• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Aaronrules380

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
22,513
I'm always surprised when people don't understand why Jewish conspiracy theories or similar rhetoric is considered antisemitic.

Which is amusing because that in and of itself is antisemitic. People just have blinders, because they know they are socially liberal they sssume they cannot discriminate while doing it in ways they don't realize or don't intend because they don't understand the nuances of it.
Is it really a conspiracy theory that lobbyists use money and gifts in order to influence political discourse and policy? Like, nobody would consider it a conspiracy at all for any other lobby, just an obvious fact, so I'm not sure why this one is so different?
 
Oct 25, 2017
523
is it islamophobic to talk about the way gulf money flows into think tanks and lobbying to craft an anti-iran and pro-GCC agenda?
 

Deleted member 283

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,288
How is saying it's all about Benjamins anti-semitic? Someone explain the mental gymnastics that leads to that. We're gonna sit here and pretend there isn't a very clear Israeli force that has a significant influence on American politics and its treatment of the Israel/Palestine issue?

Like what kind of dumbass would take that comment from her, which was in the context of a GOP leader threatening punishment due to criticism of Israel, and assume "oh she must be talking about all the Jews with their money, how anti-semitic of her". Not the fucking obvious and very apparent entity called AIPAC that exists and have done a number on American politics.
Because there are anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that Jews control the world, and they do so in large part by using oodles and oodles of money to control people. That may not be what she means, but it's why it's so important to be particular with one's word choice and not beat around the bush, so that these misunderstandings don't happen in the first place. That is to say, how you say something can be just as important as what you're saying. And when there's absolutely no reason to be vague and you have the characters to avoid these misunderstandings and be more clear, then, well, what exactly is the benefit of being vague in the first place?

I wouldn't accept that kind of sloppy wording from a Republican, I'm not suddenly going to lower my standards because she's a Democrat and in her case likely does mean well. There's just absolutely zero reason to be vague here, and tweet out stuff that either could be read as anti-Semitic conspiracy theory garbage or as valid criticism of real issues, when she could just be more clear in the first place and avoid that. There's just no reason or excuse to be tweeting stuff like that out, regardless of intent, as it does no one any good, doesn't help anything, and be so easily avoided and it's just all so unnecessary. And that's because regardless of intent, regardless of whether she means for it to be read those way, those kind of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories do real damage to the lives of Jewish individuals each and every day.

Like, she might not intend to do damage, and I'm ready to believe that. But that doesn't change that damage is done all the same all the time by comments just like that, regardless of whether it's intended that way or not, and that's why it's so important to do better and have higher standards and not be so careless with one's words. Like, I wouldn't accept it if a Republican had said this, because of the damage those kinds of words and statements mean regardless of intent, and I'm not going to lower my standards just because she's a Democrat instead. If anything, I expect more from her as I expect Democrats to be better than that and not make those kind of mistakes to begin with.

If people still don't get it, another way to put it is, hmm, maybe to compare it to Elizabeth Warren, and the conspiracy around her Native American heritage, or lack there of? It seems very likely that Warren didn't actually intend any offense to Native Americans and was just ignorant and sloppy in how the handled that mess. Nonetheless, regardless of whether she meant it or not, how she handled that stuff is the kind of thing that does damage to many Native American tribes even today and was just a series of unforced errors and very, very poorly handled, and as a Democrat myself, I expected better from her on that.

Same deal here. If people can get how Warren messed up with the DNA test stuff and all that, it's a very similar issue with Omar and these particular tweets. That no actual offense needs to be intended, and the damage is the same regardless of whether it was intended or not, because how you say something is just as important as what you're saying. So yeah, if people can get the deal with how Warren messed up even if they don't think she actually meant anything wrong at any point, but still messed up regardless of intent, it's a very similar with Omar here, if that makes any sense and helps you to understand the issues at play here.
 
Oct 27, 2017
11,527
Bandung Indonesia
OP is missing some serious context on what caused this to blow up on the left side of the aisle.

Her first tweet that set off the storm was this:.

Followed by this:

And how is the 1st one is anti-semitism, exactly? When it's exactly true that US politicians' undying support for AIPAC is indeed influenced largely by the monetary reward they can receive from the organization? It is indeed, about the money.

To immediately frame that as an effort to promote an Anti-Jew sentiment is incredibly dishonest and disingenuous, and reeks the stupid/disgusting tactic of labeling EVERY criticism towards Israel as anti-semitic.
 

