So what’s plan b? Bibi is indicted,and every American assigned to Israel was aligned with Bibi.
Did anyone else have a “WTF???” reaction to Josh’s editorial last night about Ilhan Omar? He’s claiming now that it’s antisemitic to suggest political allegiances exist between the U.S. and Israel because obviously that means (((Jews))). Seriously, What? The entire neocon right has a political allegiance to Israel. The evangelical right has a political allegiance to Israel. But when Ilhan Omar uses the word “allegiance” she’s being anti-semitic?
Dark-skinned Muslims: You’re on notice. The only words you’re allowed to use are “the, a, but, and maybe”?
I think, the headline is wrong, it is the consulate, not Adelsson’s embassy, which closes…
Plan B same as Plan A. Scream “antisemetic” at anyone who questions this.
I’ll see your WTF??? and raise you a pair of eyerolls.
Until both Netanyahu and Trump leave office in disgrace, the Palestinians are screwed. Once a Democrat is president (I hope in January, 2021), there will be a strong incentive to reach a peace deal to wipe the stain of Trump and Netanyahu away.
Not really. He is very explicit that it’s ok to make that criticism.
However, he is pointing out the obvious fact that due to historical anti-semitism, the language around that criticism needs to be careful. It’s easy to fall into centuries old anti-Semitic tropes while criticizing AIPAC and one needs to be aware of those so they don’t make those mistakes.
Rep. Omar, unfortunately, seems wholly unaware of those tropes, so even though her intentions aren’t anti-Semitic, she ends up using language that has historically been used in an anti-Semitic manner.
I call gone-over-the-cliff ridiculous when you can’t use the word allegiance. The historical outrage here should be directed not at words but at the fact that Palestinians were forcibly ousted from their homes and are persecuted to this day as Israel continues its policy of apartheid and oppression.
Continues it to the deafening sound…not of words, but of the silence of its primary ally – the U.S. Literally ANY criticism of Israel, of Zionism, or of Zionist apartheid’s fellow travelers is instantly quashed in this country by shouts of antisemitism. Allegiance is what this is, and if we can’t call a thing what it is, we’ve entered the world of fascism.
Seems to me that criticism of Israel is often heard with a sensitivity to bigotry built up (appropriately) from millenia of marginalization and oppression. Trouble is, in the Palestine-Israel situation, the Palestinians are the ones being crushed, and Israel is the crusher. So when I hear Josh fretting about the word “allegiance”, I think, “I’m far less concerned about the discomfort this triggers in you than I am the generations of Palestinians growing up in poverty, violence, and hopelessness at the hands of a rich, powerful American client state.”
So you’re unhappy that when it’s pointed out that a certain word carries a bunch of historical baggage, and that you’re unable to use that word without it carrying that baggage?
I mean you yourself have described the issue just fine without using the word with the baggage, so why is avoiding using a word that does carry a lot of historical baggage so wrong?
The whole point of saying or writing words is to communicate. When you use certain words, allegiance in this case, they communicate a lot more than you intend, due to the historical baggage around them. A reasonable listener would advise you to either avoid using that word, because it obscures your intent, or miscommunicates what you are trying to say, or alternatively, assume you actually do intend to communicate that baggage.
Edit: This is the equivalent of complaining that someone would accuse me of being a Trump supporter if I unironically used the phrase “Make America Great Again” in today’s day and age. “What do you mean, I’m not even allowed to say that we should make America great? That’s ridiculous.”
Wait, you mean Kushner is not gonna be our world peace lord and savior?
George Soros made a subtle and (IMO) insightful comment on this:
“Anti-Semitism predates the birth of Israel. Neither Israel’s policies nor the critics of those policies should be held responsible for anti-Semitism. At the same time, I do believe that attitudes toward Israel are influenced by Israel’s policies, and attitudes toward the Jewish community are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby’s success in suppressing divergent views.”
This may seem unfair if one is caught in the middle, but the corollary to Soros’ point is that anyone who’s legitimately concerned about antisemitism needs, themselves, to be careful about attacking others too readily with that label in the context of criticisms about Israeli policies because that may be counterproductive.
I question whether even a hypersensitive opinion writer would have gone after Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi had one of them tweeted what Omar did. I think there would be more willingness to assume goodwill. A question I have is whether there’s less willingness to assume goodwill when the speaker is a dark-skinned Muslim woman wearing hijab.
