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

You replied to my post. The exchange on the same topic between two of us continued for several posts. So “we” was a conversation between you and myself. I suspect you do have an ability to follow the conversation, so this is just dishonesty on your part.

Of course!

Keep digging.

There is another option, of course: you really could not follow the conversation between two of us.
Still, I would bet that your “kemosabe” post came from inability to give a substantive and honest answer rather than any mental deficiency.

You need to criticize on the basis of what the actions are. You seem to be more interested in judging what you see as the motivations for the actions.

1 Like

I hate to tell you this, I really do, but there are yet other options …

Senator Schumer provided that rationale in the video I linked to you, himself. He declared himself a protector of Israel, and that he would use his post in the US Senate to do so. And he makes it pretty unequivocally.

Its kind of difficult to take such a comment as meaning anything other than he fully intends to use his US government post to loyally support and protect Israel.

Now personally, I don’t hate Schumer like many do ( I just think he is a pretty weak Senate leader for many reasons, none of which have to do with his support of Israel). But Schumer is probably not the guy you want to make your larger argument based upon.

How does this relate to what Schumer said in the clip?

The goalpost did not move. A pro-Israel action may harm USA but it would not indicate that the person has loyalty to Israel if that person had no knowledge that the action would hard USA. On the other hand, a pro-Israel action may not be harmful to USA but it would still indicate a loyalty to Israel if the person believed it was going to be harmful to USA and undertook the action nevertheless.

Strong arguments can be made along those lines. Based on those arguments one can criticize and oppose Schumer. But none of the above indicates Schumer’s loyalty to Israel unless he himself agreed with those arguments and still undertook his actions.
You can’t make a plausible claim that Schumer himself agrees with the above arguments.

@woland has specifically moved the goalposts in his argument to be about his motivations…ie, what Schumer “believes”. So that means attempting to address motive.

I already addressed several of his legislative actions and public announcements (included repeatedly at AIPAC).

Because you are now retreating into “its impossible to know a man’s heart” argument. Despite evidence of him declaring his view of himself as a guardian and protector of Israel, and his intentions to continue to use his post in the US Senate to do just that.

After all, he might just be saying things like that to play to the crowd before him, right? And not really mean it.

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?

 

@tena

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?

Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available