Israel and West Bank Settlements

[wahoomurf]

And all you intellectuals can rationalize it.

HMMM. The above comment posted by 72-inch kindling is thought-provoking. I thought 72's GOD ordered his acolytes to condemn the FREE PRESS as the Enemy of The People. 72's valiant break with the Trump doctrine opens up a new investigative option for examining why the Liberal Congress, dating back to January 2017, thwarted EVERY one of the moral, financial and diplomatic imperatives of the COOO. For shame!

People who read, write and think, are dangerous. Is it a coincidence that 91% of "intellectuals" are JEWS ?

Glory and honor to 72 for opening my eyes.

[jhu72]

When historians get around to naming our era, it will be known as the Victim Age.

… more than a small probability

[6ftstick]

And all you intellectuals can rationalize it.

HMMM. The above comment posted by 72-inch kindling is thought-provoking. I thought 72's GOD ordered his acolytes to condemn the FREE PRESS as the Enemy of The People. 72's valiant break with the Trump doctrine opens up a new investigative option for examining why the Liberal Congress, dating back to January 2017, thwarted EVERY one of the moral, financial and diplomatic imperatives of the COOO. For shame!

People who read, write and think, are dangerous. Is it a coincidence that 91% of "intellectuals" are JEWS ?

Glory and honor to 72 for opening my eyes.

So its the personal attacks first rather than the rationalization.

Only progressives read write and think?

[MDlaxfan76]

So Ilhan Omar is being accused of anti-Semitism for saying that U.S. pro-Israel advocates are pushing for “allegiance to a foreign country.” and “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.".

Sorry, but this is not anti-Semitic. The fact that politicians think it is, just makes Omar's point. She makes no statement referencing a race, a culture or an individual. She is criticizing a nation state that arguably deserves some criticism.

would possibly buy your hunk of junk nonsense......if she threw some criticism towards Palistine and some of their fun clubs. Hamas is good dip.

She is not being accused of supporting any of those organizations. She is being accused of making anti-Semitic statements in congress. -- which is nonsense.

Nonsense according to you.

But considering the history and persecution of the Jewish people, particularly in Germany, Omar's comments were especially hurtful.

The Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling on her to hold a vote on a resolution rejecting what he said were Omar’s anti-Semitic statements.

“Accusing Jews of having allegiance to a foreign government has long been a vile anti-Semitic slur that has been used to harass, marginalize, and persecute the Jewish people for centuries," Greenblatt wrote. "Sometimes referred to as the 'dual loyalty' charge, it alleges that Jews should be suspected of being disloyal neighbors or citizens because their true allegiance is to their co-religionists around the world or to a secret and immoral Jewish agenda."

Read it all here:
https://www.adl.org/media/12606/download

Hurtful is not anti-Semitic. She wasn't accusing Jews of having allegiance to a foreign government. She was accusing those people who blindly support Israel of having an allegiance to a foreign government. The accusation a bit hyperbolic, but not anti-Semitic. Those who support Israel blindly are more Christian than Jewish. The Jews I know, and live with, and celebrate holidays with are not blind to what Israel is / has become.

The holocaust was a terrible event in our history. It should illicit sympathy from and be an object lesson for all. It however does not give second and third generation descendants the right to eternal victimhood status nor a pass in treating others as their ancestors have been treated.

72, at the risk of being flat wrong about what she said and what she meant, let me just say that at a minimum she was insensitive to how such accusations of 'allegiance to Israel' have frequently been the hateful, bigoted claims of the most overtly anti- Semitic groups here in the US and in Europe.

The very worst anti-Semites have sought to appear to be simply challenging the degree of influence in our national policy of support for the State of Israel. Likewise those who are less overtly anti-Semitic.

But it's all of apiece with tropes of Jewish money, power and international conspiracy. And these tropes go back many centuries, supported by Christian bigots who have interpreted a few passages of the New Testament, particularly parts of John, to justify their bigotry and competition with, and/or jealousy of, the rise of the educated, merchant class, especially those who did not tithe to the Church.

