View Full Version : Is Ilhan Omar an Anti-Semite?
Are her claims that Israel is purchasing “allegiance to a foreign country” simply another in a long history of divided-loyalty accusations made over the course of our history? Or should they be otherwise considered?
We have never been a people united by a common ancestry, so there have always been claims about Catholics or Muslims or people from countries we may be currently hostile to as fifth columnists. It’s certainly a cheap shot that has been resorted to time and again. And accusing people we disagree with as being in the pay of some nefarious party like the Koch brothers or international bankers or foreign powers is a low-effort expedient for the intellectually lazy.
But does it rise to the level of bigotry, or is it a genuinely held or politically convenient belief? The Democrats have a bit of a conundrum to deal with. Give her the treatment the GOP gave Mr. King, or just issue a general bigotry-is-bad statement and hope it blows over? Or take her seriously and demand hearings and investigations? Or go on the offensive, and treat criticism of Ms. Omar as it’s own form of prejudice?
Interesting that you bring this up because just the other day I read this opinion piece on the topic by an American Jew who believes that it's not bigotry to be against America's policies towards the state of Israel. I think she makes good points and helps to point out the difference between criticizing "foreign" people and foreign policies.
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/what-anti-semitism-actually-looks-like/
Interesting that you bring this up because just the other day I read this opinion piece on the topic by an American Jew who believes that it's not bigotry to be against America's policies towards the state of Israel. I think she makes good points and helps to point out the difference between criticizing "foreign" people and foreign policies.
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/what-anti-semitism-actually-looks-like/
Oh, I think she goes beyond criticizing another country’s policies when she accuses those who don’t share her opinions as hypnotized or bought off.
But when she impugns their motives like that, it isn’t necessarily out of anti-semitism. It could simply be the usual ad hominem nastiness people resort to when they can’t come up with a better argument. I don’t see her as Hitler in a hijab. I see her as just another hack. In this era of identity politics we spend too much effort trying to associate behaviors with group characteristics. We fail to acknowledge how individualistic stupidity and mendacity can be.
Oh, I think she goes beyond criticizing another country’s policies when she accuses those who don’t share her opinions as hypnotized or bought off.
She apologized about the "hypnotized" thing (which a writer in the NYT called "microaggression"--not full-out anti-Semitism), but she stands by the "bought off" thing--she said in her tweet that she isn't just against being bought out by AIPAC lobbyists, but she's against being bought off by anyone-- the fossil fuel industry, the NRA, etc. I'm with her there.
I thought she showed great restraint. Israel's long-ongoing mistreatment of Palestinians--particularly under Netanyahu--is apparently a third-rail issue among (heavily lobbied) legislators.
I thought she showed great restraint. Israel's long-ongoing mistreatment of Palestinians--particularly under Netanyahu--is apparently a third-rail issue among (heavily lobbied) legislators.I can recall Democrats berating Israel and the Jewish people going back to at least the late 60's or early 70's when Netanyahu was a student at MIT. I think it's part of that uniquely Democratic trait of placing everyone in a gender or racial bucket and professing their superiority through disapproval of wrongs, real or imagined.
I can recall Democrats berating Israel and the Jewish people going back to at least the late 60's or early 70's when Netanyahu was a student at MIT. I think it's part of that uniquely Democratic trait of placing everyone in a gender or racial bucket and professing their superiority through disapproval of wrongs, real or imagined.
The British Labour Party seems to have a similar problem. Personally I’m inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and think it more about ideology than race.
I think the same thing about Senators “concerned” that Catholic judicial nominees will be unable to treat various potential issues objectively. If the State is to triumph over the selfish individual for the good of all, there must be a cultural monoculture that brooks no moral dissent.
But it’s not personal. Just business.
Here's an ideology for you:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves* and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
*Back then those blessings were more abundantly reserved for white males, but I'm glad that courageous people over the past 200 years, regardless of party, have fought to ensure that "liberty for all" really means all. And I'm sure they don't mind if some prefer to cast that courage as a character defect of moral superiority.
I think of that less as an ideology than a legal framework aimed at limiting the power of a central government or any group, faction or region to dominate the country at large. That’s why so many ideologues find various aspects of it to be so frustrating.
It in fact minimizes the amount of “courage” required to make the kind of accusations Rep. Omar likes to toss around.
I think of that less as an ideology than a legal framework aimed at limiting the power of a central government or any group, faction or region to dominate the country at large. That’s why so many ideologues find various aspects of it to be so frustrating.
It in fact minimizes the amount of “courage” required to make the kind of accusations Rep. Omar likes to toss around.
I respect your view, but I see The Preamble as a mandate for government to ensure that everyone gets a fair shot at a good life. It specifically says that the Constitution is there to "ensure," "promote," "secure," and "establish." Those are all active verbs written as the True North of the legalese that follows.
