Whether or not the antisemite smear on Corbyn and Labour had an actual, large and tangible effect on the US election is likely up for debate. What isn't is that it was really annoying, completely in bad faith, and the same ratfuck will absolutely be done here, whatever can be made to stick. With Corbyn it bounced from sexism to racism to back to sexism before settling on antisemitism, which actually did stick with insane right wing reactionaries who can be completely written off to begin with, but also with well-to-do liberals and pundits, especially those in The Guardian or New York Times.
You already saw a test run for this in the United States earlier this year when Ilhan Omar was embroiled in the dumbest and entirely bad faith controversy about saying AIPAC can influence politicians with money. Again, you can write off all right wingers as bullshitting you. But again, you saw well-to-do liberals and journalists buying into it. You cannot fall for it, because its going to happen again and again. You cannot be wishy-washy, saying that while the comment itself is correct, the language used or the "tropes" invoked are problematic, because there is no language that can be used that would ever satisfy the people trying to fuck you over other then just shutting up.
I can guarantee that the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is or if they have had positive or negative comments towards Ilhan Omar's statements, will be slapped with this and anything else that will stick. And if you think they wouldn't fucking dare try and stick this onto Bernie, you're mistaken. The smarter of them will try and say its his CAMPAIGN or his STAFFERS or ILHAN OMAR who endorsed him are the anti-semetic ones and that Bernie by allowing it is no better, which is also bullshit. One day after and we have -
Plus numerous others from earlier, including The Federalist, which we'll ignore because its a neo nazi rag and I'm not even sure why they are pretending like their 20 actual readers think anti semitism is bad.
The issue is that actual anti-semitism IS historically quite powerful. It is undoubtedly a good thing to be on the watch for it, but to cede the entire argument to what we obviously know is an actually, structurally anti-semitic right wing is not an option. People are going to have to be smarter and more defiant then that.
You already saw a test run for this in the United States earlier this year when Ilhan Omar was embroiled in the dumbest and entirely bad faith controversy about saying AIPAC can influence politicians with money. Again, you can write off all right wingers as bullshitting you. But again, you saw well-to-do liberals and journalists buying into it. You cannot fall for it, because its going to happen again and again. You cannot be wishy-washy, saying that while the comment itself is correct, the language used or the "tropes" invoked are problematic, because there is no language that can be used that would ever satisfy the people trying to fuck you over other then just shutting up.
I can guarantee that the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is or if they have had positive or negative comments towards Ilhan Omar's statements, will be slapped with this and anything else that will stick. And if you think they wouldn't fucking dare try and stick this onto Bernie, you're mistaken. The smarter of them will try and say its his CAMPAIGN or his STAFFERS or ILHAN OMAR who endorsed him are the anti-semetic ones and that Bernie by allowing it is no better, which is also bullshit. One day after and we have -
Plus numerous others from earlier, including The Federalist, which we'll ignore because its a neo nazi rag and I'm not even sure why they are pretending like their 20 actual readers think anti semitism is bad.
The issue is that actual anti-semitism IS historically quite powerful. It is undoubtedly a good thing to be on the watch for it, but to cede the entire argument to what we obviously know is an actually, structurally anti-semitic right wing is not an option. People are going to have to be smarter and more defiant then that.