These beliefs, taught from the pulpit, have been the underpinnings of catastrophic evil acts. Repeatedly through history, not simply in one country or one era. I don't think that awful, repeated history justifies giving anyone a 'pass' to do evil upon others, but it does justify vigilance against the reemergence of anti-Semitism, and I'd argue, also ample justification for a protected Jewish homeland.

Her bringing her own religion into the picture, with its own fraught history, certainly doesn't help explain away this misstep as just a challenge to prior policy orthodoxy. It instead gives rise to the questions of how religion can (it doesn't have to) be used to justify bigotry and violence.

Critique of the Netanyahu gov't's policies is indeed not necessarily anti-Semitic; lots of your and my Jewish-American friends are certainly quite critical. This does not mean that they do not support Israel, nor more specifically Israel as a Jewish state. They do. (Of course some orthodox Jews don't support current Zionism at all, based on their own religious interpretations, but that's a small minority of the greater Jewish diaspora, much less the bulk of American Jews.)

But it's a very, very tricky area to navigate without falling into anti-Semitic tropes.

I hope that she finds a path to indeed represent a diversity of view, including full-throated support for the dignity of Palestinians, without succumbing to using anti-Semitic tropes that feed the hate of the worst bigots.

Challenging!

[MDlaxfan76]

The controversy regarding a rookie congressperson's recent comments about JUDAISM and/or ZIONISM, (I ain't sure which topic is inciting such anger) is redolent of a comment made in 2015 by one of the 17 Republican candidates for the Presidency of the United States. That individual wanted to ban all Muslims from coming into America. He was a political novice, as is Ms. Omar.

Should both be given a pass for their naivete or condemned for saying something that may be considered insensitive and hateful

Sadly, religion, ethnicity, and country of origin continue to be flashpoints that will NEVER go away.

I highly recommend Sigmund Freud's "Civilization and It's Discontents". Both insightful and timely.

I think that republican you're referring to was interested in restricting immigration from war torn Muslim countries unable to document who a refugee was, where they were from or their political leanings. Only 5 countries. Of course thats not a reasonable precaution is it.

Come on 6ft. I'm calling BS on this one.
You know darn well that Trump did not want to be restricted to 5 countries.

He repeatedly said ALL Muslims. So did a bunch of his acolytes, several of whom had a long history of conflating Islam with violence in the most crassly, bigoted hateful ways.

Applauded by the worst bigots.

He only mediated that position after losing in court.

Of course, the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia and anyone else important to the Trump business interests would have been provided a pass...just not the refugees and anyone who couldn't buy access.

[6ftstick]

The controversy regarding a rookie congressperson's recent comments about JUDAISM and/or ZIONISM, (I ain't sure which topic is inciting such anger) is redolent of a comment made in 2015 by one of the 17 Republican candidates for the Presidency of the United States. That individual wanted to ban all Muslims from coming into America. He was a political novice, as is Ms. Omar.

Should both be given a pass for their naivete or condemned for saying something that may be considered insensitive and hateful

Sadly, religion, ethnicity, and country of origin continue to be flashpoints that will NEVER go away.

I highly recommend Sigmund Freud's "Civilization and It's Discontents". Both insightful and timely.

I think that republican you're referring to was interested in restricting immigration from war torn Muslim countries unable to document who a refugee was, where they were from or their political leanings. Only 5 countries. Of course thats not a reasonable precaution is it.

Come on 6ft. I'm calling BS on this one.
You know darn well that Trump did not want to be restricted to 5 countries.

He repeatedly said ALL Muslims. So did a bunch of his acolytes, several of whom had a long history of conflating Islam with violence in the most crassly, bigoted hateful ways.

Applauded by the worst bigots.

He only mediated that position after losing in court.

Of course, the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia and anyone else important to the Trump business interests would have been provided a pass...just not the refugees and anyone who couldn't buy access.

Didn't happen.Never ALL MUSLIMS.

