anti-Semitic remark by Congresswoman

[Ten oz]

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar recently made an anti-Semitic remark on Twitter, Link. In response to a tweet critical of pro-Israeli positions among various U.S. Politicians she posted "it's all about the Benjamins baby". The association between Jewish people and money is a well known hateful trope. 

Should there be consequences for this, if so what should they be and if not why not? 

 

[zapatos]

I missed the anti-Semitic part. Was it simply the reference to money? If so I don't really understand it as I often hear people criticized for being influenced by money, whether it has to do with taxes, guns, regulations, or any other issues before congress. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

56 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar recently made an anti-Semitic remark on Twitter, Link. In response to a tweet critical of pro-Israeli positions among various U.S. Politicians she posted "it's all about the Benjamins baby". The association between Jewish people and money is a well known hateful trope. 

Should there be consequences for this, if so what should they be and if not why not? 

 

Political yes. Legal no.

[MigL]

I am and have been a staunch supporter of Israel and Jewish culture, and have had many disagreements over it, with other members on this forum.

However, in this case, I'm gonna have to disagree with you, Ten oz ( again ).

I don't know the context of I Omar's post, but given what you've posted, it could simply be a variation of the old adage
"money is the root of all evil"
And a remark about lobbyists is suddenly anti-Semitic.
She realized that her tweet was offensive to some, and has apologized. But to call her tweet anti-Semitic or racist is a stretch that doesn't quite get there. I don't see a need for any further 'consequences'.

 

( is this going to turn into another "stupid woman" thread ? )

[zapatos]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

I am and have been a staunch supporter of Israel and Jewish culture, and have had many disagreements over it, with other members on this forum.

However, in this case, I'm gonna have to disagree with you, Ten oz ( again ).

I don't know the context of I Omar's post, but given what you've posted, it could simply be a variation of the old adage
"money is the root of all evil"
And a remark about lobbyists is suddenly anti-Semitic.
She realized that her tweet was offensive to some, and has apologized. But to call her tweet anti-Semitic or racist is a stretch that doesn't quite get there. I don't see a need for any further 'consequences'.

 

( is this going to turn into another "stupid woman" thread ? )

And in my mind that should be the end of the story.

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

However, in this case, I'm gonna have to disagree with you, Ten oz ( again ).

He asked a question. With what specifically are you disagreeing?

Is it this?

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar recently made an anti-Semitic remark on Twitter

 

[MigL]

I just like to disagree with Ten oz, INow.

No, seriously, I assumed he meant there SHOULD be further consequences.
My bad.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar recently made an anti-Semitic remark on Twitter, Link. In response to a tweet critical of pro-Israeli positions among various U.S. Politicians she posted "it's all about the Benjamins baby". The association between Jewish people and money is a well known hateful trope. 

Should there be consequences for this, if so what should they be and if not why not? 

 

You should have written: "I think/they think  Ilhan Omar made an anti-Semitic remark" i.e. your opinion or someone elses... or some variation of that. I think this storm-in-a-thimble is a case of anti-Semitic paranoia.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

is this going to turn into another "stupid woman" thread 

Doubtful. Instead of lying about what happened like a spineless turd, she apologized. 

39 minutes ago, MigL said:

My bad.

No worries. Thx for clarifying

[DrP]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Doubtful. Instead of lying about what happened like a spineless turd, she apologized. 

And how do you draw the conclusion that he lied?  He still stands by the fact he did not say it - it would have been more spineless if he'd changed his tact and said he'd lied when he didn't. You shouldn't convict a man for what he didn't say - I believe in your country, as in ours, you are innocent until proven guilty...  not guilty if 50% of experts say so to further their political agenda.

I haven't read the link.  What did she say that was supposedly antisemitic?

 

[Ten oz]

7 hours ago, StringJunky said:

You should have written: "I think/they think  Ilhan Omar made an anti-Semitic remark" i.e. your opinion or someone elses... or some variation of that. I think this storm-in-a-thimble is a case of anti-Semitic paranoia.

She has already apologized for the post. I used the same type of language she used in her apology. Omar acknowledge the history and used "anti-Semitic Tropes" to describe  her own post. I did not render an opinion in the OP. I explained what she said and used her own words to describe the context of what she said. 

Quote

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., said she apologized "unequivocally" following a joint statement released by House Democratic leaders calling on her to do so.

