“The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people," the ADL’s statement quotes Ellison as saying at the time. “A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes.”
Meh. Seems like quite a stretch to paint those comments as “disqualifying.” Seems like the point he is making is that if Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans of Middle Eastern ancestry want political clout, they will have to “get involved” in politics. Which, of course, is true.
“Rep. Ellison’s remarks are both deeply disturbing and disqualifying. His words imply that U.S. foreign policy is based on religiously or national origin-based special interests rather than simply on America’s best interests,” the statement reads.
Wait, so his crime is not doing a good enough job of pretending that religion and nationality have nothing to do with U.S. Foreign Policy, including (but not limited to) in the Middle East, and that all decisions are based on America’s best interests and never at all on special interests? Puh-lease!
"Additionally, whether intentional or not, his words raise the specter of age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of our government…
With the “intentional or not” thrown in there, that same argument can be (and it seems like it often is) made against pretty much anyone who raises any issues about the power of the Israel lobby. So is Israel the one country that we are not allowed to express any concerns about, since in doing so we might unintentionally “raise the specter of age-old stereotypes?” I’m pretty darn sensitive to the ridiculous “Jewish Cabal running the world” nonsense, but this seems like, in effect, a prohibition on pretty much any criticism of Israeli influence in American politics, including such things as the Israeli PM coming to Congress, not invited by the President, to attack the Iran nuke deal. If I criticize that, am I “raising the specter of age-old stereotypes?”
This all seems pretty darn weak, especially in light of this:
“We spoke with leadership in the Jewish community in Minnesota who confirmed what ADL and other national organizations have seen: that Keith Ellison is a man of good character,” Greenblatt’s previous statement on his candidacy read. “We have seen him through his work in Congress as an important ally in the fight against anti-Semitism and for civil rights."
I think the ADL is really barking up the wrong tree on this one. And ironically, I think they’re actually the ones “raising the specter of age-old stereotypes” in a very inappropriate and counterproductive way.
Meanwhile, as the ADL passes judgement on Keith Ellison as supposedly “disqualified” from running the DNC because of this rather mild statement, I would like to know if the ADL has loudly and clearly declared Trump disqualified for the presidency? Trump, who has (to put it quite charitably) played footsie with the anti-Semitic “alt-right” crowd – even going so far as to name Steven Fucking Bannon one of his closest advisors – has the ADL declared that he is unfit to hold office?
Because if they are applying a different standard to Ellison – who happens to be first Muslim-American elected to Congress, and who would be (I assume) the first Muslim-American head of the DNC – doesn’t the ADL run the risk of “raising the specter” of an “age-old stereotype” of Muslims being untrustworthy and dangerous, and aren’t they reinforcing the idea that it is acceptable to make such assumptions based on the scantest of evidence?
This all seems very ill-advised, for a whole host of reasons.