Executive Order 13769, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, often referred to as the Muslim ban[1] or the travel ban, was an executive order by United States President Donald Trump. Except for the extent to which it was blocked by various courts, it was in effect from January 27, 2017, until March 16, 2017, when it was superseded by Executive Order 13780. Executive Order 13769 lowered the number of refugees to be admitted into the United States in 2017 to 50,000, suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days, suspended the entry of Syrian refugees indefinitely, directed some cabinet secretaries to suspend entry of those whose countries do not meet adjudication standards under U.S. immigration law for 90 days, and included exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Homeland Security lists these countries as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.[2] More than 700 travelers were detained, and up to 60,000 visas were "provisionally revoked".[3]

[tech37]

72, at the risk of being flat wrong about what she said and what she meant, let me just say that at a minimum she was insensitive to how such accusations of 'allegiance to Israel' have frequently been the hateful, bigoted claims of the most overtly anti- Semitic groups here in the US and in Europe.

The very worst anti-Semites have sought to appear to be simply challenging the degree of influence in our national policy of support for the State of Israel. Likewise those who are less overtly anti-Semitic.

But it's all of apiece with tropes of Jewish money, power and international conspiracy. And these tropes go back many centuries, supported by Christian bigots who have interpreted a few passages of the New Testament, particularly parts of John, to justify their bigotry and competition with, and/or jealousy of, the rise of the educated, merchant class, especially those who did not tithe to the Church.

These beliefs, taught from the pulpit, have been the underpinnings of catastrophic evil acts. Repeatedly through history, not simply in one country or one era. I don't think that awful, repeated history justifies giving anyone a 'pass' to do evil upon others, but it does justify vigilance against the reemergence of anti-Semitism, and I'd argue, also ample justification for a protected Jewish homeland.

Her bringing her own religion into the picture, with its own fraught history, certainly doesn't help explain away this misstep as just a challenge to prior policy orthodoxy. It instead gives rise to the questions of how religion can (it doesn't have to) be used to justify bigotry and violence.

Critique of the Netanyahu gov't's policies is indeed not necessarily anti-Semitic; lots of your and my Jewish-American friends are certainly quite critical. This does not mean that they do not support Israel, nor more specifically Israel as a Jewish state. They do. (Of course some orthodox Jews don't support current Zionism at all, based on their own religious interpretations, but that's a small minority of the greater Jewish diaspora, much less the bulk of American Jews.)

But it's a very, very tricky area to navigate without falling into anti-Semitic tropes.

I hope that she finds a path to indeed represent a diversity of view, including full-throated support for the dignity of Palestinians, without succumbing to using anti-Semitic tropes that feed the hate of the worst bigots.

Challenging!

Challenging? Let's not tip toe around the issue...you certainly don't in other cases. The woman is an anti-Semitic racist. She gave the obligatory apology but then continued. She should be removed from the HFA Committee post haste.

[RedFromMI]

The controversy regarding a rookie congressperson's recent comments about JUDAISM and/or ZIONISM, (I ain't sure which topic is inciting such anger) is redolent of a comment made in 2015 by one of the 17 Republican candidates for the Presidency of the United States. That individual wanted to ban all Muslims from coming into America. He was a political novice, as is Ms. Omar.

Should both be given a pass for their naivete or condemned for saying something that may be considered insensitive and hateful

Sadly, religion, ethnicity, and country of origin continue to be flashpoints that will NEVER go away.

I highly recommend Sigmund Freud's "Civilization and It's Discontents". Both insightful and timely.

I think that republican you're referring to was interested in restricting immigration from war torn Muslim countries unable to document who a refugee was, where they were from or their political leanings. Only 5 countries. Of course thats not a reasonable precaution is it.

Come on 6ft. I'm calling BS on this one.
You know darn well that Trump did not want to be restricted to 5 countries.

He repeatedly said ALL Muslims. So did a bunch of his acolytes, several of whom had a long history of conflating Islam with violence in the most crassly, bigoted hateful ways.

Applauded by the worst bigots.

He only mediated that position after losing in court.

Of course, the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia and anyone else important to the Trump business interests would have been provided a pass...just not the refugees and anyone who couldn't buy access.

Didn't happen.Never ALL MUSLIMS.