"Anti-Semitism is real," Omar tweeted Monday afternoon, "and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes." Link

 

 

2 hours ago, DrP said:

- I believe in your country, as in ours, you are innocent until proven guilty...  not guilty if 50% of experts say so to further their political agenda.

This is the legal standard for the govt to prosecute. It is not a catch-all for every manner of disagreement. When my wife and I argue about the placement of the toilet seat envoking innocence until proven guilty would just be a good way to guarantee I'll be sleeping on the couch. 

[DrP]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

When my wife and I argue about the placement of the toilet seat envoking innocence until proven guilty would just be a good way to guarantee I'll be sleeping on the couch. 

9 hours ago, iNow said:

like a spineless turd

I think it is more spineless to apologise and to concede an opinion that you don't believe in, just to keep the peace, rather than stand and hold to your position and debate what you believe in... as long as you are willing to change your opinion when presented with the right evidence to show you that you were wrong of course...

... perhaps this is why I am now still single.    

 

[dimreepr]

This is why 23-hour news is a bad idea.    

[iNow]

37 minutes ago, DrP said:

I think it is more spineless to apologise and to concede an opinion that you don't believe in, just to keep the peace, rather than stand and hold to your position and debate what you believe in... as long as you are willing to change your opinion when presented with the right evidence to show you that you were wrong of course.

I hear ya, I really do, I just don't think it applies in this particular case.

She offended some people. Perhaps unintentionally, but she did. She made a comment that seemed to play on old tropes and stereotypes. It's also not the first time it's happened with her. It didn't happen in a vacuum, but was reminiscent of something she said before.

Given this, I applaud her apologizing, even if the insult people felt was accidental. I think it was the right thing to do, and specifically allows us to continue that bigger more important discussion you mention about principles. By apologizing, we stamp out the embers instead of letting the fire continue to burn.

Also, I feel your mention of principles in this circumstance is a bit peripheral here (that is, of course, unless the principle you're advocating she spend time defending somehow relates to Jewish people being money-hungrier and greedier than any of the rest of us).

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, DrP said:

I think it is more spineless to apologise and to concede an opinion that you don't believe in, just to keep the peace, rather than stand and hold to your position and debate what you believe in... as long as you are willing to change your opinion when presented with the right evidence to show you that you were wrong of course...

... perhaps this is why I am now still single.    

 

As that applies to this thread are you implying Omar's apology was disingenuous?

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

As that applies to this thread are you implying Omar's apology was disingenuous?

Her wording was certainly appropriate. It is reasonable to accept it at face value, but with caution. I think time will tell.

[Ten oz]

59 minutes ago, iNow said:

Given this, I applaud her apologizing, even if the insult people felt was accidental. I think it was the right thing to do, and specifically allows us to continue that bigger more important discussion you mention about principles. By apologizing, we stamp out the embers instead of letting the fire continue to burn.

I agree. From claiming Jewish people control Hollywood to owning all the Banks there is a lot of anti semitism prevalent in society. Globally there are Nationalist groups and Religious Extremists who actively seeking to harm Jewish people. So in my opinion it was important Omar acknowledge the trope associated with her comment and apologize. The comment may have been (I give her the benefit of  the doubt) about influence of lobbyist in general but give the history of Jewish persecution the remark was still insensitive. 

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Her wording was certainly appropriate. It is reasonable to accept it at face value, but with caution. I think time will tell.

Right, Omar will receive far more scrutiny moving forward regarding any number of things related to Israel and Jewish communities in general. 

[zapatos]

23 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I agree. From claiming Jewish people control Hollywood to owning all the Banks there is a lot of anti semitism prevalent in society. Globally there are Nationalist groups and Religious Extremists who actively seeking to harm Jewish people. So in my opinion it was important Omar acknowledge the trope associated with her comment and apologize. The comment may have been (I give her the benefit of  the doubt) about influence of lobbyist in general but give the history of Jewish persecution the remark was still insensitive. 

 

I really am a bit confused. Didn't she simply make the claim that some were being influenced by money that came from Jewish sources? The same can be said about people being influenced by money that comes from gun manufacturing sources, etc. Is pointing out that the money comes from pro-Jewish sources unacceptable, even if true?

