F
Fauken
Guest
I’m saying it to both of you before this thread gets to deep into it.
- Status
O
OneSheep
Guest
Okay, let me explain why this is on-topic. We are talking about giving people like Ilhan Omar the benefit of the doubt. We are talking about understanding and forgiving people, and this can be a demonstration. We are talking about cognitive empathy.
Do we want to inspire people who have antisemitic attitudes to understand and forgive instead of condemn? Do we want to inspire those who “hate the haters” to understand and forgive, rather than condemn?
Join me in that effort!
Do we want to inspire people who have antisemitic attitudes to understand and forgive instead of condemn? Do we want to inspire those who “hate the haters” to understand and forgive, rather than condemn?
Join me in that effort!
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
Yes, he does. He is either ignorant about those past elections, and/or he is thinking that the benefit of the lie outweighs the statement of falsehood.
What do you think he wants?
Goodness, no. I don’t believe anything he says until it’s fact-checked. That’s just easier, right? Frankly, I don’t make it a point of reading or listening to anything he says.
Yes, me too.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Having skimmed the comments so far, I think I have a few new things to say.
First, there was a full-page ad in the Washington Post on March 24 placed by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.
www.jewishpress.com
His (and other critics of Omar’s) main point was that Omar was using words and/or ideas that have become representative of anti-Semitic (in the sense of “anti-Jewish”) thought. He attacked three of Omar’s quotations:
Second, is Omar familiar with historic anti-Semitic propaganda? Almost certainly, but not necessarily knowingly. Anti-Semitic propaganda, including the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, are still in circulation in majority Muslim countries and are quite often (not always!) accepted as legitimate sources of information. Has she read these anti-Semitic writings, and has she read the evidence de-bunking them?
Probably not, but only she knows for sure. If a person says “I believe in freedom of religion!” does that necessarily mean they are familiar with the 1st amendment to the US Constitution? Of course not. But anti-Semitic ideas (as you can see from this very thread!) are out there; people who repeat them are not necessarily aware of their sources or their history, or even that they might be seen as anti-Semitic.
Third, only one of the criticisms relates to a specific word (“hypnotizes”). The other two comments are extremely general, and have been made by a number of critics (both Jewish and non-Jewish) over the past 100+ years. For example, Lord Montagu (a practicing Jew, WW I cabinet member) was anti-Zionist because he thought dual allegiance to England and to a Jewish state would endanger the position of Jews throughout the world. He called Zionism “a mischievous political creed.” He would hardly be called anti-Semitic, and yet his views on Israel match Ilhan Omar’s. As for money, a quick Google search of “AIPAC + influence” finds 530,000 hits. Omar is not exactly unique in her criticism of AIPAC. For example, Thomas Friedman, well-known author (Jewish) of books on international affairs, has criticized AIPAC’s influence. Is this an “anti-Semitic” position? No, demonstrably not.
First, there was a full-page ad in the Washington Post on March 24 placed by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach Attacks Cong. Ilhan Omar in WaPo Ad
Boteach placed Omar's own anti-Semitic words alongside some of the most anti-Semitic tropes of all time together.
www.jewishpress.com
His (and other critics of Omar’s) main point was that Omar was using words and/or ideas that have become representative of anti-Semitic (in the sense of “anti-Jewish”) thought. He attacked three of Omar’s quotations:
- “Israel has hypnotized the world.” The Protocols of the Elders of Zion also uses the word “hypnotizes” in relation to Jews.
- “It’s all about the Benjamins baby.” The “International Jew,” 1920, said “Money is the only means [the jew] knows by which to gain position.”
- “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” The Rabbi compares this to “the White Man’s Bible,” 1981: “The Jew…is frantically, eternally loyal to the Jewish race, and since 1948, to Israel.”
Second, is Omar familiar with historic anti-Semitic propaganda? Almost certainly, but not necessarily knowingly. Anti-Semitic propaganda, including the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, are still in circulation in majority Muslim countries and are quite often (not always!) accepted as legitimate sources of information. Has she read these anti-Semitic writings, and has she read the evidence de-bunking them?
