Sanders defends Omar: Can't equate anti-Semitism with 'legitimate criticism' of Israel

[Uncle Joe]

?itok=Sy8hb-OB

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) defended Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) on Wednesday amid an avalanche of criticism she’s received over comments about Israel that some have slammed as anti-Semitic.

Sanders, who is running for president in 2020 and in 2016 became the first Jewish politician to win a state's presidential primary, said he fears a House resolution intended to rebuke Omar over the comments could end up stifling legitimate debate over the Israeli government’s policies.

“Anti-Semitism is a hateful and dangerous ideology which must be vigorously opposed in the United States and around the world. We must not, however, equate anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel. Rather, we must develop an even-handed Middle East policy which brings Israelis and Palestinians together for a lasting peace,” he said in a statement to The Hill.

“What I fear is going on in the House now is an effort to target Congresswoman Omar as a way of stifling that debate," he continued. “That's wrong.”


(snip)

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/432926-sanders-on-omar-cant-equate-anti-semitism-with-legitimate-criticism-of

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

1. Bernie's right on the money... as usual!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[elleng]

2. 'House resolution intended to rebuke Omar over the comments could end up stifling

legitimate debate over the Israeli government’s policies. . .

We must not, however, equate anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel. Rather, we must develop an even-handed Middle East policy which brings Israelis and Palestinians together for a lasting peace.'

[CrossingTheRubicon]

3. We can't as a party allow anti-Semitic tropes to be thrown around by our Representatives

without strong rebuke or we will end up like the UK Labour Party.

BS is dead wrong.

[babylonsister]

4. Except that's not what happened.

https://www.patreon.com/posts/what-ilhan-omar-25142297

What Ilhan Omar actually said


Thanks to the Institute for Policy Studies for transcribing what Ilhan Omar actually said at an event last Wednesday at Busboys and Poets. It would have been great if Jonathan Chait had the decency to not misrepresent Omar. But Chait's gonna Chait. Here are her words, which you can see on video here:

I know that I have a huge Jewish constituency, and you know, every time I meet with them they share stories of [the] safety and sanctuary that they would love for the people of Israel, and most of the time when we’re having the conversation, there is no actual relative that they speak of, and there still is lots of emotion that comes through because it’s family, right? Like my children still speak of Somalia with passion and compassion even though they don’t have a family member there.

But we never really allow space for the stories of Palestinians seeking safety and sanctuary to be uplifted. And to me, it is the dehumanization and the silencing of a particular pain and suffering of people, should not be ok and normal. And you can’t be in the practice of humanizing and uplifting the suffering of one, if you’re not willing to do that for everyone. And so for me I know that when I hear my Jewish constituents or friends or colleagues speak about Palestinians who don’t want safety, or Palestinians who aren’t deserving I stay focused on the actual debate about what that process should look like. I never go to the dark place of saying ‘here’s a Jewish person, they’re talking about Palestinians, Palestinians are Muslim, maybe they’re Islamophobic.’ I never allow myself to go there because I don’t have to. And what I am fearful of is that because Rashida and I are Muslim, that a lot of Jewish colleagues, a lot of our Jewish constituents, a lot of our allies, go to thinking that everything we say about Israel, to be anti-Semitic, because we are Muslim. And so to me, it is something that becomes designed to end the debate. Because you get in this space, of like, I know what intolerance looks like and I’m sensitive when someone says that the words you use Ilhan, are resemblance of intolerance. And I am cautious of that and I feel pained by that. But it’s almost as if every single time we say something, regardless of what it is we say, that it’s supposed to about foreign policy or engagement, that our advocacy about ending oppression, or the freeing of every human life and wanting dignity, we get to be labeled in something, and that’s the end of the discussion, because we end up defending that, and nobody gets to have the broader debate of ‘what is happening with Palestine?’ [applause]

