Jump to content
Ten oz

anti-Semitic remark by Congresswoman

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Why else would she bring what up? The apology?

Why else would she bring up the fact that what she said is a fairly well known anti-Semitic trope? I would think if she really had not known she would have just apologized for offending people.

 

53 minutes ago, Outrider said:

painful history of anti-Semitic tropes,"

That is the part of her quote I'm referring to. To me she acknowledges she used one.

15 minutes ago, zapatos said:

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.

You are one of the most moderate posters on this forum and I respect your opinion. 

But we have:

She has used blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric in the past.

She used a word for word anti-Semitic trope in this case.

Leaders of the Jewish community met with her just last year about this very kind of thing.

This leads me to believe she knew what she was doing when she did.

Share this post


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

Why else would she bring up the fact that what she said is a fairly well known anti-Semitic trope?

Again, you can infer that she did that, and maybe it is true, but it was not clearly stated. She said "I was educated about tropes, I don't want to offend anyone, I am sorry". A perfect example of how to apologize  without actually admitting guilt.

Quote

I would think if she really had not known she would have just apologized for offending people.

It looked to me like she apologized because she was pressured to do so. Saying she was taught about anti-Semitic tropes could have been a way to make her apology more palatable to others. 

The fact that she ended her apology with a reiteration of her concern but in softer tones makes me think she is sorry about nothing but getting called out.

To me the apology seemed 'well crafted' more than a sincere belief she did something wrong.

 

Quote

But we have:

She has used blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric in the past.

She used a word for word anti-Semitic trope in this case.

Leaders of the Jewish community met with her just last year about this very kind of thing.

This leads me to believe she knew what she was doing when she did.

I agree that she knew what she was doing. I think the difference in our opinions is that you feel she was slurring Jews, and I feel she was probably just criticizing both the use of money by this group to influence politicians, and politicians who are influenced by money.

Her history you outlined above could even be reasonably used to support my position that she was NOT apologizing for her statement (if she really is anti-semitic, did she really just have an epiphany about her bad behavior?), but was instead apologizing to smooth troubled waters.

But as I said before, I may be wrong about her words, as subtle attacks on Jews is not as clear to me as subtle attacks on some other groups.

Share this post


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

Again, you can infer that she did that, and maybe it is true, but it was not clearly stated. She said "I was educated about tropes, I don't want to offend anyone, I am sorry". A perfect example of how to apologize  without actually admitting guilt.

 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

It looked to me like she apologized because she was pressured to do so. Saying she was taught about anti-Semitic tropes could have been a way to make her apology more palatable to others. 

The fact that she ended her apology with a reiteration of her concern but in softer tones makes me think she is sorry about nothing but getting called out.

To me the apology seemed 'well crafted' more than a sincere belief she did something wrong.

I agree with all that.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I agree that she knew what she was doing. I think the difference in our opinions is that you feel she was slurring Jews, and I feel she was probably just criticizing both the use of money by this group to influence politicians, and politicians who are influenced by money

I have been misunderstanding you quite a bit. Sorry about that.

I think she used a slur to criticize policy and did it on purpose. 

AIPAC is a political action committee (PAC) which basically means they legally bribe politicians to vote in their interest. I am very much against PAC's on principle. In particular AIPAC is a bad one because the money comes from Israel. So we have other countrys bribing our politicians to influence our foreign policy with them. Ain't  America great. 

So Omar has every right to criticize them. But Omar wasn't criticizing PAC's in general or even PAC's funded with foreign money. She was criticizing a Jewish sympathetic PAC and using an anti-Semitic trope to do it.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

But as I said before, I may be wrong about her words, as subtle attacks on Jews is not as clear to me as subtle attacks on some other groups.

I think the hatred on the Muslim side comes from them both regarding Jerusalem as holy land. And fighting over it.

On the Christian side is quite a bit more complicated.  Short version is Shakespeare wrote "neither a borrower nor a lender be" in one of his plays and somehow that got attributed to the Bible. So many Jews ended controlling the banks. I think there are still parts of the world where Christians think it is sin to lend money.

