Discussion: Schumer Groups Omar’s Comments With Trump’s Praise Of Neo-Nazi Protesters In AIPAC Speech

[cervantes]

I dunno…seems to me I qualified everything sufficiently enough to make it clear I was speculating on motivations. It’s hard to say a speculation has holes in it, isn’t it? Since it’s not intended as a statement of fact, I mean.

Well, I’m sure you agree that speculation can be well-founded or not. Take it from me: I’ve engaged in both kinds!

Anyhow, my previous comment was unduly terse so I’ll add a little. You wrote:

The fact that some Jewish people of his age don’t react the same way doesn’t change anything about what I said about his apparent blind spot.

And as I said in response, I agree; but beyond that: Given that many people, including Holocaust survivors, don’t have the same “blind spot,” I’m not prepared to let Schumer off as lightly as he might prefer. For example, it’s not acceptable for him to keep excusing (never mind using my money to pay for) butchery in Gaza just because he has a “blind spot,” even if he finds said “blind spot” to be convenient.

He knows what criticisms are leveled against him. Have you seen him engage said criticisms?

 

@tena

[tena]

Why did you bring me up? I have mostly stayed out of this entire situation starting with Omar’s statements.

[cervantes]

Because you are one of two people who indicated interest in and approval of @ozma’s previous comment.

(I’m the other one.)

[tena]

You are checking on what comments I like?

ok.

[cervantes]

You are checking on what comments I like?

No, but on who might have been interested in the discussion.

Clearer now?

[sharonsj]

I’ve read her tweets and comments and they absolutely are anti-Semitic–especially the one saying that pro-Israel activists and lawmakers have an “allegiance to a foreign country.” Dual loyalties is a common anti-Semitic trope.
Anyone not understanding that has never read a history book.

[cervantes]

Anyone not understanding that has never read a history book.

What about historians who disagree with you? Have they also never read a history book?

[tpr]

It’s a good thing for Chuck Schumer that I live in Omar’s district instead of his. I tolerate him as a necessary evil, but I would gladly ditch the Senator From Wall Street for any other Dem.

[ozma]

I don’t think you understood me if you’re saying I said - or even just implied - that Schumers statement about Omar was “acceptable” - or that some of his actions vis a vis Israel are acceptable. I tried to make it clear that his statements were definitely not acceptable. Because some people don’t react the same way - even Holocaust survivors - doesn’t mean that his own reaction cannot be understood in the context of Nazi atrocities in WWII, as well as centuries of pogroms and genuine anti-semitism. Believe me, I’ve spoken out against many things he’s said and done over the years, but in trying to make sense of the I-P conflict, I’m trying to understand the understandable emotional reactions to real events on both sides.

[cervantes]

I don’t think you understood me if you’re saying I said - or even just implied - that Schumers statement about Omar was “acceptable” - or that some of his actions vis a vis Israel are acceptable.[/quote]

Wasn’t referring to you there at all. Thanks for checking.

 

I tried to make it clear that his statements were definitely not acceptable. Because some people don’t react the same way - even Holocaust survivors - doesn’t mean that his own reaction cannot be understood in the context of Nazi atrocities in WWII.

What I’m arguing is something like the following: Many people who survived Nazi atrocities in WWII, and many of their descendants, and many other people of goodwill, nevertheless oppose Israeli atrocities perpetrated on others … so what’s Schumer’s excuse?

Does this re-statement help?

 

[quote]Believe me, I’ve spoken out against many things he’s said and done over the years, but in trying to make sense of the I-P conflict, I’m trying to understand the understandable emotional reactions to real events on both sides.

Fair enough.

[ajm]

There is a difference between an intent to protect Israel and an intent to protect Israel at the expense of the United States.

[philmore]

How well did that argument work in 2000? How well did that argument work for Black America?

[cervantes]

Omar, AOC, Warren, Sanders and their caucus should form a separate party as long as the corporatists like Schumer are playing against the interests of our bottom 90%.

The Sanders case aside, why do you think the others you list have not left the Democratic Party? Are they fools? Or sell-outs? Or hopeless optimists? Or … ?

[cervantes]

There is a difference between an intent to protect Israel and an intent to protect Israel at the expense of the United States.

I’d be thrilled if you were to offer an example of each!

[az11]

Well, Pelosi has reacted to Omars antisemitic rants quickly and decisively. I’m sure the Speaker would like nothing more than for Omar to STFU

[philmore]

Yet another example of Chuck Schumer’s Latest Profile in Cowardice, and when Chuck won the last time - his cynical, cowardly slimy last-minute opposition to the Iran Treaty, Josh got it right at the time: Chuck abdicated the right to be Minority Leader. Chuck coulda been a contenda, instead of the bum he’s become. He showed so much promise as a Congressman and then croaking Al D’Amato for the Senate. But at every turn he sold his soul to the Likud devil.

Chuck Schumer up compared to Nancy Pelosi is like Kenny G. going up against John Coltrane. Nancy is my leader.

I have had to hold my nose to vote for him as I did in '16 but enough. Will somebody (and not a clownish Cynthia Nixon - but I repeat myself - type) please primary this one-time contenda and now a bum?

[woland66]

Before even discussing plausibility of your hypotheticals: they all assume an agreement with your specific definition of what is and what is not detrimental to the USA interests. It also requires to assume that any support for Israel is detrimental to the USA interests. This may well be your position. But this is not a reasonable position.

Even if one were to agree with all of your hypotheticals, the actions based one’s personal benefits, career, greed may be deplorable but they are distinct and different from loyalty to Israel over the USA.

[woland66]

Would that historian be David Irving?

[cervantes]

Would that historian be David Irving?

Right, the only “historian” who could possibly reject your incoherence is David Irving.

At this point I don’t even have to invite you to keep digging, do I?

[woland66]

David Irving would be one of very few historians supporting your claim that accusation of dual loyalty is not an anti-Semitic trope.
But as expected, I’m impressed by a long list of historians not named David Irving that you provided.