Personally, I agree with at least some of the arguments about damaging long term effects on US that you made in another post (I actually think those actions are also harmful to Israel’s long term interests). However, there is no evidence that Schumer (and some others, Jews and non-Jews alike) acted in Israel’s interests with belief that his actions were damaging to USA.
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.
2 Likes
The accusation of dual loyalty is about motivations behind the actions. To prove the accusation you need evidence of both the actions and the motivations. It is you who move the goalposts when you use specific actions you disagree with as the evidence of dual loyalty.
Did you figure out what “we” was referring to? If so – get back to me when you have a substantive answer to the questions in the relevant post.
That requires one to assume that Schumer didn’t engage in the the thought process of considering the short term and long term impact of these moves. That they were simply reflexive actions on his part. I don’t believe there is any serious argument that engaging in such a process would result in saying “Yes, this action will help US interests!”. And whatever his faults, I don’t think Schumer is a profoundly stupid man.
I DO think that he calculated that each of these moves would be seen favorable by groups like AIPAC and others. So that moves us into a position where he is taking action based on garnering favor with a specific lobbying group…which in this case has a long history of pushing for hard line Israeli support. Now all politicians do such calculations in response to a wide range of special interests. But it leaves us with Schumer making this calculation…“This probably really isn’t a great idea of US foreign policy, but its going to be very good for my continued support from AIPAC, so I’ll do it”.
This of course can’t be proved, but it seems a very likely calculation that occurred. Which gets us closer to determining the “nature of a man’s heart”.
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?
Why did you bring me up? I have mostly stayed out of this entire situation starting with Omar’s statements.
2 Likes
Because you are one of two people who indicated interest in and approval of @ozma’s previous comment.
(I’m the other one.)
You are checking on what comments I like?
ok.
4 Likes
No, but on who might have been interested in the discussion.
Clearer now?
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.
3 Likes
What about historians who disagree with you? Have they also never read a history book?
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.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
Fair enough.
1 Like
There is a difference between an intent to protect Israel and an intent to protect Israel at the expense of the United States.
1 Like
How well did that argument work in 2000? How well did that argument work for Black America?
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 … ?
I’d be thrilled if you were to offer an example of each!
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