But as my husband tells me "You say black and I say white" (This is not an observation on race: he means that whatever he sees, I tend to see something else :).) It's a matter of perspective.
2678
I respect your view, but I see The Preamble as a mandate for government to ensure that everyone gets a fair shot at a good life. It specifically says that the Constitution is there to "ensure," "promote," "secure," and "establish." Those are all active verbs written as the True North of the legalese that follows.
But as my husband tells me "You say black and I say white" (This is not an observation on race: he means that whatever he sees, I tend to see something else :).) It's a matter of perspective.
2678
My take on the preamble is “let’s (I.e. the states) agree to make these nice things happen by not letting various types of tyrants and wannabe saviors pester people”.
I see the House has passed the “Resolution About Nothing” to condemn all mean people everywhere. Sort of a compromise between “hey Ilhan, shut up; you’re embarrassing us” and “we’re rubber and you’re glue”.
The Democrats have a bit of a conundrum to deal with. Give her the treatment the GOP gave Mr. King, or just issue a general bigotry-is-bad statement and hope it blows over? The anti-Semitism will blow over pretty quickly, the party leaders are already making excuses for her, but now she's also criticizing Barack Obama. That may be a bridge too far for the Dems.
The anti-Semitism will blow over pretty quickly, the party leaders are already making excuses for her, but now she's also criticizing Barack Obama. That may be a bridge too far for the Dems.
She also parts ways with her party on who the legitimate President of Venezuela should be. She likes to refer to herself as a “Muslim under siege”, and her supporters speak of her as a sort of intersectional aristocrat based on her background.
I wonder if exasperated Democrats will eventually decline her victim card.
I'd probably feel a bit under siege if this was the opinion people had of me.
2681
I'd probably feel a bit under siege if this was the opinion people had of me.
2681
People? or someone?
Well, at least 3 people apparently. Although I doubt an entertainer like Jeanine Pirro would be proudly proclaiming to be one of them if she thought her opinion was hers and hers alone.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a26775620/fox-jeanine-pirro-ilhan-omar-hijab-sharia-constitution/
"Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to sharia law, which is in itself is antithetical to the United States constitution?" Pirro asked the audience.
In case the absolutely shocking extent that statement's Islamophobia is less than immediately clear, imagine if Pirro were discussing a religious symbol from any other minority faith group in America. Were all the Catholics sporting ash crosses on their foreheads last week indicating that their loyalty lies with Biblical law rather than American law? Of course not.
Were all the Catholics sporting ash crosses on their foreheads last week indicating that their loyalty lies with Biblical law rather than American law? Of course not. [/I]
Someone should tell that to Senators Harris and Hirono. Or is it only the mackerel snappers in the Knights of Columbus?
Someone should tell that to Senators Harris and Hirono. Or is it only the mackerel snappers in the Knights of Columbus?
Yes someone should tell them. Questioning someone’s ability to be an impartial judge because they belong to a catholic service organization is wrong.
Is it impolitic to mention Netanyahu is apparently a crook, as well as a thug?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/is-netanyahu-a-crook-allegedly-a-threat-to-democracy-that-verdict-is-sadly-in/
Plenty of Israelis--from my reading--think Palestinians are getting the rawest of raw deals. Does that make them anti-Semites, too? (And that's been true--as Alan points out--for decades.)
Semites include Jews, Arabs, and others in a wide region who speak Semitic languages, so "anti-Semite" would most certainly include all the anti-Muslim zealots in Congress and among Trump's supporters.
dado potato
7-18-19, 9:29am
President Trump attacked Representative Ilhan Omar not only with the label anti-Semite, but also "socialist".
Referring to 4 freshman congresswomen of color, (I quote President Trump) I see them complaining, they're complaining constantly... I'm saying they are socialists definitely. As to whether or not they are communists, I'd think they might be, but this is not what our country is about. <Note the straw man fallacy.> Never the less, they're free to leave if they want.
Representative Omar replied, "I am where I belong." In a tweet she quoted American poet, Maya Angelou:
You may shoot me with your words,
You may cut me with your eyes,
You may kill me with your hatefulness,
But still, like air, I'll rise.
I noticed Trumo included AOC in the “go back to your country” business. Her family is from Puerto Rico....
ApatheticNoMore
7-18-19, 11:19am
Wasn't Ayanna Pressley also told to go back to her country? As far as I can tell she is an African American woman. I don't know her genealogy but it likely predates the Trump family in this country.
We would tell Trump to go back to Germany, only why would a modern well run country like Germany take him? They wouldn't. It seems like we can't keep producing garbage and sending it all over the world expecting others to take it, we have to depose, uh dispose, of it at home.
I noticed Trumo included AOC in the “go back to your country” business. Her family is from Puerto Rico....
Thanks for that info, Bae. Absolutely priceless!:D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.