Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

iemanja

(53,026 posts)

9. Yes, because it invokes old rhetoric about Jewish financial global domination

Reply to Marcus IM (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 25, 2023, 10:55 AM

Jan 2023

It's a completely unnecessary reference. One can easily criticize US policy toward Israel without those dog whistles. I do it all the time.

It's pretty obvious too, not even remotely subtle.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Dems mobilize to defend Omar in face of GOP defections [View all] RandySF Jan 2023 OP

what, exactly, are I.O's "past comments about Israel"? ProfessorPlum Jan 2023 #1

Much has to do with supporting Palestinian rights and supporting BDS karynnj Jan 2023 #4

She's talked about Jewish financial interests iemanja Jan 2023 #6

Yours is a mischaracterization of mine - I did not say "just" karynnj Jan 2023 #10

I disagree with your claim iemanja Jan 2023 #11

Thanks ProfessorPlum Jan 2023 #12

She said that lobbying in general was all about the Benjamins. The more money more influence. Marcus IM Jan 2023 #5

Because it invokes anti-Semitic tropes iemanja Jan 2023 #7

So, when people refer to $100 bills as Benjamins they're being anti Semitic? Marcus IM Jan 2023 #8

Yes, because it invokes old rhetoric about Jewish financial global domination iemanja Jan 2023 #9

to be fair, the specific lobbying she was referring to at the time was AIPAC ProfessorPlum Jan 2023 #13

Can McCarthy do it unilaterally? News Junkie Jan 2023 #2

He can only do that for "Select" Committees BumRushDaShow Jan 2023 #3