-Pyromaniac-

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,386
Is it really a conspiracy theory that lobbyists use money and gifts in order to influence political discourse and policy? Like, nobody would consider it a conspiracy at all for any other lobby, just an obvious fact, so I'm not sure why this one is so different?
It's nuanced. She should have taken a step back from the hot take factory and thought of a different way to word it. Because yes, Jews are behind everything, Jewish money is needed for someone to support a Jewish state, jews run the media, etc etc.

She could have said the same thing with more tact or professionalism. And yes the reason it's so touchy is because anti semitism is extremely common nowadays and a lot of people hide behind similar rhetoric to express their views.

Again, some people are genuine and don't come from that angle but that doesn't mean you should ignore that it's a thing.

Edit: I got beaten by a much better response up there lol
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,819
So we should just let AIPAC keep getting away with all their bullshit because stupid people can't tell the difference between being against a massive pro-Israel lobby and being anti-Semitic? No wonder Trump is president. This country is full of completely gullible morons who fall for the lowest-effort manipulation.
No. I agree with her point, in fact The problem is she stupidly uses "All About the Benjamins" to describe why AIPAC have power. Even though she likely isn't antisemitic, how can you not ignore the antisemitic dogwhistle?

Remember when Andrew Gillum told DeSantis "you may not be racist, but the racists think you're racist" because DeSantis said Florida shouldn't 'monkey this up'? That's a hurtful stereotype that has been used throughout history to kill. Another stereotype that has been used throughout history to kill is the equation of Jews=money=influence=power. Tweeting "All About the Benjamins" is fucking reinforcing that historic stereotype. It doesn't help.
 

JustinP

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,343
he's agreeing with her saying that AIPAC bribes people in important American institutions including the press and congress into being uncritical of Israel
Well, yeah. That's what I meant by "better way to go about it [than quoting snappy lyrics that can easily be taken out of context and simply saying the organization's name without giving any examples or details, which again, can be easily taken out of context]"
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
And how is the 1st one is anti-semitism, exactly? When it's exactly true that US politicians' undying support for AIPAC is indeed influenced largely by the monetary reward they can receive from the organization? It is indeed, about the money.

To immediately frame that as an effort to promote an Anti-Jew sentiment is incredibly dishonest and disingenuous, and reeks the stupid/disgusting tactic of labeling EVERY criticism towards Israel as anti-semitic.
The RT combo'd into it pushed it from looking iffy/sloppy to looking really bad.
 
Oct 25, 2017
523
money=influence=power is an uncontroversial statement, AIPAC gives out incredible amounts of money to lobby on behalf of Israeli interests, AIPAC =/= Jews and if saying that AIPAC is influential because of the money and power it wields is antisemitic then it is impossible to criticize the Israel lobby without being antisemitic
 

Link

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
3,623
No. I agree with her point, in fact The problem is she stupidly uses "All About the Benjamins" to describe why AIPAC have power. Even though she likely isn't antisemitic, how can you not ignore the antisemitic dogwhistle?

Remember when Andrew Gillum told DeSantis "you may not be racist, but the racists think you're racist" because DeSantis said Florida shouldn't 'monkey this up'? That's a hurtful stereotype that has been used throughout history to kill. Another stereotype that has been used throughout history to kill is the equation of Jews=money=influence=power. Tweeting "All About the Benjamins" is fucking reinforcing that historic stereotype. It doesn't help.
But AIPAC is literally using lobbying money to influence Congress members and policy. I can't believe I need to explain this.

money=influence=power is an uncontroversial statement, AIPAC gives out incredible amounts of money to lobby on behalf of Israeli interests, AIPAC =/= Jews and if saying that AIPAC is influential because of the money and power it wields is antisemitic then it is impossible to criticize the Israel lobby without being antisemitic
This!
 

Bramblebutt

Banned
Jan 11, 2018
1,858
She said the exact same thing about Saudi Lobby in congress last November. Why wasn't that news ?
Americans are much less sensitive to potential slights against Arab Americans than they are to Jewish Americans. Connections between Arab Americans and the Saudi state are nowhere near as strong or prevalent as those between American Jews and Israel. It is also much more normal to criticize Saudi Arabia for its wrongdoings than it is to criticize Israel if its. Additionally, there isn't a well-worn stereotype of Arabs being shadowy puppetmasters using their wealth to gain influence over nations, as well as there not being an established practice to refer to harmful stereotypes of Arab people through dogwhistles and veiled insults. People in America are often much more direct in attacking Muslims and those of Arab descent.