So for me 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. And 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 [group?] that is influencing policy. [applause] And I want to ask the question, why is it ok for you to push, for you to be… there are so many people… I mean most of us are new, but many members of Congress have been there forever. Some of them have been there before we were born. So I know many of them were fighting for people to be free, for people to live in dignity in South Africa. I know many of them fight for people around the world to have dignity to have self-determination. So I know, I know that they care about these things. But now that you have two Muslims that are saying ‘here is a group of people that we want to make sure that they have the dignity that you want everyone else to have!” …we get to be called names, we get to be labeled as hateful. No, we know what hate looks like. We experience it every single day. [applause] We have to deal with death threats. I have colleagues who talk about death threats. And sometimes… there are cities in my state where the gas stations have written on their bathrooms “assassinate Ilhan Omar”. I have people driving around my district looking for my home, for my office, causing me harm. I have people every single day on Fox News and everywhere, posting that I am a threat to this country. SO I know what fear looks like. The masjid I pray in in Minnesota got bombed by two domestic white terrorists. So I know what it feels to be someone who is of a faith that is vilified. I know what it means to be someone whose ethnicity that is vilified. I know what it feels to be of a race that is, like I am an immigrant, so I don’t have some of the historical drama of some of my sisters and brothers have in this country, but I know what it means for people to just see me as a black person, and to treat me as less than a human. And so, when people say ‘you are bringing hate’, I know what their intention is. Their intention is to make sure that our lights are dimmed. That we walk around with our heads bowed. That we lower our face and our voice. But we have news for people. You can call us any kind of name. You can threaten us any kind of way. Rashida and I are not ourselves. Every single day we walk in the halls of Congress and we have people who have never had the opportunity to walk there walking with us. So we’re here, we’re here to stay and represent all the people who have been silenced for many decades and many generations. And we’re here to fight for the people of our district who want to make sure that there is actual prosperity, actual prosperity, being guaranteed. Because there is a direct correlation between not having clean water, and starting endless wars. It’s all about the profit and who gets benefit. There’s a direct correlation between corporations that are getting rich, and the fact that we have students who are shackled with debt. There is a direct correlation between the White House and the people who are benefiting from detention beds that are profitized. So, what people are afraid of is not that there are two Muslims in Congress. What people are afraid of is that there are two Muslims in Congress that have their eyes wide open, that have their feet to the ground, that know what they’re talking about, that are fearless, and that understand that they have the same election certificate that everyone in Congress does. [applause]

[Uncle Joe]

5. Thanks for the addition babylonsister.

[elleng]

6. THANKS, b'sis.

[elleng]

7. 'And you can't be in the practice of humanizing and uplifting the suffering of one,

if you’re not willing to do that for everyone.'

[shanny]

27. Thank you.

[Nanjeanne]

8. So true if only her remarks were ACTUALLY anti-Semitic.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

9. They were.

"So for me 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."

The old dual loyalty trope.

[Nanjeanne]

12. As a Jew I have zero loyalty to Netenyahu's policies as regards to Israel. And I don't support

the Israeli lobby that influences our policies.

But you can disagree. Ain’t democracy great.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

13. And I suspect you would not like being accused of dual loyalty.

It is an old anti-Semitic trope and liberal Democrats should condemn this crap.

[Nanjeanne]

14. I don't have sual loyalty but people can say what they want. I know what I am.

[Trumpocalypse]

10. Sound like semantics games

to silence any criticism of Israel.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

11. Nah. Just an unwillingness to allow age old anti-Semitic tropes to take hold.

[Trumpocalypse]

15. Sorry

but not buying it. Sounds like a way to shutdown any criticism of Israel.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

16. It ain't difficult to criticise Israeli policies without resorting to anti-Semitic tropes.

Last edited Wed Mar 6, 2019, 11:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Really. Not hard.

[Trumpocalypse]

17. Semantics games

[CrossingTheRubicon]

21. Not a bit. No games what-so-ever. Using anti-Semitic tropes is no good.

Our party should have moral clarity on this issue.

[Trumpocalypse]

23. Since she never said the words

“duel loyalty” it is playing semantics games.

Plus the “duel loyalty” accusation has been leveled at Catholics, Mexicans, Japanese-Americans and many other groups it is hard say it is specifically anti-Semitic.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

24. ...

"So for me 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."

That's not semantics.

[Trumpocalypse]

25. No it's semantics games nt

[CrossingTheRubicon]

26. Not a game. Anything but a game. This stuff is deeply offensive.

[Trumpocalypse]

29. Not according to Sanders

And others: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/03/06/im-jewish-and-i-find-hypocrisy-republican-islamophobes-hounding-ilhan-omar

[CrossingTheRubicon]

30. Common Dreams?

[Trumpocalypse]

31. So you can't refute

what she wrote or what Sanders said.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

32. Read this:

https://forward.com/opinion/420269/for-jews-ilhan-omars-attack-against-allegiance-to-israel-is-all-too/

[Trumpocalypse]

33. More semantics games

to silence criticism of Israel.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

34. So you were not sincere when you asked for a refutation.

Got it. Loud and clear.

[Trumpocalypse]

35. Still playing games

Doesn’t change the fact she never used words “duel loyalty”.

[forklift]

18. Accusing patriotic Jewish Americans of dual loyalty

is not a criticism of Israel.

Netanyahu is scum ... but Jewish Americans are not Netanyahu.

Conflating the two is at best naïve and at worst nefarious.

Jewish Americans are the base of the Democratic party and we won't have a prayer without their support in may places particularly Florida and NY.

[Uncle Joe]

19. Apparently not

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

[forklift]

22. Mathematically there are four choices

and they are clear-cut

1. You can support Israel but not its right wing policies (Most American Jews fit here)
2. You can support Israel AND support its government's policies
3. You can oppose both Israel and its government's policies
4. Or be indifferent to either

Congresswoman Omar made the wrong choice. She is no longer a private citizen .. now she is part of the US government and her words have far more gravity now. As a private citizen she could say anything. Now she has to choose her words wisely and not hurt the party in the process.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

28. That's some spin.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

20. Spot on.