuated against Jewish people throughout history. 

Nothing justifies any of the violence against any nation throughout history..

 

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, zapatos said:

As far as I can tell she was criticizing neither Israel or Jewish entities. She was criticizing US lawmakers.

In reading her apology, she seemed to be apologizing because she knew some may have been offended, not because she made anti-semitic remarks. I appreciate her recognizing that some may have been offended, and given the pressure put on her I think it was wise of her to express remorse. However, I still see nothing that was anti-semitic, and I'm unsure in what other way she could have made that same criticism of US lawmakers.

No place in her apology did Omar state she was apologizing because people may have been offended. Rather she stated that she'd been educated about the history and rethought her criticism. What I read in her apology is that once the connection between her comment and the trope was brought to her attention she saw the error in her comment and is sorry. The apology as made is "unequivocal". She did not hedge referencing people she "may" have offended. She did offend people, she is aware she offended people, and she apologized. 

Quote

“Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes. We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize.”

 

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm unsure in what other way she could have made that same criticism of US lawmakers.

She could have said something to the effect of "the influence individual lobbyist organizations like AIPAC in the U.S. is too great." Or perhaps she shouldn't have said anything.

The tweet she commented on was by Glenn Greenwald. It challenged why U.S. Politicians are so protective of Israel. It made no reference to AIPAC. Omar brought up AIPAC  in a later tweet after being asked what money she was talking about. The initial tweet was about U.S. Politicians and Israel as a whole. 

20 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Really? I thought so newly elected U.S. president-to-be is holding hand on Bible taking the oath of the president of the USA...

There are only three exceptions in the history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States

Hm.. Quite surprising statement from somebody who is almost exclusively active on politics section of this forum.

I don't follow your logic. Because most Politicians choose to swear in using a Bible you think  that means there isn't a separate between church and state? Not all Politicians choose to use a Bible and there is no requirement any Politician use a Bible or be religious at all.

Omar herself is Muslim but there are also Hindus, Buddist, Christian, and atheist in Congress. U.S. policy is determined by a diverse group and not by a specific set  of religious scripture. Yes many members are religious but that is a freedom as individuals they have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

No place in her apology did Omar state she was apologizing because people may have been offended. Rather she stated that she'd been educated about the history and rethought her criticism. What I read in her apology is that once the connection between her comment and the trope was brought to her attention she saw the error in her comment and is sorry. The apology as made is "unequivocal". She did not hedge referencing people she "may" have offended. She did offend people, she is aware she offended people, and she apologized. 

 

No place in her apology did she state that she made an anti-semitic remark. You can choose to interpret the statement as apologizing for an anti-semitic remark if you'd like, but she was far from clear if that is what she meant. If she wanted to be unequivocal she could have said "I unequivocally apologize for my anti-semitic remark". Simple, clean, no room for confusion or interpretation.

Quote

Or perhaps she shouldn't have said anything.

Seriously? Anyone who doesn't speak up to what they believe to be wrong, has no business being a public servant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nymnpseudo said:

You're entirely welcome.  I hope the reason I said that is perfectly clear, that her comment was not anti-Semitism, but referenced the influence money from Israel has on American military and political will.  There are an unknown number of Jews, almost certainly many tens of thousands at least though, who do not recognize the modern nation of Israel as their nation, or even as a Jewish nation.  https://en.w_and_Zionism     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neturei_Karta  

Yes, "Israel", as it exists, is an affront to Jewish fundamentalists who follow The Torah to the letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, "Israel", as it exists, is an affront to Jewish fundamentalists who follow The Torah to the letter.

I think to the Spirit as well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, nymnpseudo said:

I think to the Spirit as well.  

Yes, the Zionists basically said "Sod this, we want it now, even though The Messiah has not yet come" As far as I understand it, the 'home of the Jews' is wherever he turns up, which may not be Palestine. It seems to me that the Zionists hijacked Palestine because of Jesus...  who is not their prophet. :huh: It seems they chose Palestine on tenuous connections through Christianity as a matter of convenience and impatience. I gleaned this reading about the Ultra Orthodox faction, who believe they shall remain a diaspora until their messiah comes.

Edit: Added

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, the Zionists basically said "Sod this, we want it now, even though The Messiah has not yet come" As far as I understand it, the 'home of the Jews' is wherever he turns up, which may not be Palestine. It seems to me that the Zionists hijacked Palestine because of Jesus...  who is not their prophet. :huh: It seems they chose Palestine on tenuous connections through Christianity as a matter of convenience and impatience.

The historical Promised Land agrees in geogarphy to the borders of modern Israel.    Jesus was certainly the prophet promised to the Jews, but most of them rejected him .. ah, I see, you said Jesus is not the prophet of the Zionists.  Yes, a difference there.  Personally I think the British set the Jews up with the land they're in now to have them destroyed by the arabs, which didn't work, most to the disappointment of the British and American oil interests I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zapatos said:

No place in her apology did she state that she made an anti-semitic remark. You can choose to interpret the statement as apologizing for an anti-semitic remark if you'd like, but she was far from clear if that is what she meant. If she wanted to be unequivocal she could have said "I unequivocally apologize for my anti-semitic remark". Simple, clean, no room for confusion or interpretation.