Executive Order 13769, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, often referred to as the Muslim ban[1] or the travel ban, was an executive order by United States President Donald Trump. Except for the extent to which it was blocked by various courts, it was in effect from January 27, 2017, until March 16, 2017, when it was superseded by Executive Order 13780. Executive Order 13769 lowered the number of refugees to be admitted into the United States in 2017 to 50,000, suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days, suspended the entry of Syrian refugees indefinitely, directed some cabinet secretaries to suspend entry of those whose countries do not meet adjudication standards under U.S. immigration law for 90 days, and included exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Homeland Security lists these countries as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.[2] More than 700 travelers were detained, and up to 60,000 visas were "provisionally revoked".[3]

But the idea of ALL Muslims was part of the campaign. They limited it to just a few countries when they realized that even the conservative Supreme Court probably would not be able to approve the ALL Muslim ban.

[foreverlax]

White Supremacist Propaganda At 'Record-Setting' Levels, ADL Report Finds

Flyers like this, posted across the country by American neo-Nazi and white supremacist group, Identity Evropa, are popping up far more than they used to. According to a new report by the Anti-Defamation League, white supremacy propaganda increased by 182 percent in 2018 compared to the year before.

Identity Evropa — designated as a white nationalist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center — focuses on encouraging white people to embrace their shared racial identity. According to the ADL, Identity Evropa is the group that popularized the white supremacist slogan, "You will not replace us," chanted during the rally in Charlottesville.

[foreverlax]

Critique of the Netanyahu gov't's policies is indeed not necessarily anti-Semitic; lots of your and my Jewish-American friends are certainly quite critical. This does not mean that they do not support Israel, nor more specifically Israel as a Jewish state. They do. (Of course some orthodox Jews don't support current Zionism at all, based on their own religious interpretations, but that's a small minority of the greater Jewish diaspora, much less the bulk of American Jews.)

But it's a very, very tricky area to navigate without falling into anti-Semitic tropes.

+1

[jhu72]

So Ilhan Omar is being accused of anti-Semitism for saying that U.S. pro-Israel advocates are pushing for “allegiance to a foreign country.” and “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.".

Sorry, but this is not anti-Semitic. The fact that politicians think it is, just makes Omar's point. She makes no statement referencing a race, a culture or an individual. She is criticizing a nation state that arguably deserves some criticism.

would possibly buy your hunk of junk nonsense......if she threw some criticism towards Palistine and some of their fun clubs. Hamas is good dip.

She is not being accused of supporting any of those organizations. She is being accused of making anti-Semitic statements in congress. -- which is nonsense.

Nonsense according to you.

But considering the history and persecution of the Jewish people, particularly in Germany, Omar's comments were especially hurtful.

The Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling on her to hold a vote on a resolution rejecting what he said were Omar’s anti-Semitic statements.

“Accusing Jews of having allegiance to a foreign government has long been a vile anti-Semitic slur that has been used to harass, marginalize, and persecute the Jewish people for centuries," Greenblatt wrote. "Sometimes referred to as the 'dual loyalty' charge, it alleges that Jews should be suspected of being disloyal neighbors or citizens because their true allegiance is to their co-religionists around the world or to a secret and immoral Jewish agenda."

Read it all here:
https://www.adl.org/media/12606/download

Hurtful is not anti-Semitic. She wasn't accusing Jews of having allegiance to a foreign government. She was accusing those people who blindly support Israel of having an allegiance to a foreign government. The accusation a bit hyperbolic, but not anti-Semitic. Those who support Israel blindly are more Christian than Jewish. The Jews I know, and live with, and celebrate holidays with are not blind to what Israel is / has become.

The holocaust was a terrible event in our history. It should illicit sympathy from and be an object lesson for all. It however does not give second and third generation descendants the right to eternal victimhood status nor a pass in treating others as their ancestors have been treated.

72, at the risk of being flat wrong about what she said and what she meant, let me just say that at a minimum she was insensitive to how such accusations of 'allegiance to Israel' have frequently been the hateful, bigoted claims of the most overtly anti- Semitic groups here in the US and in Europe.

