Skip to main content

Not every critique of Israel is anti-Semitic

Freshman Representative Ilhan Omar has come under scrutiny for a pair of tweets she posted over the weekend. Members of both parties have called her messages "anti-Semitic," to which she's now apologized. Delving deeper into the matter, though, were her posts actually anti-Semitic? I don't think they were and think politicians need to do a better job of looking at sensitive matters like anti-Semitism with nuance and not a black-and-white mentality.

Rep. Omar's first tweet came in response to the following Glenn Greenwald post:

"GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy threatens punishment for @IlhanMN and @RashidaTlaib over their criticisms of Israel. It's stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans."

Ms. Omar responded with, "It's all about the Benjamins baby"

When asked about who she was referring to, Omar said, "AIPAC!" (American Israel Public Affairs Committee)

Critics on both sides of the aisle then came after the freshman congresswoman, even House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who said Representative Omar had "deployed anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel's supporters." The "trope" in question is with regard to the age-old stereotype regarding Jews and money.

The definition of anti-Semitism is "hostility to or prejudice against Jews."

A majority of politicians, especially of the Democratic persuasion, often decry lobbyists, saying we need to get big money out of politics and we have to reverse the Citizen's United Supreme Court ruling. This is largely due to the influence big money has on politicians and their decision-making while in Congress. So how then is decrying an Israeli lobbyist for having undue influence on politicians anti-Semitic? It's anti-lobbyist if a politician calls out the National Rifle Association but anti-Semitic if they call out AIPAC? That's not consistent, and with that, not logically sound.

Calling Rep. Omar's comments "anti-Semitic" is an act of Richard Simmons spandex, it's such a stretch. She called out a lobbyist for essentially buying the support of some politicians, decrying their undue influence on said politicians' decision-making. Oh, but since this was an Israeli lobbyist and Jews have historically been stereotyped regarding their money habits, it's apparently anti-Semitic. Ms. Omar's tweets had nothing to do with Judaism; it had to do with lobbying. When Donald Trump comes after Muslims due to their religion, it's a prime example of xenophobia. If he happened to criticize a single individual for assault and battery and this person happened to be Muslim, however, then that's not xenophobic. Not every criticism of Israel constitutes as anti-Semitism and we need to stop painting every such critique with the broadest of brushes. When a foreigner criticizes an American policy, this doesn't make them anti-American. If they criticize our leader, that doesn't make them anti-American. No person, country, or religion is perfect and to suggest otherwise is simply delusional and ignorant. Prejudging without all the necessary information is one thing. Striving for improvements after acquiring said information is quite another. What Ilhan Omar tweeted today was not anti-Semitic. It was anti-lobbyist; and members of both parties need to get their hands out of the pockets of these lobbyists in order to see more clearly, represent all their constituents, and be able to criticize fellow Congresspeople regarding such matters without coming across as complete and total hypocrites.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/ilhan-omar-israel-twitter-controversy-democrats-bds.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...