[DrP]

37 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

As that applies to this thread are you implying Omar's apology was disingenuous?

no - I think you should grow a pair and man up to your missus enough to tell her to grow up about the fucking toilet seat and get into the enlightened modern times of equality. She needs to get her priorities straight if leaving the toilet seat up leaves you sleeping on the couch.  I wouldn't be sleeping on the couch.   

I was also talking about Corbyn as it was bought up by someone else and it is similar to this thread.  The difference is that whether or not what Corbyn said was a) sexist anyway, b) even said at all as he still denies it, compared to this one - which did say the words, admitted they were offensive and apologised. This makes her out to be far worse because she1) actually caused offence rather than feigned outrage for political point scoring. 2) obviously held the view even though she apologised because she actually said it (so must have held those views).

wrt Omar  -  if she said what she said then back tracked with an apology (I'll take your word for it that it was anti-Semitic - I still haven't analysed the comment) then she sounds like the type of person that will say whatever they think their target audience want to hear and then just let out her opinions in private to people she trusts in her own echo bubble. They do that you know - there aren't many who actually CLAIM to be racist or Nazis. I would prefer they talk about it openly and are proved wrong by facts... but they get such a bollocking for wanting to discuss their obnoxious views in public (which, being fair, were probably taught to them) so they take their views private and it comes out in the ballots.

Just now, zapatos said:

I really am a bit confused. Didn't she simply make the claim that some were being influenced by money that came from Jewish sources? The same can be said about people being influenced by money that comes from gun manufacturing sources, etc. Is pointing out that the money comes from pro-Jewish sources unacceptable, even if true?

Now I am confused   -  what did she say?   I was taking TenOz's word that it was an anti semitic remark. Criticising Israeli policy or suggesting people do not take bribes from the Israeli's is obviously not anti-Semitic. Was it anti-Semitic even then? If it wasn't then she shouldn't have apologised as it makes her look wishy washy and easily bullied into backtracking what she has said based on whoever shouts at her the loudest.

 

[zapatos]

She suggested that some in Congress were pro-Israel simply because of the donations they receive.

[DrP]

13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

She suggested that some in Congress were pro-Israel simply because of the donations they receive.

There must be more than that...  TenOz wouldn't have called her anti-Semitic for that surely?  

Good on her then for speaking out against bribery and corruption then... shame on her for the apology and not defending what she believes in.  I am sure I can't be getting all of the story though.

14 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Omar recently made an anti-Semitic remark

So - TenOz   -  what did she say that was anti-Semitic in YOUR opinion?  Are you sure she isn't just the target of the corrupt people she was challenging that played the anti-Semitic card to distract from her claims? I assume you saw something that WAS anti-Semitic in there otherwise you wouldn't have claimed it so.  (I don't seem to be able to open the link here at work wither).

 

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, DrP said:

There must be more than that...  TenOz wouldn't have called her anti-Semitic for that surely?  

Good on her then for speaking out against bribery and corruption then... shame on her for the apology and not defending what she believes in.  I am sure I can't be getting all of the story though.

So - TenOz   -  what did she say that was anti-Semitic in YOUR opinion?  Are you sure she isn't just the target of the corrupt people she was challenging that played the anti-Semitic card to distract from her claims? I assume you saw something that WAS anti-Semitic in there otherwise you wouldn't have claimed it so.  (I don't seem to be able to open the link here at work wither).

 

Anything you say that casts any form of doubt on Israelis is taken by them as anti-Semitic and their active supporters, by default. I'm getting deja vu.  

Edited February 12, 2019 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

45 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I really am a bit confused. Didn't she simply make the claim that some were being influenced by money that came from Jewish sources? The same can be said about people being influenced by money that comes from gun manufacturing sources, etc. Is pointing out that the money comes from pro-Jewish sources unacceptable, even if true?

Unfortunately we live in a world where violent anti semantic hate groups do exist. Those groups do propagate conspiracies about Jewish influence over govts and industry. Because of that it is important for public figures to make a clear differentiation between their criticisms of Israeli or Jewish entities and the hateful propaganda out there. Hate groups will attempt to use loose remarks, regardless of the intent, to justify their own extreme positions. Consider the way White Nationalist celebrated Trump's response to Charlottesville. Failing to pointedly Condemn the white nationalists specifically and instead choosing to blame "both sides" enabled white nationalist to claim Trump supported them. Things like that can be powerful propaganda tools. So public figures need to be mindful of their language. One simply cannot casually disparage the way Jewish affiliated groups use money as they might other groups. There is significantly subtext involved with regards to Jewish communities. 