Probably not, but only she knows for sure. If a person says “I believe in freedom of religion!” does that necessarily mean they are familiar with the 1st amendment to the US Constitution? Of course not. But anti-Semitic ideas (as you can see from this very thread!) are out there; people who repeat them are not necessarily aware of their sources or their history, or even that they might be seen as anti-Semitic.
Third, only one of the criticisms relates to a specific word (“hypnotizes”). The other two comments are extremely general, and have been made by a number of critics (both Jewish and non-Jewish) over the past 100+ years. For example, Lord Montagu (a practicing Jew, WW I cabinet member) was anti-Zionist because he thought dual allegiance to England and to a Jewish state would endanger the position of Jews throughout the world. He called Zionism “a mischievous political creed.” He would hardly be called anti-Semitic, and yet his views on Israel match Ilhan Omar’s. As for money, a quick Google search of “AIPAC + influence” finds 530,000 hits. Omar is not exactly unique in her criticism of AIPAC. For example, Thomas Friedman, well-known author (Jewish) of books on international affairs, has criticized AIPAC’s influence. Is this an “anti-Semitic” position? No, demonstrably not.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
part 2…
Finally, as far as I can see, no one on this thread seems to be familiar with the actual events surrounding the establishment of Israel in 1948. That, frankly, is inexcusable. Does Deir Yassin ring a bell? No? And yet every Arab in the world is familiar with it. And is everyone here aware that Menachem Begin, Israeli PM 1977-83, was the founder of Irgun in 1944–the organization that the UN, the US, the UK, etc. etc. named as a “terrorist organization”? Is everyone here aware of that? Likud (Netanyahu’s party) is the political party that is considered the successor of the Irgun.
And how familiar are you with the treatment of Israeli Arabs (who are Israeli citizens)? Take a look at spending on education and health care for Israeli Arabs vs. Israeli Jews. Now put yourself in the position of an Israeli Arab. How would you feel?
Finally, as far as I can see, no one on this thread seems to be familiar with the actual events surrounding the establishment of Israel in 1948. That, frankly, is inexcusable. Does Deir Yassin ring a bell? No? And yet every Arab in the world is familiar with it. And is everyone here aware that Menachem Begin, Israeli PM 1977-83, was the founder of Irgun in 1944–the organization that the UN, the US, the UK, etc. etc. named as a “terrorist organization”? Is everyone here aware of that? Likud (Netanyahu’s party) is the political party that is considered the successor of the Irgun.
And how familiar are you with the treatment of Israeli Arabs (who are Israeli citizens)? Take a look at spending on education and health care for Israeli Arabs vs. Israeli Jews. Now put yourself in the position of an Israeli Arab. How would you feel?
B
Beryllos
Guest
If I understand you correctly, we can understand people who are opposed to Israeli policy and Israel’s conduct as a nation and we may even be part of that opposition with no ill will to the people of Israel or to Jews. I concur.
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hmmm. Is that the truth? Do you mean Anti-settlement? Anti-Israeli-apartheid?
From Ilhan:
That doesn’t sound anti-Israel.
A very important read:
Yes, it is not. And here is a letter from Jewish people supporting Ilhan:
Live Draw SGP: Live SGP Prize, Live Draw Singapore, Result SGP Hari Ini Tercepat
Live draw sgp tercepat merupakan nomor resmi dari live draw singapore pools dengan menayangkan result sgp hari ini dan live sgp prize terpercaya.
jewswithilhan.org
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
I would feel resentment, which is holding something against someone. When we feel resentment, we Christians are called to understand and forgive, to love our enemies.
That does not mean, however, that one does not work for justice. It only means that we work for justice with forgiving hearts.
I
ioannes_pius
Guest
What is antisemitism? Ask E. Michael Jones.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I hadn’t seen that before, but it’s a good essay by Omar. I can’t conceive of anyone being against any of it: she’s for human rights, justice, and peace, and to hold every country to the same standards.
What’s not to like?
Yes, both. I think (I am speculating) that she would go beyond that, but she does not call for the destruction of Israel or not recognizing it as a state, as more radical people would.
