Criticizing Israel does not mean that you are anti-semetic

[Yavin4]

or that you are prejudice in any way or that you even support the Palestinians or anything else. You are allowed to be critical of a nation's actions without having your motives questioned.

[Shell_Seas]

1. This is an increasingly common notion in especially right-wingers.

I've even seen assertions in recent months about how the entire Dem party is anti-Semitic because there are a few politicians that have been critical of Israel. It's ridiculous.

[elleng]

2. Yes

[malaise]

3. +1,000 n/t

[Wounded Bear]

4. True, but in an internet based world all that matters is Twitter hits...

[hack89]

5. It does help if you avoid traditional anti-semetic tropes.

after the black-face issues, it should be pretty evident that they will drown out any nuance.

[frazzled]

6. I think people are missing that connection

It’s perfectly fine to criticize policies of the current Israeli government. I know I do.

But tweeting out, “It’s all about the benjamins, baby” is pretty much on the level of putting on blackface. Or rather, it’s more on the level of calling black people “lazy.”

[wellst0nev0ter]

10. Pointing out the existence of an Israel lobby

is not an "antisemitic trope."

This gotcha game has become so hackneyed, that faceless corporations like Facebook have been cynically deploying both sides of the argument.

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/16/18098728/facebook-anti-semitism-george-soros-definers-nyt

[hack89]

14. It is how you characterize that lobby that matters.

Suggesting that they are not true Americans or that they are shadowy figures manipulating others through money is anti-Semitic.

[wellst0nev0ter]

17. Did Ilhan Omar do any of that?

Point to the evidence, don't make appeals to emotion.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Then why did she apologize for suggesting support for Israel is "all about the Benjamins"?

[wellst0nev0ter]

24. She was under pressure from other dems

And she decided that this is not a hill worth dying on.

In any case, politicians do get campaign contributions from the Israel lobby. This fact is not up for debate. Why Omar is being vilified as an antisemite for that is baffling.

For the record, I think the bipartisan support for Israel is way more complicated than just campaign contributions. But money does play a huge role.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. This is true

"For the record, I think the bipartisan support for Israel is way more complicated than just campaign contributions. But money does play a huge role."

[hack89]

20. I am talking in the general case

The OP doesn’t mention her name and neither did I.

[wellst0nev0ter]

25. We both know what topic du jour we're talking about

stop feigning ignorance.

[hack89]

30. You are trying too hard to be offended

Go play your silly game with someone else.

[Bettie]

32. Manipulating through money is what all

lobbyists do.

Whether they work for foreign nations, big pharma, oil companies...that is what lobbyists do. It is all about the money.

[hack89]

35. Ok. Nt

[Blue_true]

43. I agree with your take.

When she wrote it was all about the Benjamins, I believe she meant the general issue of money in politics, not just money from Isreal supporting organizations. But any time a person mentions money when talking about the influence of Israel supporting groups, they need to be clear because it is easy enough for even right thinking people to believe it was a slur, given the historic brutally aimed at Jewish people as being money hungry - and the many tragic outcomes of that depiction throughout history.

[Bettie]

44. Agreed

I just assume that when anyone is speaking of any lobbying group it is all about money.

Informed only by my own general belief that money/lobbying is a corrosive element in our political system.

[Bok_Tukalo]

7. No. But people are trying awful hard to make it that way.

Marginalizing criticism of that nation and/or its advocates, especially from a prominent Muslim who is practicing hijab, was a very important step in that direction.

[Coventina]

8. You can do that without allusions to

"Jews = Greedy"


That is bigoted and wrong.

on edit: equal signs don't show up in subject lines.

[localroger]

11. In what way is her comment about Jews being greedy?

The clear implication is that AIPAC is providing money to politicians in order to influence them. It is the politicians who are letting their greed influence their decision making. This does not in any way parallel anti-semitic tropes, and is also demonstrably factually true.

[Coventina]

12. It's all about the benjamins, baby

If it wasn't meant to be an allusion to the trope of the Greedy Jew, it was certainly tone deaf.

She was right to apologize.

[localroger]

13. It's not about the Jews being greedy. Full stop.

It's about the politicians being greedy -- It's all about the benjamins *they* are collecting *from* the pro-Israeli lobby. That does not in any way parallel any anti-semitic trope. You have to deliberately twist it to read it that way.