The very worst anti-Semites have sought to appear to be simply challenging the degree of influence in our national policy of support for the State of Israel. Likewise those who are less overtly anti-Semitic.

But it's all of apiece with tropes of Jewish money, power and international conspiracy. And these tropes go back many centuries, supported by Christian bigots who have interpreted a few passages of the New Testament, particularly parts of John, to justify their bigotry and competition with, and/or jealousy of, the rise of the educated, merchant class, especially those who did not tithe to the Church.

These beliefs, taught from the pulpit, have been the underpinnings of catastrophic evil acts. Repeatedly through history, not simply in one country or one era. I don't think that awful, repeated history justifies giving anyone a 'pass' to do evil upon others, but it does justify vigilance against the reemergence of anti-Semitism, and I'd argue, also ample justification for a protected Jewish homeland.

Her bringing her own religion into the picture, with its own fraught history, certainly doesn't help explain away this misstep as just a challenge to prior policy orthodoxy. It instead gives rise to the questions of how religion can (it doesn't have to) be used to justify bigotry and violence.

Critique of the Netanyahu gov't's policies is indeed not necessarily anti-Semitic; lots of your and my Jewish-American friends are certainly quite critical. This does not mean that they do not support Israel, nor more specifically Israel as a Jewish state. They do. (Of course some orthodox Jews don't support current Zionism at all, based on their own religious interpretations, but that's a small minority of the greater Jewish diaspora, much less the bulk of American Jews.)

But it's a very, very tricky area to navigate without falling into anti-Semitic tropes.

I hope that she finds a path to indeed represent a diversity of view, including full-throated support for the dignity of Palestinians, without succumbing to using anti-Semitic tropes that feed the hate of the worst bigots.

Challenging!

No question she tip-toed along the line. No question she was intent on being confrontational / controversial. Perhaps she is an anti-Semite in her heart, you just can't prove it by her words in this instance. She is accused / condemned, in my opinion, largely for reason of her own culture, her own ethnicity, and most loudly by those who stand on their own bigoted ground. Her point that those who support Israel, that pro-Israel lobby, not a single organization, but the collective; have an outsized sway in the U.S. Congress was made elegantly by this incident. So elegantly that the point is probably lost on those most in need of understanding it, although it is unlikely in my mind they are capable of understanding in any case.

[MDlaxfan76]

72, at the risk of being flat wrong about what she said and what she meant, let me just say that at a minimum she was insensitive to how such accusations of 'allegiance to Israel' have frequently been the hateful, bigoted claims of the most overtly anti- Semitic groups here in the US and in Europe.

The very worst anti-Semites have sought to appear to be simply challenging the degree of influence in our national policy of support for the State of Israel. Likewise those who are less overtly anti-Semitic.

But it's all of apiece with tropes of Jewish money, power and international conspiracy. And these tropes go back many centuries, supported by Christian bigots who have interpreted a few passages of the New Testament, particularly parts of John, to justify their bigotry and competition with, and/or jealousy of, the rise of the educated, merchant class, especially those who did not tithe to the Church.

These beliefs, taught from the pulpit, have been the underpinnings of catastrophic evil acts. Repeatedly through history, not simply in one country or one era. I don't think that awful, repeated history justifies giving anyone a 'pass' to do evil upon others, but it does justify vigilance against the reemergence of anti-Semitism, and I'd argue, also ample justification for a protected Jewish homeland.

Her bringing her own religion into the picture, with its own fraught history, certainly doesn't help explain away this misstep as just a challenge to prior policy orthodoxy. It instead gives rise to the questions of how religion can (it doesn't have to) be used to justify bigotry and violence.

Critique of the Netanyahu gov't's policies is indeed not necessarily anti-Semitic; lots of your and my Jewish-American friends are certainly quite critical. This does not mean that they do not support Israel, nor more specifically Israel as a Jewish state. They do. (Of course some orthodox Jews don't support current Zionism at all, based on their own religious interpretations, but that's a small minority of the greater Jewish diaspora, much less the bulk of American Jews.)

