The speech where she compared Israel to Nazi Germany. I don't have a problem with criticizing Israeli policies, but anybody with an ounce of self-awareness knows better than to make that particular connection.What are you basing this on?
I just watched the speech. She didn’t say Israel was like Nazi Germany. And she definitely didn’t say anything that leads me to believe that she can’t distinguish between the state of Israel and the Jewish people. Here’s the speech:The speech where she compared Israel to Nazi Germany. I don't have a problem with criticizing Israeli policies, but anybody with an ounce of self-awareness knows better than to make that particular connection.
That was a weird way to oppose...I just watched the speech. She didn’t say Israel was like Nazi Germany. And she definitely didn’t say anything that leads me to believe that she can’t distinguish between the state of Israel and the Jewish people. Here’s the speech:
https://youtu.be/iG4lD_kfQYk
I know. But most people who aren't deliberately looking to be edgy know to leave Nazi Germany out of their speech on Why Israel Is Bad.I just watched the speech. She didn’t say Israel was like Nazi Germany. And she definitely didn’t say anything that leads me to believe that she can’t distinguish between the state of Israel and the Jewish people. Here’s the speech:
https://youtu.be/iG4lD_kfQYk
Start at 2:11 or so to hear the quote in context.
Wait, you said originally that the speech was support for your claim that Tlaib doesn’t “understand the difference between the state of Israel and Jewish people.” Now it seems like you’re saying she just said something that might be perceived as inflammatory even though that wasn’t her point. Which is it?I know. But most people who aren't deliberately looking to be edgy know to leave Nazi Germany out of their speech on Why Israel Is Bad.
Edit: Also, we now have this in the context of "I love my 95 year old grandmother and want to see her one last time before she passes, but my hatred for Israel is greater than that." This is not the stance of somebody with a simple policy disagreement with another state.
Love this. Not a Bernie fan, but there should be a public discussion about aid to Israel.Bernie with a mic drop. Sanders Says If Israel Wants to Ban Members of Congress, It Should Not Receive Billions in US Military Aid.
If she is allowed to compare that resolution to all the free speech hooey she was saying then people can infer she was comparing boycotting israel to boycotting nazi germany.I just watched it. It's a really poor choice of comparisons. I was immediately thinking of South Africa, but she went with Nazis first. I dunno, a lot of times people will keep going and going right up to the line constantly and never trip over it for whatever reason. Still doesn't mean they don't want to be on the other side of it. I'm not a foreign policy expert but somehow the PLO's Yassar Arafat getting a Peace Prize a few moons ago shows the absurdity of this conflict and the international responses to it.
I like our domestic response better.
You don’t have to guess what she was saying, just listen to it. She’s talking about the history of boycotts in the United States. Then she says that includes boycotts of foreign countries engaged in civil rights abuses. And then she listed some examples of such boycotts from our history, including Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa. That was it.If she is allowed to compare that resolution to all the free speech hooey she was saying then people can infer she was comparing boycotting israel to boycotting nazi germany.
I happen to find both a bit silly, but like consistency. So which way are we going with her words?
I disagree. Tlaib made a big show about wanting to travel to Israel to see her grandmother, who she loves dearly. When Israel granted her request, she made a big show out of refusing to go because of her hatred of Israel. I don't know how to interpret that sequence of events in any way besides "I hate Israel more than I love grandma." That's certainly the most straightforward interpretation.In any case, she said her grandmother would be disappointed if she went to visit her under the conditions imposed by the Israeli government. I don’t know if that’s true, but “I hate Israel more than I love my grandmother” seems like a pretty outrageous mischaracterization.
I think you misunderstood me. I am saying I think it is silly to think she was saying that israel is like nazi germany from that quote. But I also think her statements about free speech and the constitution are also silly in that speech. I think both are massive reaches and inferences.You don’t have to guess what she was saying, just listen to it. She’s talking about the history of boycotts in the United States. Then she says that includes boycotts of foreign countries engaged in civil rights abuses. And then she listed some examples of such boycotts from our history, including Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa. That was it.
Even if she hadn't already agreed, it is bad faith on her part. She is acting like they are forcing her to donate a kidney, denounce islam, and that if she steps on a crack on her visit they will actually break her grandma's back. Her dying inside rhetoric and support from her grandma stuff is all crap. Her "sity" doesn't even have free speech. If her grandma criticized palestinian authority on a public forum, what does Tlaib think would happen?I disagree. Tlaib made a big show about wanting to travel to Israel to see her grandmother, who she loves dearly. When Israel granted her request, she made a big show out of refusing to go because of her hatred of Israel. I don't know how to interpret that sequence of events in any way besides "I hate Israel more than I love grandma." That's certainly the most straightforward interpretation.