[Coventina]

15. *I* did not twist anything. The rebuke came from Democratic leadership.

My position is that *I* looked at what was tweeted, and how it was perceived by a minority that has been slandered in that way for at least a thousand years and decided that, yes, it was at best tone deaf and an apology was warranted.

[localroger]

16. Actually, most of the people falling on their fainting couches have obvious motives

I don't think she was right to apologize, but I can understand why she pulled a pre-emptive Franken rather than digging herself in deeper by attempting to explain what was very obvious to me. AIPAC has served itself quite well with the trope that any criticism of its often quite deeply evil activities is anti-semitic. And of course when that criticism comes from a Muslim, well we can't have that can we?

[Coventina]

22. You are free to disagree, of course.

I choose to not use loaded stereotypes when it comes to disadvantaged minorities, and to believe them when they say something is offensive.

That includes Jews and Muslims.

[localroger]

23. If you can refer me to any historical stereotypes

...of "evil" Jews *spreading money around,* I will be happy to reconsider my position.

[Coventina]

26. Are you serious? Google is your friend.

But here's just two paragraphs on Wikipedia:

ews have often been stereotyped as greedy and miserly. This originates in the Middle Ages, when the Church forbade Christians to lend money while charging interest (a practice called usury, although the word later took on the meaning of charging excessive interest). Jews were legally restricted to occupations as usurers, usually to Christians, and thus many went into money-lending. This led to, through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the association of Jews with greedy practices.
Gilbert's Shylock After the Trial, an illustration to The Merchant of Venice, Stereotypes of Jews

Publications like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and literature such as William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice and Charles Dickens's Oliver Twist reinforced the stereotype of the crooked Jew. Dickens later expressed regret for his portrayal of Fagin in the novel, and toned down references to his Jewishness.[15] Furthermore, the character of Mr. Riah in his later novel Our Mutual Friend is a kindly Jewish creditor, and may have been created as an apology for Fagin.[citation needed] Lesser references in Arabian Nights, The Three Musketeers, and even Hans Brinker are examples of the prevalence of this negative perception. Some, such as Paul Volcker, suggest that the stereotype has decreased in prevalence in the United States. A telephone poll of 1747 American adults conducted by the Anti-Defamation League in 2009 found that 18% believed that "Jews have too much power in the business world", 13% that "Jews are more willing than others to use shady practices to get what they want", and 12% that "Jews are not just as honest as other businesspeople".[16]

[localroger]

28. Usury is not "spreading money around."

Christians were not forbidden to loan money -- they were fobidden to loan money *at interest*, because that tends to end with all the money in the hands of the lenders, a phenomenon that was known in the time of Christ himself and about which there are some choice words printed in red in the Gospels. AIPAC's activities are not usury; they are conducting a transaction, something the Christians were not forbidden to do. Again, this is a deliberate twisting of one thing to make it resemble something that is actually quite different.

Yes, I am familiar with the sordid history behind all this, and I am too familiar with it to see any parallel between calling out AIPAC and any historical sterotypes of Jewish behavior.

[Caliman73]

37. Actually, the stereotypes are out there.

I am not sure that Omar used the stereotype to attack Jews and specifically to smear them with a stereotype, but to deny that there are not stereotypes out there about Jewish people and money is either ignorant or cynical.

The stereotypical presentation of Shylock in Shakespeare is a major stereotype. The Alt-Right and Neo-Nazis often say "International Jewery" or "International Finance" to dog whistle a trope about a cabal of Jewish bankers who control and manipulate the world through banking.

The whole idea as you said about "usery" or banking with interest was at once utilized using Jewish bankers, and criticized causing a negative association between Jews and money.

Again, I am not sure that Omar did anything malicious and it does seem she was being more critical of politicians accepting money and being influenced to downplay some of the more problematic Israeli policies, but it was done in a way that opened her up validly to criticism.

[localroger]

41. Yes, there are sterotypes about Jews and money. No, there are not

...about Jews spreading the money around to make "friends." In fact, the stereotypes about Jews and money are almost exactly and consistently the opposite of what Omar was implying, as anyone familiar with that history would consider obvious.