*Let's not forget they were chanting "Jews will not replace us" in Charlottesville. 

3 minutes ago, DrP said:

 

So - TenOz   -  what did she say that was anti-Semitic in YOUR opinion?  Are you sure she isn't just the target of the corrupt people she was challenging that played the anti-Semitic card to distract from her claims? I assume you saw something that WAS anti-Semitic in there otherwise you wouldn't have claimed it so.  (I don't seem to be able to open the link here at work wither).

 

Omar already apologized and in her apology acknowledge the anti-Semitic trope. If you are unclear with what was wrong about her comment I recommend reading her apology, Link. As for my opinion about what she said it is contained in the above reply to Zapatos. 

23 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Anything you say that casts any form of doubt on Israelis is taken by them as anti-Semitic and their active supporters, by default. I'm getting deja vu.  

Israeli can be criticized. However simplifying that criticism down to "it is all about the Benjamins" is insensitive considering the numerous financial  related tropes and history of Jewish people. One should avoid potentially playing into existing biases or conspiracies when criticizing Israel. 

[nymnpseudo]

Arabic people are Semites .. so it was NOT anti-Semitic comment.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people   https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/who-are-the-semites/  That that one simple basic fact is missing from so many highly educated peoples' cultural and historial education is the result of media brainwashing only.  It was clearly a remark about Israel economic interests influencing U.S. industrial military economic direction .. not anti Semitism.

The anti-Jewishness of much of the world has been obvious throughout the diaspora .. Jews and Gypsies being mass murdered OFTEN in EVERY European nation (and in England whether it is part of Europe or not is debatable) throughout modern history.  Immediately prior to WW2 an unknown number of thousands of Refugee Jews were turned back to Germany by all those same nations including Canada and the U.S.  

When severe economic conditions destroy law enforcement in the U.S. (close to it now) murder of Jews will begin .. they being promoted AGAIN as the reason behind all problems, chiefly economic.  The U.S. will almost certainly join a military invasion of Israel, for both political facade similar to the election of Obama as President, military position, and to avoid military conflict with nations wanting the economic supremacy of Israel business to end.  At present, the U.S. is ruled by Israel interests by agreement because the U.S. benefits from oil stolen from the supposed 'enemies of Israel.'   

3 hours ago, iNow said:

She offended some people. Perhaps unintentionally, but she did. She made a comment that seemed to play on old tropes and stereotypes. It's also not the first time it's happened with her. It didn't happen in a vacuum, but was reminiscent of something she said before.

 

Her comment was made out to be anti-Semitism by the media and her political enemies.  Her apology should not have been made.  Her comment spoke to Israel influence on U.S. commercial military direction, NOT anything to do with Semites.  Jews are NOT the only Semites in the middle east, in fact they are probably the LEAST of the Semites.  https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/who-are-the-semites/

Edited February 12, 2019 by nymnpseudo

[Sensei]

16 hours ago, Ten oz said:

The association between Jewish people and money is a well known hateful trope.  

You can not change the history..

 

"The Torah and Talmud encourage lending money without interest. But the halakha (Jewish law) that prescribes interest-free loans applies only to loans made to other Jews. Jewish law allows making loans with interest to persons who are not Jewish.[3]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_and_interest_in_Judaism

 

"Economically, Jews played a key role in the country. The Church then strictly forbade the lending of money for profit, creating a vacuum in the economy of Europe that Jews filled because of extreme discrimination in every other economic area. Canon law was not considered applicable to Jews, and Judaism does not forbid loans with interest between Jews and non-Jews.[5] Taking advantage of their unique status as his direct subjects, the King could appropriate Jewish assets in the form of taxation. He levied heavy taxes on Jews at will, without having to summon Parliament.[6]"

"The reputation of Jews as extortionate money-lenders arose, which made them extremely unpopular with both the Church and the general public. While an anti-Jewish attitude was widespread in Europe, medieval England was particularly anti-Jewish."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Expulsion

(read between the lines: English kings by heavy taxation forced Jews to usury)

 

More about the subject at hand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Europe

 

Edited February 12, 2019 by Sensei