Edit: Tlaib explicitly said in writing that she would accept Israel's conditions if she could just see dear grandma one last time. When Israel gave her what she wanted, she did a 180. That's just bad faith argumentation on her part.
Got it. Makes sense.I think you misunderstood me. I am saying I think it is silly to think she was saying that israel is like nazi germany from that quote. But I also think her statements about free speech and the constitution are also silly in that speech. I think both are massive reaches and inferences.
So basically if you defend her on the Nazi thing(which I agree with), you have to also acknowledge that she is over the top reaching with the other statements.
It was a resolution to oppose the bds movement and its leader.Did they oppose a resolution on Hamas or something? And was the resolution grandstanding crap pulled by the Rs, or was it really to condemn Hamas?
Thanks for the information. I do know what a one-state solution means, and I also asked ren about "right of return" because neither generally passes the pro-Zionist smell test. And I certainly have no doubt about what they'd do next. This is a culture that hides serious weapons under elementary schools and then run for the camera when their children get bombed. It's a sick, sick culture.It was a resolution to oppose the bds movement and its leader.
The BDS movement isn't just some human rights group trying to help out homeless palestinians. They oppose a two state solution and their single state solution is just a crafty way of getting rid of any jewish authority. IIRC their proposal was something like all descendants of palestinians and palestinian refugees would be granted automatic citizenship but the same rule did not apply to displaced jews and descendants. I don't remember the exact details, but it was just a roundabout way of giving them a majority and I don't think anybody really doubts what they would do next.
Abba Eban, Israel’s legendary foreign minister, used to say that the Palestinians never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.Thanks for the information. I do know what a one-state solution means, and I also asked ren about "right of return" because neither generally passes the pro-Zionist smell test. And I certainly have no doubt about what they'd do next. This is a culture that hides serious weapons under elementary schools and then run for the camera when their children get bombed. It's a sick, sick culture.
By the way, I'm not Jewish.This sort of stuff irritates the most agnostic among us.
Yeah, I just watched all of it too. I don't see how anyone could come away with the impression she was attacking Jewish people with her rhetoric. The "wicked Jews" line is a pretty outlandish read on her actual beliefs.I just watched the speech. She didn’t say Israel was like Nazi Germany. And she definitely didn’t say anything that leads me to believe that she can’t distinguish between the state of Israel and the Jewish people. Here’s the speech:
https://youtu.be/iG4lD_kfQYk
Start at 2:11 or so to hear the quote in context.
I’m pretty sure you have me on ignore but I want to post that I agree with the majority of this.Again, Israel and its people are afforded human dignity and victimhood- a sense of empathy and kinmanship. Palestinians meanwhile appear to be characterized as apes who are animated only by the need to "destroy" Israel, deserve to be bombed to the stone age again and again, and somehow to blame for the military occupation that runs their lives. The notion of the "diseased Arab mind" has a comfortable home in the American conscience.
American Evangelicals support Israel more fervently than American Jews. It's bizarre.IMO it has a lot to do with religion...which shouldn’t have place in US foreign policy. Period.
Christian fundamentalists (like my evangelical brother who has been to Israel twice in the last 4 years) will defend Israel and her policies no matter what. Why? The Holy Land is better off in the hands of Jews than Muslims.
The "only democracy" card stops working when you ban members of Congress from visiting your country because you don't like their criticism. And the Nobel Peace Prize became worthless the day Kissinger won it.I think the fact that Israel is the only democracy in the region is cause for sympathies lying with them, too. I mean, it should be easy to have looked at someone like Arafat and his deeds and refrained from offering him a Peace Prize. Who was next? Hamas?
Well done.And the Nobel Peace Prize became worthless the day Kissinger won it.
I guess we're having a no true Scottsman kind of discussion here, but I don't view the party of Trump and his ardent supporters as actual conservatives. They're regressives. It's a regressive party now, not a conservative one. The regressives have always been there, and maybe the old Republican party had been their best match, but up until W. they weren't totally running the show as they are now. There are actual conservatives out there, looking for a political party to call home.
One could make an argument that that description is politically loaded and inaccurate: From bdsmovement.org, another take:Thanks for the information. I do know what a one-state solution means, and I also asked ren about "right of return" because neither generally passes the pro-Zionist smell test. And I certainly have no doubt about what they'd do next. This is a culture that hides serious weapons under elementary schools and then run for the camera when their children get bombed. It's a sick, sick culture.