She cleared referenced her own statement as a antisemitic trope. If she wasn't referring her own statement as such than what else could she have possibly been referencing? 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Seriously? Anyone who doesn't speak up to what they believe to be wrong, has no business being a public servant.

It was a Glenn Greenwald tweet. We aren't talking about an official statement related to policy concerns. My advice to any Politician using Twitter would be to mind what they say and avoid re-tweeting or jump into tweets by others. When it comes to Omar co-signing bills advocating for policy, and voting in the House she should 100% stand for what she believes. As it relates to a flippant comment on a Greenwald tweet she practiced poor judgement and has already unequivocally apologized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iNow said:

The challenge, of course, is that you have no way of validating what was in her heart.

True that. But there is some back history to suggest that "It's all about the benjamins" was meant to be anti-Semitic. 

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

However, I still see nothing that was anti-semitic, and I'm unsure in what other way she could have made that same criticism of US lawmakers.

Zap she has made blatantly anti-Semitic comments in the past. So much so that Jewish leaders met with her before she took office in hopes of educating her.

I hope you will read the article below.

https://www-twincities-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.twincities.com/2019/02/12/mn-jewish-leaders-talked-with-ilhan-omar-about-anti-semitism-last-year-why-they-remain-frustrated/amp/?usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D&amp_js_v=0.1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.twincities.com%2F2019%2F02%2F12%2Fmn-jewish-leaders-talked-with-ilhan-omar-about-anti-semitism-last-year-why-they-remain-frustrated%2F

Quote

Among their concerns was a 2012 tweet in which Omar wrote: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” The language evokes an anti-Semitic trope of Jews as practicers of some type of sorcery that allows them to control others. 

Quote

Last year, state Sen. Ron Latz, a St. Louis Park Democrat who has served in the Legislature since 2002, invited Omar to his house, where a number of Jewish leaders had gathered. It wasn’t an ambush; Omar knew that group was there, and their purpose was to enlighten her.

Back to Ten oz original question "should she be punished"?  I agree with J. C.

Not legally but yes politically. It has been explained to her why these types of comments are hurtful for some people but she continues to make them. Good for her to apologize but she should still pay a price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

She cleared referenced her own statement as a antisemitic trope. 

Sorry if I'm being dense, but can you please quote the part of her statement that indicated her own statement was an anti-semitic trope?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Sorry if I'm being dense, but can you please quote the part of her statement that indicated her own statement was an anti-semitic trope?

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-rep-omar-apologizes-for-israel-comments-calls-out-problematic-role-of-aipac-other-lobbyists

Quote

"Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes," Omar wrote in a statement posted to Twitter. "

Thing is she was educated last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Outrider said:

I guess I don't understand English as well as I thought I did because I still fail to see how that statement is an acknowledgement that her controversial statement was an anti-semitic trope.

1 hour ago, Outrider said:

 

Zap she has made blatantly anti-Semitic comments in the past. So much so that Jewish leaders met with her before she took office in hopes of educating her.

 

Yes, we can agree that she made anti-Semitic comments in the past.

Quote

I did read it. Thank you for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I guess I don't understand English as well as I thought I did because I still fail to see how that statement is an acknowledgement that her controversial statement was an anti-semitic trope.

Maybe it's me but why else would she bring it up?

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes, we can agree that she made anti-Semitic comments in the past.

Can we accept that as evidence that "it's all about the benjamins" was referencing an anti-Semitic trope?

I say yes we can.

Keep in mind the exact words are used by some in describing Jews. As in "they are all about the benjamins". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Outrider said:

Maybe it's me but why else would she bring it up?

Why else would she bring what up? The apology?

People apologize every day for things they didn't (or think they didn't) do. Some do it to keep the peace. Some do it because they are pressured to do so. Then there is the famous non-apology apology. I think hers resembles all three. 

She said "anti-semitism is real", and she said she is sorry. She did not say "my comment was anti-semitic and I'm sorry". I suspect, given her history, that she didn't suddenly change her mind about Israel and Israeli supporters in Congress.

Quote

Can we accept that as evidence that "it's all about the benjamins" was referencing an anti-Semitic trope?

I say yes we can.

Keep in mind the exact words are used by some in describing Jews. As in "they are all about the benjamins". 

I don't see it, but that may be my lack of exposure. I have in the past been rather ignorant about what women and minorities have to put up with.

It looked to me like she was saying people are unduly influenced by money. If she'd said it about people taking gun money or oil money I don't think anyone would have batted an eye. But because it is related to Israel a lot of people immediately took issue.

I attribute "all about the benjamins" to her age.

But similarly to my position on the 'stupid woman' thread, I feel it is a good idea to avoid certain language if you know people might be offended by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Sorry if I'm being dense, but can you please quote the part of her statement that indicated her own statement was an anti-semitic trope?

What would be the point in mentioning anti-Semitic tropes if she wasn't referring to her own comment? The context of the statement was an apology for her comment. There is nothing else she's referencing.

I guess for you only time will tell. Surely Omar will hit the apology circuit and give numerous interviews. She'll address this issue some more and you'll hopefully you'll hear the right words in the right order to convince you her apology is for using an anti-Semitic trope....Or maybe I am crazy and she will explain that her apology had nothing to do with using an anti-Semitic trope. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.