All this adds up to it being much harder to trust if someone making oblique references to money and Israel is talking about real issues or using the discussion as a vector to push Jewish hate. That is why it is very important to be precise when talking about the bad things the Israeli ruling government is responsible for and not leave the motivations of your comments up to interpretation.
 

Aaronrules380

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
22,513
Because there are anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that Jews control the world, and they do so in large part by using oodles and oodles of money to control people. That may not be what she means, but it's why it's so important to be particular with one's word choice and not beat around the bush, so that these misunderstandings don't happen in the first place. That is to say, how you say something can be just as important as what you're saying. And when there's absolutely no reason to be vague and you have the characters to avoid these misunderstandings and be more clear, then, well, what exactly is the benefit of being vague in the first place?

I wouldn't accept that kind of sloppy wording from a Republican, I'm not suddenly going to lower my standards because she's a Democrat and in her case likely does mean well. There's just absolutely zero reason to be vague here, and tweet out stuff that either could be read as anti-Semitic conspiracy theory garbage or as valid criticism of real issues, when she could just be more clear in the first place and avoid that. There's just no reason or excuse to be tweeting stuff like that out, regardless of intent, as it does no one any good, doesn't help anything, and be so easily avoided and it's just all so unnecessary. And that's because regardless of intent, regardless of whether she means for it to be read those way, those kind of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories do real damage to the lives of Jewish individuals each and every day.

Like, she might not intend to do damage, and I'm ready to believe that. But that doesn't change that damage is done all the same all the time by comments just like that, regardless of whether it's intended that way or not, and that's why it's so important to do better and have higher standards and not be so careless with one's words. Like, I wouldn't accept it if a Republican had said this, because of the damage those kinds of words and statements mean regardless of intent, and I'm not going to lower my standards just because she's a Democrat instead. If anything, I expect more from her as I expect Democrats to be better than that and not make those kind of mistakes to begin with.

If people still don't get it, another way to put it is, hmm, maybe to compare it to Elizabeth Warren, and the conspiracy around her Native American heritage, or lack there of? It seems very likely that Warren didn't actually intend any offense to Native Americans and was just ignorant and sloppy in how the handled that mess. Nonetheless, regardless of whether she meant it or not, how she handled that stuff is the kind of thing that does damage to many Native American tribes even today and was just a series of unforced errors and very, very poorly handled, and as a Democrat myself, I expected better from her on that.

Same deal here. If people can get how Warren messed up with the DNA test stuff and all that, it's a very similar issue with Omar and these particular tweets. That no actual offense needs to be intended, and the damage is the same regardless of whether it was intended or not, because how you say something is just as important as what you're saying. So yeah, if people can get the deal with how Warren messed up even if they don't think she actually meant anything wrong at any point, but still messed up regardless of intent, it's a very similar with Omar here, if that makes any sense and helps you to understand the issues at play here.
I'm aware of that stuff, and I'm aware it affects people. I'm personally Jewish myself. But there's a difference between saying Jews control the world, and that Jewish Lobbying Groups like AIPAC are using money to help guide the discourse on one specific policy issue that they feel very highly invested in (and I can say from personal experience with my own family that many Jews are incredibly invested in the existence of Israel because they believe that it's necessary for our survival)
 

anamika

Member
May 18, 2018
2,622
The far-left DOES need to stop the implicit antisemitic rhetoric. I don't support Israel, but it is naive to just ignore blatant and historical antisemitic stereotypes involving Jews, money, and secret influence. Acting like "oh Israel doesn't mean Jews so calm down" is ignoring the point! A lot of people on the right and the left don't care if you say Israel or AIPAC. When they hear or read someone implying Israel controls the United States, many think Jews!

So we are not allowed to discuss the influence of AIPAC on suppressing Palestinian and Palestian American rights and free speech? Or the role of Jewish lobbies in introducing anti-Palestinian bills into government? Or the role of money in punishing academicians who support Palestine and speak out for them?

What then is the solution to discussing a solution to Palestinian rights in the US if all of the above is anti-semitic and therefore not to be touched?

Where was the coverage in the media and from Maggie Haberman and Jake Tapper when an Israeli born Florida city official basically described Palestinian American Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a Muslim as a "A Hamas-loving anti-Semite who has NO place in government! She is a danger and would not put it past her to become a martyr and blow up Capitol Hill."