Why so many American Christians hate them I have no idea but I grew up in the middle of KKK country and both them and the skinheads do hate Jews.

But then again they hate pretty much everybody. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my opinion, for what its worth, is similar to the position  I took in the 'stupid woman' thread.

Some people are easily offended, and any decent person ( or one who wishes to save their political career ) will apologize for causing offence.
The tweet by I Omar, made no mention of Jews, and you need to make some assumptions in order to associate the money in her tweet, with Jews.
The statement was about the monetary influence of lobbyist, and can only be anti-Semitic if one makes the 'connection' of money to Jews.
And as far as I'm concerned, that means the offended person has preconceived notions about Jews.

Just as if you choose to identify any adjective of the word 'woman' as a gender bias then you  have preconceived notions about women.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Anything you say that casts any form of doubt on Israelis is taken by them as anti-Semitic and their active supporters, by default.

If they were to be offended by your comments would you apologies? This comment could be anti Semitic then - especially as it stereo types all Israelis and their supporters as being in tolerant to criticism.  ;-)  

15 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Omar already apologized and in her apology acknowledge the anti-Semitic trope. If you are unclear with what was wrong about her comment I recommend reading her apology, Link. As for my opinion about what she said it is contained in the above reply to Zapatos.

I want to know what she said that was considered offensive - not what she said in her apology.  I'll ask one more time   -  what, in your opinion, did she actually SAY that was considered to be anti-Semitic? 

 

 

14 hours ago, iNow said:

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

at the moment I have no way of knowing what she actually said - as no-one will tell me and I can't open TenOz's link and I have no interest in searching the internet for her comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Outrider said:

Why else would she bring up the fact that what she said is a fairly well known anti-Semitic trope?

Can you tell me what she said please?   All I can seem to get from this is that she said something along the lines of certain people's support for Israel was 'all about the Benjamin's'....  which is a common reference to money (Benjamin's - re- Benjamin Franklins - meaning hundred dollar bills?) - I am still searching for the anti-Semitism in that specific comment. Unless you consider criticising people for taking money for political support as anti-Semitic?

7 hours ago, Outrider said:

I think she used a slur to criticize policy and did it on purpose. 

What was the actual slur? I haven't seen it quoted in this thread yet.

 

Share this post


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

I think my opinion, for what its worth, is similar to the position  I took in the 'stupid woman' thread.

Some people are easily offended, and any decent person ( or one who wishes to save their political career ) will apologize for causing offence.
The tweet by I Omar, made no mention of Jews, and you need to make some assumptions in order to associate the money in her tweet, with Jews.
The statement was about the monetary influence of lobbyist, and can only be anti-Semitic if one makes the 'connection' of money to Jews.
And as far as I'm concerned, that means the offended person has preconceived notions about Jews.

Just as if you choose to identify any adjective of the word 'woman' as a gender bias then you  have preconceived notions about women.

 

In a perfect world I would agree with this post 100%. Unfortunately the world isn't perfect. There simply isn't a one size fits all way of speaking to or about people. Different groups of people have been and continue to be treated differently. It is a reality of life. 

Sometimes things can seem ridiculous and like someone is just looking to be offended. By their very nature most stereotypes and tropes are ridiculous in the first place. For example people stereotype African Americans as liking Chicken. It doesn't make any sense. Who other than vegetarians in Northern America doesn't like Chicken? The absurdity of the stereotype lends plenty of cover to itself. Yet most people in North America are savvy enough to catch something about Black people and Chicken in a tweet and understand the negative subtext. Of course room would still exist for one to honestly claim they don't understand what's offensive about it. Again, everyone likes Chicken. The stereotype is objective absurd. 

Often trying to explain an offensive remark can be like trying to explain why in a cartoon some rules of physics apply some of the times but not all they time. Tremendous amount of artistic liberties are taken. Just as there is nothing wrong with liking Chicken there is nothing wrong with pointing out the influence of lobbyist money in politics. There is lots of plausible deniability. No doubt. 