[Caliman73]

42. So you are saying that it has to be completely specifically about one particular stereotype?

Look Omar apologized even as she may have been ignorant about the implications. I think that people can learn and move on from this. I don't think that Omar is going to stop criticizing Iraeli policy. She is just going to choose her words more carefully.

[localroger]

46. I think hit has to be about a stereotype that actually exists

I think Omar's apology was unnecessary but very classy considering how it was forced and Al Franken could learn from her. But I also think most of the people falling on their fainting couches over this have obvious motives that have nothing to do with their respect for anything Jewish, and much more with preserving that sweet sweet AIPAC flow of benjamins and stabbing the uppity Muslim who dared to criticize them.

[guillaumeb]

9. Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.

But including anti-Semitic language in a post does show clear intent.

[dlk]

19. It is Possible to Make a Valid Criticism Without Using Racial Stereotypes

Using a stereotype only obscures and distracts from a criticism, whether the criticism is valid or not.

[liberalmuse]

21. Israel is not really our friend and never has been.

They hold their hands out for our tax dollars, but will blow up our ships, interfere with our foreign policy and disregard human rights when it suits them. Some of its leaders have been downright hostile. I don't get all the pandering, but no one dare says anything against Israel's corrupt lobbies or government for fear of being called an anti-Semite. We have to be able to criticize other governments shady practices without being demonized. Then again, we now have our own government to worry about.

[flibbitygiblets]

29. +1

[old guy]

34. +2

[Caliman73]

39. We have always had our own government to worry about.

All countries act in their own interest.

I agree that different Israeli governments have engaged in practices that can easily be criticized, but it looks like your post is implying that the US stands in solidarity like some kind of jilted partner. The US engages in the very same practices that Israel and other countries engage in, to promote our interests.

We have removed duly elected leaders, invaded countries, made up stories about attacks on our naval vessels to drum up war, talked about weapons of mass destruction, spied on our allies. All of that.

Trump is an evil bafoon, but make no mistake, from Grandpa Eisenhower to President Obama, we have been involved in dealings all over the world as well. It is just easier to point out what the "other guys" are doing.

Israel may in fact not be our "friend". Israel may simply be the foothold we have in the middle east. The country we can unleash on other powers to disrupt and destabilize the region. We say, "bad Israel, don't do that" but whenever anyone wants to sanction or condemn we block it all at the UN.

[GulfCoast66]

45. I don't disagree with too much of what you post.

Some around the edges.

But here is what it always comes back for me. Personally. Compared to every single one of their neighbors they are Paragons of Virtue.

I understand the resentment at having a new country created with a different culture appear with the support of the western powers. And the plight of the Palestinians, which it must be admitted the surrounding Arab sataes have done nothing to help solve.

But through out my life time the goal of all Arab countries have been to destroy the state of Israel as a Jewish state, and in my lone opinion, finish the job Hitler started. And we can’t allow that.

I just don’t see a resolution although the actions of Israel over the past 25 years have made any resolution seemingly more impossible.

The hope of using Iran as a boogie man to get the Sunnis to accept Israel is a nonstarter. But it is what the republicans are trying.

Or with those f’ers they are just hoping to bring on Armageddon!

Do much post about this issue cause there are so many different opinions on DU. All very strongly held.

[RAAD2]

31. Agreed

[debsy]

33. Here, here!

Likewise, criticizing the person in the White House, any member of his "administration", any member of his inner circle, or Republicans in general and their mega donors doesn't mean we are unpatriotic. If there is valid, rational reason for the criticism, it should be heard.

However, there are two standards: Republican and Democratic.

Republicans are allowed to be crass, critical, and vituperative about whomever and/or whatever whenever they want as long as it aligns with their extreme ideology. They have thrown out all "political correctness" in favor of Trump-style ignoble, nefarious, character assassination. Of course, this is because they need the distractions as cover for the heinous crimes they are committing not only against us but against the entire world.

Democrats must always be politically correct and never offend anyone, lest they get their heads ripped off by a rabid member of the "opposition party" (which accounts for practically all of them).

[Duppers]

36. Thank you!

[Evolve Dammit]

38. Yup. Truth is truth, regardless of race, color or creed (or nationality).

[moondust]

40. It's easy to say it is

because there is so much historical anti-Semitism to conflate it with--innocently or deliberately.