I actually think “allegiance” is a pretty appropriate word. Google’s dictionary defines it as “loyalty or commitment of a subordinate to a superior or of an individual to a group or cause.” Synonyms are “loyalty, faithfulness, fidelity, obedience, fealty, adherence, homage, devotion, bond.” These seem like appropriate words to describe the unquestioning political support Israel gets from some Americans. I wouldn’t use “fealty.”
I sure did and am glad I’m not alone. He’s normally one of the most rational voices around on the whole topic of Israel and the Palestinians, but he makes it sound as if Omar is falling into anti-Semitic tropes over and over, when the only thing I think that even remotely qualifies is the “all about the Benjamins” tweet. Did you read that Omar was attacked for evidently “smiling furtively” at the town hall when somebody yelled in affirmation of the Benjamins tweet? For God’s sake, Israel is effectively annexing East Jerusalem and the West Bank, with FULL American support in the form of the current administration, and we’re obsessed with scrutinizing this solitary U.S. representative’s every word and facial expression to make sure she’s not slipping into anything resembling an anti-Semitic trope? When Trump and crew are SURROUNDED by anti-Semitic enablers (and at the same time, rightwing evangelical crazies who are driving U.S. policy on Israel and the Palestinians)? Yeah, WTF indeed. I think the bigger problem is that the media and political punditry aren’t used to having an uninhibited critic of said policy serving in Congress (and she’s a Muslim woman, to boot–double whammy!). So the emphasis Josh is giving with the blog post seems to me profoundly misplaced.
I agree with you completely, socalista. Josh’s blog post unwittingly buys into the very mentality that you describe, though I know that’s not his actual stance on the issues of which we’re speaking. Part of breaking that control of discourse is refusing to play by its rules; we’ll never change the conversation by being obsessively concerned with policing our side for the least hint of alleged anti-Semitism. People on the right say HORRIBLE things about the Palestinians and Muslims all the time and rarely get taken to task for it. I’m not saying that it’s OK to lower ourselves to that standard, not at all. But enough with the Omar-bashing from our side of the fence. The true outrage and injustice here is what’s being done to the Palestinians. Bravo to her for raising awareness of it.
No, I described a different “issue”. Omar was describing the political pressure she finds herself under as a member of Congress. That’s completely different.
Seriously though, “baggage”? The word allegiance is antisemitic??? If Pelosi used the word allegiance would you think her antisemitic too? Somehow I doubt it…
The word allegiance is no more antisemitic than the word great is Trumpism.
But in certain contexts, yes, there can be connotations to certain words that imply more than just the dictionary meaning of a word.
In fact, I was unaware of the anti-Semitic connotations of the word until Josh’s article. My response has been to accept my limited knowledge and listen and learn from that. Especially when, as you demonstrated in your post, or @newrobotoverlord pointed out in their post, there are a bunch of synonyms which convey the same message and wouldn’t carry the baggage the world allegiance would, in this specific context.
I really don’t see how Ilhan Omar tweeting,
I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress.
… can be read as the age-old, anti-Semtic canard that the American Jewish Community supports Israel to the detriment of its allegiance to the US, as described below by Josh.
The American Jewish community’s support for Israel has had a decisive impact on US foreign policy toward Israel going back decades. Anyone with the vaguest acquaintance with recent American history knows this.
Does that mean then that conservative white evangelical Christians are just as, if not more, disloyal to the US because
… it is equally true that the anchor of unequivocal US policy support for Israel today and specifically the Israeli right is far more anchored among conservative white evangelical Christians than it is among Jews[?]
An article that simply asserts this word is somehow antisemitic. Sorry but that’s just circular reasoning.
You an American citizen, I presume, had no reason to think this was a loaded word, yet you jump instantly to criticism of a person whose first language is not even English and who came here as a teen based on nothing more than the say-so of a person who offers not a single shred of evidence beyond his say-so that she’s being antisemitic.
In contrast, I’m highly skeptical of this claim that it’s a loaded word and wonder if what’s at play here is America’s deep-seated fear of Muslims. It takes a conscious effort of will to move beyond that deeply-ingrained distrust, and I wonder if that step got skipped here.
Consider that allegiance is a word that would have been hammered into Omar by her instructors as she underwent the strenuous process of becoming a U.S. citizen. As a Congressional representative, her oath of office would have re-inforced that word. Now, she’s being told that, if she hopes to continue serving in Congress, her pledged allegiance to the United States must take a back seat to the wishes of the Israeli lobby. Allegiance to AIPAC trumps allegiance to the United States, she hears…and tweets her disagreement. It’s pretty much ridiculous to insist that she learn to pledge allegiance to her new country then never again use that word because it’s “loaded” even though no one else knows that - including you.