Of course Omar hasn't gone to route of plausible deniability. She has apologized and in the apology itself referenced history and need to step back and evaluate ones criticism. I think it was a good apology. I am surprised that in spite of its quality and perspective some are say it was forced or made only to satisfy others. I am of the opinion that she probably was criticizing lobbyists and simply forgot the silly tropes which could be read as subtext. Whether or not it was a innocent mistake an apology was in order and I hope she is more careful in the future. Only time will tell.

10 minutes ago, DrP said:

Can you tell me what she said please?   All I can seem to get from this is that she said something along the lines of certain people's support for Israel was 'all about the Benjamin's'....  which is a common reference to money (Benjamin's - re- Benjamin Franklins - meaning hundred dollar bills?) - I am still searching for the anti-Semitism in that specific comment. Unless you consider criticising people for taking money for political support as anti-Semitic?

If you honestly do not understand I think you'll need to do some research on your own. The issue has a long history and is nuanced enough that I doubt any single post will be able to encapsulate it for you.

Quote

 

Economic antisemitism is stereotypes and canards that are based on the economic status, occupation or economic behaviour of Jews. It also includes economic behaviour and laws as well as governmental policies that target the economic status, occupation or behaviour of Jews.

In some cases, stereotypes and canards have motivated economic behaviour and governmental action targeting Jews. In other cases, economic behaviour, laws and/or governmental policies have fed the propagation of those stereotypes and canards.

Derek Penslar describes modern economic antisemitism as a "double helix of intersecting paradigms, the first associating the Jew with paupers and savages and the second conceiving of Jews as conspirators, leaders of a financial cabal seeking global domination".[2]

Throughout history, stereotypes of Jews as being connected to greed, money-lending and usury have stoked anti-Jewish sentiments and still, to a large extent, influence the perception of Jews today. Reuveni and Wobick-segev suggest that we are still haunted by the image of "the mighty, greedy Jew".[3]

Link

 

 

Share this post


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

The issue has a long history and is nuanced enough that I doubt any single post will be able to encapsulate it for you.

All I am asking for (for about the 5th time) is a direct quote of the words she said that people are claiming to be anti-Semitic. Is it that hard to post that here?

I am well aware of the stereo types they face. I want to know what she said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DrP said:

All I am asking for (for about the 5th time) is a direct quote of the words she said that people are claiming to be anti-Semitic. Is it that hard to post that here?

I am well aware of the stereo types they face. I want to know what she said.

I qouted the entirety of what she said in the OP and it has been discussed throughout the thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 1:48 AM, Ten oz said:

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar recently made an anti-Semitic remark on Twitter, Link. In response to a tweet critical of pro-Israeli positions among various U.S. Politicians she posted "it's all about the Benjamins baby". The association between Jewish people and money is a well known hateful trope. 

Should there be consequences for this, if so what should they be and if not why not? 

 

Just now, Ten oz said:

I qouted the entirety of what she said in the OP and it has been discussed throughout the thread. 

The entirety of what she said?     You mean the "it's all about the Benjamin's" ?    I thought that meant that it was all about the money.... meaning people are taking money for political influence?   Where is the anti-Semitism? Explain it to me because saying someone shouldn't take money for political influence doesn't sound like anti-Semitism to me   -  it sounds like a dodge of her complaint and an attempt to discredit her actual point with hand waving and feigned offence  (I might be wrong - I am just going by what I've read here in this thread).

Is 'it's all about the Benjamin's' a 'hateful troupe' or a figure of speech meaning 'it's all about the money'? .

Don't get me wrong  -  I'm pretty pro Israel's right to exist and defend it's borders and even invade the surrounding territory and settle there in the name of defence if the neighbours can't stop throwing missiles into town...  I'd give them the whole area and re-settle the rest into the surrounding Arab nations... but my view is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DrP said:

All I am asking for (for about the 5th time) is a direct quote of the words she said that people are claiming to be anti-Semitic. Is it that hard to post that here?

I am well aware of the stereo types they face. I want to know what she said.

 

2 minutes ago, DrP said:

The entirety of what she said?     You mean the "it's all about the Benjamin's" ?    I thought that meant that it was all about the money.... meaning people are taking money for political influence?   Where is the anti-Semitism? Explain it to me because saying someone shouldn't take money for political influence doesn't sound like anti-Semitism to me   -  it sounds like a dodge of her complaint and an attempt to discredit her actual point with hand waving and feigned offence  (I might be wrong - I am just going by what I've read here in this thread).