But it's a very, very tricky area to navigate without falling into anti-Semitic tropes.

I hope that she finds a path to indeed represent a diversity of view, including full-throated support for the dignity of Palestinians, without succumbing to using anti-Semitic tropes that feed the hate of the worst bigots.

Challenging!

Challenging? Let's not tip toe around the issue...you certainly don't in other cases. The woman is an anti-Semitic racist. She gave the obligatory apology but then continued. She should be removed from the HFA Committee post haste.

You could well be right on this one, tech37.
I just don't have enough facts (yet) about her character (nor do you) to reach that definitive judgment.

But I sure as heck would be sitting with her to really evaluate how she sees Jews, whether she understands how her words play into those tropes, etc. If she's resolutely bigoted, I quite agree that the Dems can't afford that within their party. If she's willing to learn and grow, I'd give her some time to do so, though on probation.

But, please tech37, do you feel as strongly about anti-Semites and/or other racists... within the GOP?
I do. As a Republican, the racism in our party is enormously embarrassing. It's despicable and needs to be called out.

[youthathletics]

Hurtful is not anti-Semitic.

Do you apply that same sentiment with everyone, to include Trump? Be careful, you under Fan Lax Oath, with search functions.

[jhu72]

Hurtful is not anti-Semitic.

Do you apply that same sentiment with everyone, to include Trump? Be careful, you under Fan Lax Oath, with search functions.

Yes. I certainly understand that point, principle. Have I applied it consistently, I think so, but can't swear to it. If you feel I haven't, and your feel it is a good use of your time, you are free to use that search function in order to find some case which you believe is comparable, and I will gladly explain to you why it is not.

[foreverlax]

Adelson as the poster child for this variety of trope - considering how many 10s of millions he has given to politics, I do wonder who he puts first, the US or Israel...behind himself.

...he is no different than the rest of the .001%, Kochs, Soros etc

[wahoomurf]

And all you intellectuals can rationalize it.

HMMM. The above comment posted by 72-inch kindling is thought-provoking. I thought 72's GOD ordered his acolytes to condemn the FREE PRESS as the Enemy of The People. 72's valiant break with the Trump doctrine opens up a new investigative option for examining why the Liberal Congress, dating back to January 2017, thwarted EVERY one of the moral, financial and diplomatic imperatives of the COOO. For shame!

People who read, write and think, are dangerous. Is it a coincidence that 91% of "intellectuals" are JEWS ?

Glory and honor to 72 for opening my eyes.

So its the personal attacks first rather than the rationalization.

Only progressives read write and think?

I thought personal attacks were verboten? If not, ADIM should ban such calumny.

[MDlaxfan76]

Adelson as the poster child for this variety of trope - considering how many 10s of millions he has given to politics, I do wonder who he puts first, the US or Israel...behind himself.

...he is no different than the rest of the .001%, Kochs, Soros etc

It might be more fair to compare him with other billionaires, irrespective of their Jewish identity. They have a jumble of interests.

On the Israel view, I don't think the perspective of American Zionists, rich or poor, is seen to be in conflict with American interests. They believe that a strong, primarily secular Israel is in America's interest. And they believe that the enemies of Israel are threats to democracy and freedom of religion everywhere.

Right or wrong, they don't see it as putting Israel ahead of the US.

[tech37]

72, at the risk of being flat wrong about what she said and what she meant, let me just say that at a minimum she was insensitive to how such accusations of 'allegiance to Israel' have frequently been the hateful, bigoted claims of the most overtly anti- Semitic groups here in the US and in Europe.

The very worst anti-Semites have sought to appear to be simply challenging the degree of influence in our national policy of support for the State of Israel. Likewise those who are less overtly anti-Semitic.

But it's all of apiece with tropes of Jewish money, power and international conspiracy. And these tropes go back many centuries, supported by Christian bigots who have interpreted a few passages of the New Testament, particularly parts of John, to justify their bigotry and competition with, and/or jealousy of, the rise of the educated, merchant class, especially those who did not tithe to the Church.

