Here’s an appropriate and strategic response to being offended. Then move on; life is really too short.
Well, Nancy, this is why we pay you the big bucks.
But seriously, is there a pro-Britain caucus? A pro-France caucus? Why the hell should there be a pro-Israel caucus?
Oh yeah, religion; but then there is that church-state separation thing, isn’t there?
Just drop it–Nancy and TPM alike. Let it die on the vine. Trump just tore up Reagan’s nuclear arms treaty with Russia in order to let Russia build weapons to threaten Europe. The country is going bankrupt. Babies are in cages. We have a national emergency that is itself a national emergency. Nothing is being done by Congress about climate change–nothing. Nobody will give a crap about this story in a week, nor should they. Dems need to stop wringing their hands, use the news torrent to their advantage, and move on. There is no fallout here.
Is there a pro-Britain caucus? Maybe not, but the Special Relationship obviates the need for one. The US and France have been allies for more than two centuries, except for a couple of years in the 1790s. And when Britain and France were threatened, we came to their aid (eventually). Not to mention the help in rebuilding after WWII.
There is a pro-Israel caucus (actually, I don’'t think there is one, formally), because Israel is threatened, and has been for more than 70 years. Not just by threats to nibble at its borders (although being such a small nation, it could hardly survive much nibbling), but to its every existence. Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran and al Qaeda all deny the right of Israel to be. And they show now sign of being squeamish about what happens to any Israeli who begs to differ.
I hold no brief for Israeli policy toward Palestinians over the past 20 years (although Israel did withdraw unconditionally from Gaza, only to be faced with a deadly enemy there), but disagreeing with policy is consistent with defending Israel’s right to exist.
The comments weren’t anti-Semitic, so if reality is a factor she should lay off.
Why not a resolution condemning anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and all bigotry based on religion, national identity or race? No, it won’t do much to change things, but where we are it’s better than nothing.
The idea that it’s perfectly OK to criticize the government of Israel but that people like Omar should be careful to avoid certain tropes long used by real anti-Semites is obviously both too subtle and too fraught for us to discuss as a society right now. We just don’t have the discourse tools finely calibrated enough to do it. It takes Obama-level skill to defuse a bomb like that, and Obama’s sitting this one out. I think @nemo’s right on this. Just drop it. Omar’s got the word, presumably. If you want to make a big resolution condemning something, condemn the right’s habit of characterizing every social program as lazy poors reaching into your hard-working pocket. That would be worth the trouble IMHO.
Read Tom Friedman in The Times yesterday to understand some necessary context.
Yes, but Omar got the word a couple of weeks ago, and does not seem to have learned to choose her words more carefully yet. I hope she does. it would be nice to see American Jews and Muslims (in Congress and out) joining to try to nudge some sense into the people in the Middle East. And elsewhere (like Europe in dealing with migrants).
At the risk of getting flamed
Omar needs to apologize for hurting and, offending Jewish people (if she has already done it, great). She needs to STOP using hurtful/offending tropes in her tweets against Israel (this is her 2nd strike) and, if she does it again then people need to acknowledge that’s she’s an anti-semite.
We can debate whether it was wise for the West to support the original establishment of Israel, but it is here now and there is no apparent way to make it go away without wholesale bloodshed. That said, Israel would not continue to exist without US economic, diplomatic and military support. Consequently, it is time for an American President to drag an Israeli Prime Minister and President over here and to lay down the law to them. Tell them they are going to cease their fucking fascist policies and get with working on a two state solution, or we ARE going to withdraw our support and let them fend for themselves. And FUCK Bibi; I hope he rots in prison.
There’s that word “trope” again.
Never a good idea, except for laughs.
That’ll be the day.
If it happens while I’m still above ground, I’ll buy you a drink.
One can dream… I’ll buy the second round…
Maybe, just maybe, we should let people speak. If we don’t like what they say, vote them out. This type of institutional censorship in the House is BS. I don’t want the Muslims or the Jews or the Christian nut heads agenda dominating things anymore than you. But, trying to shut down speech, in the “greatest deliberative body” is kind of contradictory, isn’t it?
You’re a terrorist.
I can tell.
You may be an anti-Semite, too. I’m not sure.
Â
It’s the US Senate that humbly calls itself “the greatest deliberative body” – which tells you exactly what the self-accolade is worth!
You’re right, and I do too. But there’s more than one way to hold her responsible, and maybe requiring every Democrat to vote condemnation is giving her more power than she deserves. She’s one member. She’s not entitled to any more influence than any one member, and could end up with no influence if her colleagues allow her none. There are a multitude of ways that other members can demonstrate disapproval and punish her without a divisive vote.
From a commentor named Warren .
“We should all be thanking the congresswoman for having the courage to bring this discussion to light. That is what we are supposed to do. Not cower in fear of yet another well-heeled PAC.”