By the way, I'm not Jewish.This sort of stuff irritates the most agnostic among us.
no Palestinian — rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian — will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.One could make an argument that that description is politically loaded and inaccurate: From bdsmovement.org, another take:
The BDS movement aims to pressure Israel to respect international law by:
1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
International law recognises the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Syrian Golan Heights as occupied by Israel.
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality.
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.
These are three basic rights without which the Palestinian people cannot exercise its inalienable right to self-determination.
The BDS movement does not advocate for a particular solution to the conflict and does not call for either a “one state solution” or a “two state solution”. Instead, BDS focuses on the realization of basic rights and the implementation of international law.
Oh, good lord jesus.no Palestinian — rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian — will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.
A thread running through these statements is that Trump shows he’s an “ally to the Jewish community at home” by making pro-Israel foreign policy moves. American Jews have their own interests, incl. addressing the growing violence against their community that Trump has inspired.
Being an ally to the American Jewish community, I’d argue, requires most of all a commitment to the community’s ability to live and worship safely in America in places like Pittsburgh and Poway. Every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree and no one shall make him afraid.
Rockaction was asking for facts and you provided opinion, as you are also doing here.no Palestinian — rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian — will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.
Ah, the no true Palestinian argument. Surely that will sway people with its logic!no Palestinian — rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian — will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.
You know, I've read most of these articles and I just don't agree. I've listened to Trump's comment about a dozen times now, and it seems pretty simple to me- he's saying that:For those who are curious about just why Trump's "disloyal" comments are anti-Semitic and abhorrent, lemme see if I can help:
The most basic fact that he is publicly insulting millions of Americans he is supposed to be leading- something Hillary Clinton ("deplorables") and Barack Obama ("clinging to guns and religion") got into huge trouble for when they did it privately, when they were not the President of the United States. If either of those things upset you, this is obviously substantially worse.
For further detail about why it's specifically anti-Semitic in addition to just being generally obnoxious, there are no shortage of articles out there explaining it. Here's Dalia Lithwick, Jennifer Rubin and Zack Beauchamp, all of whom are Jewish. But I thought these tweets put it pretty well if for some reason you don't have 5 minutes to read an article. In response to a tortured defense of the comments from a Trump spokesperson, Luppen writes:
It's a complicated issue but if you want to boil it down to it's essence, there it is.
You know, I've read most of these articles and I just don't agree. I've listened to Trump's comment about a dozen times now, and it seems pretty simple to me- he's saying that:
1. Tlaib and Omar are the new face of the Democratic Party.
2. Therefore, the Democratic Party is now anti-Israel.
3. Jews should be loyal to Israel.
4. Therefore, Jews who vote for Democrats are either ignorant or being disloyal to Israel.
It's a pretty simple (and stupid) argument. I don't agree with any of it. But people are creating stuff that isn't there. It's not anti-Semitic, it's not about dual loyalty, its not a dog whistle to white nationalists. It's really nothing beyond the 4 points I just listed.
I can't say it any clearer than the articles do. All I can do is point out that you are in disagreement with virtually every Jewish organization worth a damn in America, from the American Jewish Committee to ADL to J Street to Bend the Arc and all points in between. Here's the Times of Israel and the Jerusalem Post summarizing the near-universal outrage from the Jewish community.You know, I've read most of these articles and I just don't agree. I've listened to Trump's comment about a dozen times now, and it seems pretty simple to me- he's saying that:
1. Tlaib and Omar are the new face of the Democratic Party.
2. Therefore, the Democratic Party is now anti-Israel.
3. Jews should be loyal to Israel.
4. Therefore, Jews who vote for Democrats are either ignorant or being disloyal to Israel.
It's a pretty simple (and stupid) argument. I don't agree with any of it. But people are creating stuff that isn't there. It's not anti-Semitic, it's not about dual loyalty, its not a dog whistle to white nationalists. It's really nothing beyond the 4 points I just listed.
I understand this perspective 100%, but I disagree. It gives Trump WAY more credit for self awareness and knowledge of a particular subject than he has EVER displayed. I am confident he doesn't know that Jews have been oppressed with this loyalty junk for centuries. This is nuance he doesn't even have about his own family much less a different culture. I understand why people would take it as anti-semetic...I get it. I just don't think he's smart enough to mean it that way (if that makes sense)...FFS, I don't think his own son-in-law even gets it. I could be wrong though.For those who are curious about just why Trump's "disloyal" comments are anti-Semitic and abhorrent, lemme see if I can help:
The most basic fact that he is publicly insulting millions of Americans he is supposed to be leading- something Hillary Clinton ("deplorables") and Barack Obama ("clinging to guns and religion") got into huge trouble for when they did it privately, when they were not the President of the United States. If either of those things upset you, this is obviously substantially worse.