No one in the media bothered then about the clear islamophobia and anti-Palestinian rhetoric against a sitting congresswomen. But Omar mentioned AIPAC? The horror.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,819
But AIPAC is literally using lobbying money to influence Congress members and policy. I can't believe I need to explain this.
And many people connect AIPAC with all Jews just like that freak in Pittsburgh connected HIAS with all Jews. She shouldn't be haphazardly tweeting jokes, that can be taken as a dogwhistle by legit antisemites. There are better ways of criticizing AIPAC and Israel than tweeting "It's All ABout the Benjamins baby...."
 

THE GUY

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,223
Because there are anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that Jews control the world, and they do so in large part by using oodles and oodles of money to control people. That may not be what she means, but it's why it's so important to be particular with one's word choice and not beat around the bush, so that these misunderstandings don't happen in the first place. That is to say, how you say something can be just as important as what you're saying. And when there's absolutely no reason to be vague and you have the characters to avoid these misunderstandings and be more clear, then, well, what exactly is the benefit of being vague in the first place?

I wouldn't accept that kind of sloppy wording from a Republican, I'm not suddenly going to lower my standards because she's a Democrat and in her case likely does mean well. There's just absolutely zero reason to be vague here, and tweet out stuff that either could be read as anti-Semitic conspiracy theory garbage or as valid criticism of real issues, when she could just be more clear in the first place and avoid that. There's just no reason or excuse to be tweeting stuff like that out, regardless of intent, as it does no one any good, doesn't help anything, and be so easily avoided and it's just all so unnecessary. And that's because regardless of intent, regardless of whether she means for it to be read those way, those kind of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories do real damage to the lives of Jewish individuals each and every day.

Like, she might not intend to do damage, and I'm ready to believe that. But that doesn't change that damage is done all the same all the time by comments just like that, regardless of whether it's intended that way or not, and that's why it's so important to do better and have higher standards and not be so careless with one's words. Like, I wouldn't accept it if a Republican had said this, because of the damage those kinds of words and statements mean regardless of intent, and I'm not going to lower my standards just because she's a Democrat instead. If anything, I expect more from her as I expect Democrats to be better than that and not make those kind of mistakes to begin with.

If people still don't get it, another way to put it is, hmm, maybe to compare it to Elizabeth Warren, and the conspiracy around her Native American heritage, or lack there of? It seems very likely that Warren didn't actually intend any offense to Native Americans and was just ignorant and sloppy in how the handled that mess. Nonetheless, regardless of whether she meant it or not, how she handled that stuff is the kind of thing that does damage to many Native American tribes even today and was just a series of unforced errors and very, very poorly handled, and as a Democrat myself, I expected better from her on that.

Same deal here. If people can get how Warren messed up with the DNA test stuff and all that, it's a very similar issue with Omar and these particular tweets. That no actual offense needs to be intended, and the damage is the same regardless of whether it was intended or not, because how you say something is just as important as what you're saying. So yeah, if people can get the deal with how Warren messed up even if they don't think she actually meant anything wrong at any point, but still messed up regardless of intent, it's a very similar with Omar here, if that makes any sense and helps you to understand the issues at play here.
We're way past the "how" when it comes to this topic.

This is just bullshit bad faith crap at this point. The context of her tweet is very apparent and clear. The only way this topic is going to be handled is for it to be tackled head on. And when you got peeps trying to word police and nitpick shit, especially even when there is context and her intended meaning is clear, it does nothing to help. We need someone being aggressive about the nonsense going on with American politicians and the influence AIPAC money has had and is having.

Nothing is happening when it comes to Israel/Palestine. Nothing is being done. Nothing will be done, because you got idiots falling for the same old tactics all the time. This is a conversation that will never ever happen without the anti-semitism dog whistle coming into play at some point by those who want to shut it down. That's simply how it's been conditioned with Americans, and to break that, you simply take a fucking hammer to it.
 

-Pyromaniac-

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,386
I'm aware of that stuff, and I'm aware it affects people. I'm personally Jewish myself. But there's a difference between saying Jews control the world, and that Jewish Lobbying Groups like AIPAC are using money to help guide the discourse on one specific policy issue that they feel very highly invested in (and I can say from personal experience with my own family that many Jews are incredibly invested in the existence of Israel because they believe that it's necessary for our survival)
But like, even you're wording it better than her. That's the problem. You can't be lazy with your intentions when you're a politician no less. Yes we know she likely meant what you just said, but instead she went for the lazy hot take that will feed antisemitism somewhere.