Is 'it's all about the Benjamin's' a 'hateful troupe' or a figure of speech meaning 'it's all about the money'? .

Don't get me wrong  -  I'm pretty pro Israel's right to exist and defend it's borders and even invade the surrounding territory and settle there in the name of defence if the neighbours can't stop throwing missiles into town...  I'd give them the whole area and re-settle the rest into the surrounding Arab nations... but my view is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

By your own count you have asked for a direct qoute 5 times yet it was already contained in the OP. I don't feel you are posting in good faith. You've insisted upon information you already had and now you're demanding further explanations 3 pages into a thread where each question you have raised has already been discussed by myself and other posters. 

Please take a minute and read the thread. Repeatedly posting requesting information already available isn't constructive.

Omar's comment has been condemned on all sides. Even by her political allies. She has already stepped forward and apologized "unequivocally" for the comment. It is totally fair for you to hold the opinion that the situation is overblown. It is fair for you to hold the opinion that there isn't anything overtly anti-Semitic about what she said. Your opinion on this matter is equal to mine. However I think we are past the point of claiming to completely not understand what happened or why. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DrP said:

The entirety of what she said?     You mean the "it's all about the Benjamin's" ?    I thought that meant that it was all about the money.... meaning people are taking money for political influence?   Where is the anti-Semitism? Explain it to me because saying someone shouldn't take money for political influence doesn't sound like anti-Semitism to me.

 

Don’t worry DrP, I’ve been following this thread and I don’t understand either. Can only assume it’s an American thing that Brits are unaware of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

14 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

By your own count you have asked for a direct qoute 5 times yet it was already contained in the OP. I don't feel you are posting in good faith. You've insisted upon information you already had and now you're demanding further explanations 3 pages into a thread where each question you have raised has already been discussed by myself and other posters. 

Please take a minute and read the thread. Repeatedly posting requesting information already available isn't constructive.

I wasn't sure about what part of her comments were being considered anti-Semitic - especially as there was not a lot of info in the OP and I couldn't open the link. The phrase - 'it's all about the Benjamin's' is known to mean 'it's all about the money'...  If she said it in a mock Jewish accent then maybe it was anti-Semitic...  but the outrage feigned by the people it was aimed at seemed an attempt to discredit what she was actually trying to say (similar to Corbyn's 'stupid woman remark). I can only assume that they thought people would be so shocked at the 'anti-Semitism' claim that they would over look her accusations taking money for political sway. Maybe they are thinking people will be too frightened to challenge them in the future as they could be labelled as anti-Semitic for their criticism.  Maybe you are right   -  I do not know about the subject enough to understand how intwined the Republicans are with Jewish money and how that effects policy making. I'd like for people to be abvle to challenge corruption without the fear of being labelled sexist or racist or anti-Semitic for doing so.

 

I am offended a little by you suggesting I am not posting in good faith!   But I do not require an apology.  I have continually been asking what it was exactly you found to be anti-Semitic about her words and you ignored me, fobbed me off and then referred me to the OP    - which states very clearly that you thought it was a disgrace that she used anti-Semitic comments....  but listed none of them.    This is why I gave you a red mark for your referral to the OP (not your opinion)... which someone else thinks is a great post as they have up voted you for it.  It is the only red mark I have ever given you among many greens in the past.

 

Edited by DrP
double posted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is you're asking a question across 7 posts that probably took you 30+ minutes to type when 3 seconds of googling could have answered it.

http://bfy.tw/MHQB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, iNow said:

I think the point is you're asking a question across 7 posts that probably took you 30+ minutes to type when 3 seconds of googling could have answered it.