These beliefs, taught from the pulpit, have been the underpinnings of catastrophic evil acts. Repeatedly through history, not simply in one country or one era. I don't think that awful, repeated history justifies giving anyone a 'pass' to do evil upon others, but it does justify vigilance against the reemergence of anti-Semitism, and I'd argue, also ample justification for a protected Jewish homeland.

Her bringing her own religion into the picture, with its own fraught history, certainly doesn't help explain away this misstep as just a challenge to prior policy orthodoxy. It instead gives rise to the questions of how religion can (it doesn't have to) be used to justify bigotry and violence.

Critique of the Netanyahu gov't's policies is indeed not necessarily anti-Semitic; lots of your and my Jewish-American friends are certainly quite critical. This does not mean that they do not support Israel, nor more specifically Israel as a Jewish state. They do. (Of course some orthodox Jews don't support current Zionism at all, based on their own religious interpretations, but that's a small minority of the greater Jewish diaspora, much less the bulk of American Jews.)

But it's a very, very tricky area to navigate without falling into anti-Semitic tropes.

I hope that she finds a path to indeed represent a diversity of view, including full-throated support for the dignity of Palestinians, without succumbing to using anti-Semitic tropes that feed the hate of the worst bigots.

Challenging!

Challenging? Let's not tip toe around the issue...you certainly don't in other cases. The woman is an anti-Semitic racist. She gave the obligatory apology but then continued. She should be removed from the HFA Committee post haste.

Thanks for the reply mdlax...I was afraid I may have lost you with the massage joke...

You could well be right on this one, tech37.
I just don't have enough facts (yet) about her character (nor do you) to reach that definitive judgment. What more do you need? I have seen and heard enough...IMO, no place for nuance with this one.

But I sure as heck would be sitting with her to really evaluate how she sees Jews, whether she understands how her words play into those tropes, etc. If she's resolutely bigoted, I quite agree that the Dems can't afford that within their party. If she's willing to learn and grow, I'd give her some time to do so, though on probation.

But, please tech37, do you feel as strongly about anti-Semites and/or other racists... within the GOP? Roger that...
I do. As a Republican, the racism in our party is enormously embarrassing. It's despicable and needs to be called out.

When the people who contrive regularly/conveniently to pull the "race card" (even when no racism exists) or use race as a political weapon are caught acting/speaking overtly racist, it needs to be called out louder than ever. Surely you agree with me there mdlax?

[jhu72]

Adelson as the poster child for this variety of trope - considering how many 10s of millions he has given to politics, I do wonder who he puts first, the US or Israel...behind himself.

...he is no different than the rest of the .001%, Kochs, Soros etc

That particular trope, that "Jews are money grubbing" (and the various corollaries) is one I have not thought about in a very very long time. It is certainly one you don't hear very much today - or at least I don't. It is certainly European and very old in its origin. It found its way to America, naturally, our ancestors brought it with them.

Did Omar really understand the hidden meaning, the allusion, of the thing she didn't say, but came dangerously close to saying? She was born and raised in Somalia and integrated into American society. Is this trope universal? Do you learn it even in Somalia? Did she bring it with her? I have my doubts. Was she even aware, or did she learn this in America?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Adelson as the poster child for this variety of trope - considering how many 10s of millions he has given to politics, I do wonder who he puts first, the US or Israel...behind himself.

...he is no different than the rest of the .001%, Kochs, Soros etc

That particular trope, that "Jews are money grubbing" (and the various corollaries) is one I have not thought about in a very very long time. It is certainly one you don't hear very much today - or at least I don't. It is certainly European and very old in its origin. It found its way to America, naturally, our ancestors brought it with them.

Did Omar really understand the hidden meaning, the allusion, of the thing she didn't say, but came dangerously close to saying? She was born and raised in Somalia and integrated into American society. Is this trope universal? Do you learn it even in Somalia? Did she bring it with her? I have my doubts. Was she even aware, or did she learn this in America?

What is funny is that I didn't know any Jewish stereotypes or tropes growing up.....I learned them in college.