Just because her intentions are clear to some people, maybe even a lot of people, doesn't mean that's good enough.
 
Oct 25, 2017
523
Isn't
And many people connect AIPAC with all Jews just like that freak in Pittsburgh connected HIAS with all Jews. She shouldn't be haphazardly tweeting jokes, that can be taken as a dogwhistle by legit antisemites. There are better ways of criticizing AIPAC and Israel than tweeting "It's All ABout the Benjamins baby...."
the HIAS stuff was a conspiracy theory, her comments on AIPAC are truth, comparing them is absurd
 

Aaronrules380

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
22,513
And many people connect AIPAC with all Jews just like that freak in Pittsburgh connected HIAS with all Jews. She shouldn't be haphazardly tweeting jokes, that can be taken as a dogwhistle by legit antisemites. There are better ways of criticizing AIPAC and Israel than tweeting "It's All ABout the Benjamins baby...."
I mean that pretty clear seems to be calling Congress greedy, not jews. At least to me
 

Heshinsi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,095
There is the smart way of discussing things and bringing to light the problematic things that AIPAC does, and then there's the dumb as fuck way to do it. She chose the latter. How can she not realise the words she chose to use could get the reactions that they did? Even for many who absolutely can not stand what AIPAC does, her insinuating that Jewish money is the reason American politicians behave the way they do, is too damn reminiscent of the bigoted conspiracies of secret Jewish cabals controlling the world. It also ignores the geopolitical and religious reasons why Israel garners the level of support it does, making it seem as if money is the only factor.

She's smart and she should know better than to make such a tweet like that.
 

Deleted member 8257

Oct 26, 2017
24,586
We're way past the "how" when it comes to this topic.

This is just bullshit bad faith crap at this point. The context of her tweet is very apparent and clear. The only way this topic is going to be handled is for it to be tackled head on. And when you got peeps trying to word police and nitpick shit, especially even when there is context and her intended meaning is clear, it does nothing to help. We need someone being aggressive about the nonsense going on with American politicians and the influence AIPAC money has had and is having.

Nothing is happening when it comes to Israel/Palestine. Nothing is being done. Nothing will be done, because you got idiots falling for the same old tactics all the time. This is a conversation that will never ever happen without the anti-semitism dog whistle coming into play at some point. That's simply how it's been conditioned with Americans, and to break that, you simply take a fucking hammer to it.
Agreed 100%.

The people pearl clutching can jump off a cliff. Israel is ethnically cleansing Palestinians as we speak, and their propoganda arm is dialed to 11 in making sure we clutch pearls every time someone mentions a link between AIPAC and US policy.
 
Oct 27, 2017
11,527
Bandung Indonesia
The RT combo'd into it pushed it from looking iffy/sloppy to looking really bad.

The retweet of that GOP Leader threatens to punish thing? Why was that looking really bad, exactly? Wasn't her comment is framed around the argument that GOP Leader threatens to punish peeps being critical of AIPAC do so because the large influence of AIPAC has over the politicians due to how pervasive its lobbying money is?

How is that "looking really bad" exactly?

You know how many people in the world equate AIPAC or Israel with all Jews? You don't think she could have phrased her point in a better way?

Not her responsibility if people can't use their brains. And AIPAC/Israel = All Jews is a rhetoric often used by Israel themselves, so you go ahead and assign blame to them for perpetuating that nonsense then.
 

Link

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
3,623
And many people connect AIPAC with all Jews just like that freak in Pittsburgh connected HIAS with all Jews. She shouldn't be haphazardly tweeting jokes, that can be taken as a dogwhistle by legit antisemites. There are better ways of criticizing AIPAC and Israel than tweeting "It's All ABout the Benjamins baby...."
Well, I'm sorry you're so easily manipulated by such bad-faith bullshit. Those of us with brains will continue calling AIPAC and Israel out using the fact that they spend an ungodly amount of money bribing our government.
 

Aaronrules380

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
22,513
But like, even you're wording it better than her. That's the problem. You can't be lazy with your intentions when you're a politician no less. Yes we know she likely meant what you just said, but instead she went for the lazy hot take that will feed antisemitism somewhere.