It’s also worth noting that Omar’s director of communications is Jewish. If she is really anti-Semitic, her actions don’t show it.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Thank you. Just as if you visit France, a Frenchman could be rabidly anti-Trump and against current American policies, but I don’t think very many Frenchmen (or women!) would say they hate “Americans” or that they are “anti-American.” In fact, they could absolutely LOVE Americans!
B
Beryllos
Guest
At the moment I am unable to ask him personally, and I don’t have the time to look it up, so could you briefly summarize? Thanks.
P
Psalms62
Guest
Israeli Arabs can be either Muslim or Christian which one are you promoting? During 1948, the Jewish people from the Arab territories and in Europe needed a place to live. Who isn’t aware of this?
Within a few days, full scale Jewish–Arab fightingbroke out in Palestine.[6] It also led to anti-Jewish violence in Arab countries,[7] and to a Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries.
In Europe, Jews were fleeing from persecution. All Holocaust survivors are now old - if there are any left. Like many survivors they are dependent on Jewish and social welfare. Many cultures depend on what is provided to them by their own religious organizations - like our own. One of those benefits are out reach programs to learn to cope with the trauma.
Where I grew up, many good people helped support us in their friendship. We opened up the doors during the holidays and celebrated with other people that came from the same background. I never felt the difference or it was never talked about - my grandfather knew. Do you ever forget the words? Or do people hide the hurts of Europe. You would never hear this kind of discussion. Perhaps it’s like the words of Exodus, Then a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt.
Yes, it is inexcusable to see people waiting to get into Israel only to be sent back to their death.
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
“Israeli Arabs” are exactly that. They could be any religion. I did not realize I was “promoting” them. I was simply pointing out that today in the US there is often total ignorance of what happened in 1948 and before. At the least, there is always Wikipedia.
So “needed a place to live” justifies driving into exile the previous inhabitants and seizing their property?
I seem to recall another leader in the 1930s who kept talking about “living space.” Should we make this part of international law–“If an ethnic group decides to seize a particular territory and exile its existing inhabitants, this is a terrific idea.” Sounds good, right?
??? What does that mean?
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
There is a significant difference between disagreeing with Israeli policy (which in areas, I most certainly do) and being anti-Israel (call it anti-Zionist if you will). I think it is important to distinguish between the two. I stated earlier that being against the state of Israel’s existence is anti-Semitic. Perhaps there are exceptions, but generally I see it as true and for a fundamental reason.
They may not be aware of it, but to varying degrees they are still guilty of being anti-Semitic. We all have a responsibility to understand those who we criticize, certainly when we do such criticisms publicly. Being ignorant of a people, when paired with the willingness to make offensive public comments about that people, certainly qualifies as being bigoted against them.
You sure about that? Many Jews in the late 19th century in western Europe and the united States were anti-Zionist. Zionism was driven in those times by Jews of Eastern Europe who were facing continual persecution. Meanwhile, Jews in Western Europe though that in a modern liberal democracy, in the Age of Enlightenment, assimilation into Western Culture was finally possible for Jews and a Zionist movement would only set this back. The Jews who spoke against the dual loyalty and spoke of it as a mischievous political creed were particularly concerned about this. This all started to slowly change after the Dryfus Affair and Jews started to realize that not even in the most liberal of modern societies would they always be safe (ie the Third Republic). It certainly changed in the 1930s as they witnessed events in Germany (previously had been seen as almost the best place for Jews in Europe). So if Lord Montagu would have held onto his anti-Zionist views until 1948, it is impossible to say. But most of the anti-Zionist jews of Western Europe most certainly did not.
I do agree it is inexcusable to not know the history of Palestine prior to the establishment of Israel in 1948.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I think I agree with most of what you have said (including your original comments earlier, which I re-read) but not everything. First, as I’m sure you’ll agree, “anti-Semitic” is really the wrong word to use in the case of Arabs and Jews since they are both Semites. Arabs can hardly be “anti-Semitic” in the broad sense–that would mean they hate themselves! If we change “anti-Semitic” to “anti-Jewish” I think we are on safer ground.