For further detail about why it's specifically anti-Semitic in addition to just being generally obnoxious, there are no shortage of articles out there explaining it. Here's Dalia Lithwick, Jennifer Rubin and Zack Beauchamp, all of whom are Jewish. But I thought these tweets put it pretty well if for some reason you don't have 5 minutes to read an article. In response to a tortured defense of the comments from a Trump spokesperson, Luppen writes:
A thread running through these statements is that Trump shows he’s an “ally to the Jewish community at home” by making pro-Israel foreign policy moves. American Jews have their own interests, incl. addressing the growing violence against their community that Trump has inspired.
Being an ally to the American Jewish community, I’d argue, requires most of all a commitment to the community’s ability to live and worship safely in America in places like Pittsburgh and Poway. Every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree and no one shall make him afraid.
It's a complicated issue but if you want to boil it down to it's essence, there it is.
This would have been a reasonable interpretation yesterday. But as I pointed out there's been plenty said or written about it already, and he hasn't apologized or clarified despite calls to do so from nearly every Jewish political organization in America. In fact he doubled down.I understand this perspective 100%, but I disagree. It gives Trump WAY more credit for self awareness and knowledge of a particular subject than he has EVER displayed. I am confident he doesn't know that Jews have been oppressed with this loyalty junk for centuries. This is nuance he doesn't even have about his own family much less a different culture. I understand why people would take it as anti-semetic...I get it. I just don't think he's smart enough to mean it that way (if that makes sense)...FFS, I don't think his own son-in-law even gets it. I could be wrong though.
I'm not sure it matters whether he knew that the "disloyal" moniker was an anti-semetic trope or not.I understand this perspective 100%, but I disagree. It gives Trump WAY more credit for self awareness and knowledge of a particular subject than he has EVER displayed. I am confident he doesn't know that Jews have been oppressed with this loyalty junk for centuries. This is nuance he doesn't even have about his own family much less a different culture. I understand why people would take it as anti-semetic...I get it. I just don't think he's smart enough to mean it that way (if that makes sense)...FFS, I don't think his own son-in-law even gets it. I could be wrong though.
With his outrageous comment in the Oval Office, Trump implied something for which he excoriated Omar earlier this year: the concept of American Jews holding dual national loyalty. In fact, by suggesting that Jewish Americans should have primary loyalty to Israel above the United States, what he said was actually worse. By saying that we show “great disloyalty” by voting for a party that includes members critical of Israeli policies towards Palestine, Trump is saying that we’re disloyal – not to him or the Republicans – but to Israel, which he considers to be our true homeland.
In reality, the political alliance between Trump and Netanyahu is hugely damaging to the US-Israel relationship and the long term future of Israel. Trump’s assumption that voting for him helps Israel is hugely flawed. But regardless, his remark is a classic antisemitic trope. In 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, of which the United States is a part of, agreed on a working definition of antisemitism, along with illustrative bullet points of contemporary examples. One reads: “Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.” This is even listed on the State Department website.
Agree 100%I'm not sure it matters whether he knew that the "disloyal" moniker was an anti-semetic trope or not.
He consistently treats/views entire ethnic or racial groups as a monolith, which in an of itself is a form of racism or bigotry.
That was a quote from the leader of the BDS movement.Rockaction was asking for facts and you provided opinion, as you are also doing here.
Here's the full quote:That was a quote from the leader of the BDS movement.
This is a very curious statement. Almost every state in the Middle East is a Muslim state- explicitly written into their constitution or governing document. How many of these do BDS oppose?Here's the full quote:
A Jewish state in Palestine in any shape or form cannot but contravene the basic rights of the land's indigenous Palestinian population and perpetuate a system of racial discrimination that ought to be opposed categorically. As we would oppose a Muslim state or a Christian state, or any kind of exclusionary state, definitely, most definitely we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. No Palestinian — rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian — would ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.
That's a lot different than just the sentence out of context. I wish people would stop doing that.Here's the full quote:
A Jewish state in Palestine in any shape or form cannot but contravene the basic rights of the land's indigenous Palestinian population and perpetuate a system of racial discrimination that ought to be opposed categorically. As we would oppose a Muslim state or a Christian state, or any kind of exclusionary state, definitely, most definitely we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. No Palestinian — rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian — would ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.
IMO, its actually a lot worse.That's a lot different than just the sentence out of context. I wish people would stop doing that.