Just because her intentions are clear to some people, maybe even a lot of people, doesn't mean that's good enough.
Could she have worded it better? Sure. But I can guarantee you most of this criticism, especially by the media and politicians, would look EXACTLY the same no matter how carefully she worded it
 

Deleted member 283

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,288
So we should just let AIPAC keep getting away with all their bullshit because stupid people can't tell the difference between being against a massive pro-Israel lobby and being anti-Semitic? No wonder Trump is president. This country is full of completely gullible morons who fall for the lowest-effort manipulation.
These aren't binary choices, or exclusive options, like you seem to be making them for some reason. We can be more critical towads AIPAC and also do stuff like be more critical towards the current Israeli government, and do our best not to let them get away with stuff like illegal settlements, and ALSO, at the same time, not exactly be supportive of tweets like these, that can easily be read as anti-Semitic attacks and be used to support those kind of groups, regardless of whether they're meant that way or not.

This isn't a binary choice. And it's not like tweeting that stuff actually HELPS in getting the Israeli-government to knock off hateful policies, or helps Palestinians, or anything of the sort regardless. The state of things is the same regardless of stuff like that. So why support it? Why not ask to do better? I don't get it. 'Cause that's all I'm asking for her, at least. To do better. That shouldn't be controversial, and if that's indeed what she means and she doesn't mean to cause accidental and incidental harm to Jewish individuals and keep things focused where they actually need to be, should be a very, very simple ask. That she can ask for the policies she's asking for, the kind of changes she's asking for, without tweeting garbage like this out that's just completely unnecessary no matter where you fall. But alas...
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
The retweet of that GOP Leader threatens to punish thing? Why was that looking really bad, exactly? Wasn't her comment is framed around the argument that GOP Leader threatens to punish peeps being critical of AIPAC do so because the large influence of AIPAC has over the politicians due to how pervasive its lobbying money is?

How is that "looking really bad" exactly?
No, it's this one that was in response to the "Benjamin's" tweeet: https://media.discordapp.net/attach.../IMG_20190210_213010.jpg?width=557&height=676
 

Deleted member 1589

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,576
It's weird because I agree that a politician should word their words better, but then I'm reminded of all the things I've read and saw on what the Israeli government has done to Palestine, the movie Waltz to Bashir and well...
 

stew

Member
Dec 2, 2017
4,188
I also think she should have done it better, but can you give some examples of how you could criticize AIPAC bribery, while avoiding any risk of some people calling it antisemitic because of the conspiracy therories involving jews and money?
 

Aaronrules380

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
22,513
I think a big part of this problem is that twitter as a platform is inherently unsuited for the discussion of actually important topics and yet everyone insists on using it for them anyways
 

-Pyromaniac-

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,386
I also think she should have done it better, but can you give some examples of how you could criticize AIPAC bribery, while avoiding any risk of some people calling you an antisemitic because of the conspiracy therories involving jews and money?
Some people will always do it. That's true. But the way she worded it, even more people will. Deservedly so. She was just lazy, that's all there is to it. She has to be more responsible in her position.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,819
Well, I'm sorry you're so easily manipulated by such bad-faith bullshit. Those of us with brains will continue calling AIPAC and Israel out using the fact that they spend an ungodly amount of money bribing our government.
She needs to phrase it better. That's ALL I'm saying. Jews have died in Paris, Belgium, Pittsburgh because antisemites think every single Jew is secretly a Zionist or an anti-white Soros 2.0. Or both. And it always involves money, power, and secret influence. AIPAC should be criticized, but not in such a dumb and ill-advised way.
 

Link

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
3,623
These aren't binary choices, or exclusive options, like you seem to be making them for some reason. We can be more critical towads AIPAC and also do stuff like be more critical towards the current Israeli government, and do our best not to let them get away with stuff like illegal settlements, and ALSO, at the same time, not exactly be supportive of tweets like these, that can easily be read as anti-Semitic attacks and be used to support those kind of groups, regardless of whether they're meant that way or not.

This isn't a binary choice. And it's not like tweeting that stuff actually HELPS in getting the Israeli-government to knock off hateful policies, or helps Palestinians, or anything of the sort regardless. The state of things is the same regardless of stuff like that. So why support it? Why not ask to do better? I don't get it. 'Cause that's all I'm asking for her, at least. To do better. That shouldn't be controversial, and if that's indeed what she means and she doesn't mean to cause accidental and incidental harm to Jewish individuals and keep things focused where they actually need to be, should be a very, very simple ask. That she can ask for the policies she's asking for, the kind of changes she's asking for, without tweeting garbage like this out that's just completely unnecessary no matter where you fall. But alas...
Sorry, but no. She's saying AIPAC is using money to influence the people running our government. If someone isn't allowed to say that because mentioning money is anti-Semitic to you, then congratulations, you just fell for another one of AIPAC's go-to moves. They've positioned themselves to be unable to be criticized. I'm not falling for it, and neither should you.
 