Is “being against the state of Israel’s existence” anti-Jewish? I personally don’t think so, but I would also make a distinction between 1948 and 2019. A lot of people were opposed to the Israel coming into existence in 1948, including virtually the entire US State Dept. They weren’t necessarily anti-Jewish, they just foresaw (correctly) that it would open a huge can of worms, both in terms of international law and in terms of conflict in the region. They were right. On the other hand, here we are 71 years later, and as a practical matter, we can’t reverse history–or if we did, we would open ourselves up to an infinite regression of problems. [Should Australia be given back to the Aborigines or the US given back to the Indians? etc.] Israel is a fait accompli, like it or not. The Arabs see Israel as analogous to the Crusader kingdoms–a “temporary” occupation that lasted 200 years, but which was rolled back completely. They generally take a long view: they may be defeated over and over, but all they need is one victory.
So as for me personally, I think the original formation of Israel as a country was wrong on multiple levels. But I don’t think it’s practical to reverse it, and everyone needs to come to terms with it. Israel could be a lot more helpful in that regard. For example, if they treated their Arab citizens the same as any other citizens, then they would defuse a major criticism of Israel. But they don’t. That’s short sighted. On the other hand, lets take the Irish famine of the late 1840s–the idea that the Irish would be in refugee camps 70 years later (1920!) is ludicrous. And yet hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are still in refugee camps 70 years after the formation of Israel. That’s an Arab problem, and they should deal with it.
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
part 2…
Yes. But as soon as Omar became a Representative, she felt she had a duty to speak out about an issue she felt strongly about. But if she had been a bit smarter, she would have run her statements by wiser people for editing. But you could say the same about almost any politician, left or right.
Exactly. As I said in my first paragraph, there is a difference between attitudes towards Israel in 1948 and 2019, and we can also add attitudes in 1918 vs. 1948. I’m not an expert in Jewish opinion in the 20th century, but I suspect the Zionist point of view strengthened among Jews. However, Bernard Lewis (the noted Middle Eastern history expert) thought of himself as an Englishman first and a Jew second (according to his autobiography). I think it becomes tricky to try to judge identity, esp. if you are comparing multiple categories. Does someone think of themselves as a Catholic first and a US citizen second? Vice versa? Is it a close call (51 vs. 49%?) or an 80% vs. 20% proposition? What if the categories were black, Catholic, US citizen, female? I think you could have all sorts of variations, and I suspect the same with Jew, Zionist, citizen of X, etc. I don’t think it’s possible to generalize, which is what Omar did in talking about Jews having dual loyalties. Jews worldwide have a right to Israeli citizenship, but that doesn’t mean their primary (or even ANY) loyalty is to Israel. I have a right to British citizenship, but I don’t consider myself British. A friend (born in US) carries an Irish passport for convenience in travelling (get in those short EU lines!), but he wouldn’t identify himself as “Irish” except in ethnic origin.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
That is my point: it is an issue she felt strongly about, yet did not feel the need to look at the Jewish side of the issue? I am willing to accept her apology, just not willing to chalk up her statements as merely anti-Israeli policy positions. Let me be clear, she could have made the same positions clear without any tint of anti-Semitism to cross my mind. But her wording showed that she did not even feel the need to respect the Jewish perspective enough to understand how they can be offended.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
No I will not agree. Any “technical” definition of a Semitic ethnicity which includes Arabs and Jews is really pointless (pointless at best, and inaccurate at worse). This argument is all too often used by various types of bigots: redefine the common meaning of the term, so that I can show I am not that. The common meaning of anti-Semitism is anti-Jewish, period. We all know that’s what we mean. It is a red-flag to me when someone brings up the point: I can’t be anti-Semitic because both arabs and jews are semites.
BTW: the technical definition of a semite is based on a family of languages. It is not an ethnic or religious grouping.
B
Beryllos
Guest
@Erikaspirit16, @Tafan2, I refer you to @gracepoole’s earlier post on the formatting of the word antisemitic/antisemitism:
What is antisemitism? Philosophy
I hope that helps.
Last edited:
- Status