http://bfy.tw/MHQB

I do believe that I am entitled by the forum rules to ask for clarification in the thread from the OP. I shouldn't have to google or go offsite for a comment that is being discussed here. A simple reply to my first question along the line of 'she said "blah blah blah"' would have done the job.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, and I can also see why Ten Oz felt it odd since he did quote it in the OP, but I won't belabor it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the whole tweet he didn't.  And it is still debatable as to whether using the phrase 'it's all about the Benjamin's' is anti-Semitic or not (well - the debate is over and I'm still leaning to it being not).  I assumed there was more to it...  but obviously not. I took his word for it  -  I won't be doing that again.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I see her point.  It is in a tweet, so short and to the point,    How do think she should have worded her objection to bung for policy making heard? How could she have voiced her objection without sounding anti-Semitic?   Unless she's making it up of course and there is no Israeli money being donated to US politicians. I am afraid I am ignorant of the subject so probably shouldn't have been in the conversation in the first place...  although 'It's all about the Benjamin's baby' was it?  I had assumed more from the outrage reported. Maybe she touched a nerve.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems you have to know an awful lot these days not to offend people, other than not saying anything.

Good manners, adherence to tolerant principles, and absence of mal-intent does not seem to be enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It seems you have to know an awful lot these days not to offend people, other than not saying anything.

Good manners, adherence to tolerant principles, and absence of mal-intent does not seem to be enough.

She is a Congresswoman. I would hope she in fact does know a lot of things. She chose to serve in public office as her profession. People paying attention to her public statements is part of the job. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ten oz said:

She is a Congresswoman. I would hope she in fact does know a lot of things. She chose to serve in public office as her profession. People paying attention to her public statements is part of the job. 

And does she have good cause to make such a comment?  Are US policy makers influenced by donations when it comes to foreign policy? I'd have thought it illegal... or at least restricted as to how much you can take as a gifted donation.  Did she lie when she said 'it's all about the money baby'.  


I am starting to see now how it could cause offense now. Especially if you are one of the people receiving said Benjamin's to keep quiet about something.  

 

 

44 minutes ago, DrP said:

Not the whole tweet he didn't

actually he DID put the whole tweet in the OP.  I guess I own TenOz an apology. Although a quick answer to my question would have cleared that up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, DrP said:

And does she have good cause to make such a comment?  Are US policy makers influenced by donations when it comes to foreign policy? I'd have thought it illegal... or at least restricted as to how much you can take as a gifted donation.  Did she lie when she said 'it's all about the money baby'.  


I am starting to see now how it could cause offense now. Especially if you are one of the people receiving said Benjamin's to keep quiet about something.  

 

A comment can be both well intentioned and offensive. It isn't one or the other. The tweet Omar was responding to when she posted it's all about the Benjamins did not reference AIPAC or any other lobbyist. The tweet mentioned U.S. support of Israel. Only after being asked to clarify did Omar mention AIPAC in a separate post. Even then she didn't elaborate. So while AIPAC may have been her intended target all along it wasn't clear in her initial post and she didn't make a specific case. 

There are groups ranging from Islamic based religious extremist to White Nationalist organizations that promote the notion that Jewish wealth manipulates any number of evils in the world. Those tropes are used to justify killing Jewish people. A context free post like it's all about the Benjamins made in response to a tweet about Israel easily can be read as promoting those hateful ideas. I think far more people are familiar with the Jewish money tropes than are with AIPAC (which wasn't mentioned in the tweet) specifically as a lobbyist organizations. As a politician and public figure one should more be care with their words. 

Had Omar posted that Lobbyist have too much influence over Politicians or that AIPAC has too much influence there wouldn't have been any controversy. That is not what she posted though. It might have been what she meant but it is not what she posted. I also don't think that the average person on Twitter is familiar enough with AIPAC to have known what she specifically meant. Especially in the absence of AIPAC being mentioned in her tweet or the tweet she was responding. 

I am not calling for her to resign. I accept her apology. I think it was just a mistake. She failed to add the correct context and accidentally posted something that played into anti-Semitic tropes. It is far from the end of the world. However we do live during a time when people literally march in the streets chanting "Jews will not replace us" and religious extremist blow up public centers in Israel. So in my opinion public figures need to be careful how they address issues associated with Jewish communities and Israel. 

Share this post


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

Accurate stereotypes aren't "anti" anything.

I used to think the same way - but they can be damaging to the majority of a group that don't fit the stereotype as it they can fuel prejudices.

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.