Deleted member 8257

Oct 26, 2017
24,586
She needs to phrase it better. That's ALL I'm saying. Jews have died in Paris, Belgium, Pittsburgh because antisemites think every single Jew is secretly a Zionist or an anti-white Soros 2.0. Or both. And it always involves money, power, and secret influence. AIPAC should be criticized, but not in such a dumb and ill-advised way.
 

Sokrates

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
560
ITT: Tone policing about critiquing a foreign policy lobbying group of a an apartheid state. I wonder how ERA would have handled the ANC and SA.
 

xbhaskarx

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,143
NorCal
"support for Israel is driven by campaign donations from a prominent pro-Israel group."​
"Omar singled out AIPAC, one of the most influential lobbying groups in Washington, as the source of those donations."​
"American-Israel Public Affairs Committee is a non-profit that doesn't donate directly to candidates."​
"its members donate to pro-Israel lawmakers and candidates"​

Is AIPAC forcing its members to donate a certain way, or are they doing so of their own accord? Since this is the US I'm guessing the latter. So then are Omar's comments not factually incorrect? Or is something in the reporting above inaccurate?

A non-profit group that doesn't donate to candidates can't be the source of campaign donations that drive support for Israel.
 

julian

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16,810
I see this a lot, in a lot of places. Give me an example of criticism of Israel that can't be misconstrued as antisemitic.

I wrote up a few examples, but then I realized how bizarre it is that you would need this explained. How about you give me some of your criticisms or maybe start a thread? It shouldn't be hard to criticize Israel (or any nation) without stepping on obvious stereotypes or conspiracy theories.

nah, the "hypnotized the world" tweet was legitimately bad and she was correct to apologize for it. this controversy is mostly just people choosing to read insinuations of some shadowy secret cabal into what she actually said

I agree this one is more of a stretch - already said so earlier in the thread - but I didn't understand the whole retweet she did that basically cast doubt on herself. Just a bizarre fuck up. She could've tried to play it off but instead amplified the negative association.
 

Aaronrules380

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
22,513
She needs to phrase it better. That's ALL I'm saying. Jews have died in Paris, Belgium, Pittsburgh because antisemites think every single Jew is secretly a Zionist or an anti-white Soros 2.0. Or both. And it always involves money, power, and secret influence. AIPAC should be criticized, but not in such a dumb and ill-advised way.
I mean, I think it's pretty disgusting to imply that it would've been more ok to kill those Jewish people if they had been pro israel. Also I don't think those idiots in Europe are going to be that influenced by what's being said by a single, relatively obscure, US Congressman. Honestly, I'd argue that if you really want to deal a blow to the idea those conspiracy theories, I think the long term goal should be to lessen the power of actual lobbying groups like AIPAC rather than to suggest we can't criticize them directly
 

Deleted member 14649

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,524
As different as our politics are here, some things remain the same. Corbyn and Labour have been smeared by the same accusations for a while now. It seems the go-to attack when it comes to the left-wing. Anti-semitism is a political hand grenade. Just drop it in a room and run.
 

Aaronrules380

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
22,513
"support for Israel is driven by campaign donations from a prominent pro-Israel group."​
"Omar singled out AIPAC, one of the most influential lobbying groups in Washington, as the source of those donations."​
"American-Israel Public Affairs Committee is a non-profit that doesn't donate directly to candidates."​
"its members donate to pro-Israel lawmakers and candidates"​

Is AIPAC forcing its members to donate a certain way, or are they doing so of their own accord? Since this is the US I'm guessing the latter. So then are Omar's comments not factually incorrect? Or is something in the reporting above inaccurate?

A non-profit group that doesn't donate to candidates can't be the source of campaign donations that drive support for Israel.
It's still a lobbying group that exists to encourage pro israeli policy. Also you're an idiot if you don't think organizations like AIPAC don't strongly encourage and incentivize their members to make sizable donations to politicians who support their cause
 
Status
Not open for further replies.