SocraticGadfly: AIPAC (and AOC, Pelosi et al) vs. Ilhan Omar (updated)

March 05, 2019

AIPAC (and AOC, Pelosi et al) vs. Ilhan Omar (updated)



In early February, I was kind of saddened that Rep. Omar backed down on her "Benjamins" comment about AIPAC. It was NOT anti-Semitic. (David Bruce Collins notes that "Benjamins" COULD be understood that way. I suppose; my thought was rather that it was a question of whether Omar was talking about $100 bills or Netanyahu. Either would be correct, and neither would be anti-Semitic. Some people could still chose to infer that; I didn't and I don't.)

And, so, we must first STIPULATE what is clearly true — anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.
Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.
Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.
Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.

This — the using of anti-Semitism claims to smear anti-Zionists — is of course, nothing new from AIPAC supporters. As Jacobin details, the attempts to smear Walt and Mearsheimer are more than a decade old. And, as Mondoweiss notes, at bottom line, these actions are gaslighting.

But, when even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez throws you under one side of the bus:
What choice do you have, I guess? Especially when a number of alleged "progressives" who aren't full-blown Donut Twitter rush to AOC's defense.

Besides, this isn't anything new from AOC anyway:
I remembered that as soon as I heard about her driving the Omar bus.

===

Update, March 5 — AOC is still doing it, hence the "updated" in the header:
Still pretending to side with Omar while actually throwing her halfway under the bus.

Given that it's part of a thread that also includes this:
This is not hard to interpret.

And, it's a bad analogy. Essentially, AOC is letting herself be read between the lines as saying she believes Omar engaged in anti-Semitic talk.

Correct analogy, as I told AOC on Twitter? It would be if Omar called out the right-wing goverment of Honduras while noting that many Latinx citizens of Honduras agreed with her.

Or, from another blog post, here's a better analogy from Euro-American history vis a vis American Indians to explain what's happening in Israel and Palestine.

And, on this round as on the initial Tweets, as I told someone on Twitter March 4, I'm far from alone in interpreting AOC this way. (Whether that person will rethink or not, I don't know. I do care, to the degree that, if they don't, they're still buying into the legend of AOC, as well as possibly engaging in the same game on anti-Zionism being anti-Semitism lite as AOC is.

To be fair, AOC has now called out the anti-First Amendment idiocy of Rep. Juan Vargas:
OTOH, how much choice did she have? After being called out herself for eating burgers and with her chief of staff  under FEC investigation, image kicks in at some point.

Updating this March 5 update, Ocasio-Cortez has seemed to find a little more spine on Twitter since then. Bernie Sanders found even more. And, AOC is off the hook for now with the House dropping its plans for a statement against anti-Semitism when the Black Caucus and the alleged Progressive Caucus woke up. See, AOC? First, you use your House website to issue an actual press release or statement longer than Twitter's 280 characters. You give it a minute to craft it out.

And, having little spine but plenty of pander, prez candidate Kirsten Gillibrand threw Omar all the way under the bus, accusing her of anti-Semitism.

===

Here's another hot take on AOC:
Is AOC at Just.Another.Politician.™ stage yet? She's moving there. Like Dear Leader eight years ago. Remember this?
Yep, yep, yep. AOC herself hasn't yet pushed back against criticism from the left. But, let's wait and see. What will the DSA roses as an official organization say?

Anyway, here's my hot take back:
Meanwhile, the House is debating a new anti-Semitism resolution, analyzed in detail at The Baffler. Omar is being scapegoated without being mentioned by name, all while Miss Nancy Pelosi tiptoes through tulips and landmines, probably unsuccessfully.

Should this come to a vote, I'd like to see a roll call rather than a consensus vote. Put AOC on the record.

==

All things Batya Ungar-Sargon

And, at The Forward, Batya Ungar-Sargon is simply shit-stirring now, if one wants a phrase, not an analogy.
Here's more shit-stirring:
This is simply not an anti-Semitic ad. It nowhere mentions that any of the three (Soros, Steyer and Bloomberg) are Jewish. So, no, YOU are the flat-out liar.

In case the art of the parent tweet doesn't load, and besides, we need to see it again:


Again, not anti-Semtic. And, despite BUS's self-labeling, it's not "progressive" to claim that it is.

And, I think I feel a separate blog post, something like "Batya Ungar-Sargon, shit-stirrer," coming up.

What else is there to say?

Well, I can say that BUS isn't a unified op-ed voice at her own magazine. Peter Beinart, in a piece last month, refutes her conflation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

==

But, let's move beyond AOC.

We need hot takes on AIPAC!

The just convicted El Chapo?
In response to someone fauxgressive on being anti-Zionist
In response to neoliberal insurers' whore Howard Dean:
Since yesterday was Lincoln's Birthday
Quote-tweeting about Robert Francis O'Rourke:
One of several shout-outs to/against Nancy Pelosi and the even more odious Chelsea Clinton:
And a deserved second one to Chelsea:
And a shout of support to Rep. Omar plus another callout to Pelosi, along with Pelosi, and with all the Russia collusion nutters.
There.

Finally, per Mondoweiss, librulz need to stop lying when they blame the Religious Right, well, the Xn Religious Right, for the rise of AIPAC. Per Mondoweiss, Democrats have been focused on the Jewish domestic vote since FDR. Truman mentioned that as part of his recognition of Israel. Israel as a nation-state became part of the Cold War's legacy, speaking of.

==

Tropes and tropesplaing

Speaking of Mondoweiss ... and that piece is from publisher Philip Weiss himself ...

Per someone on Book of Face, with whom I did a modest status adjustment, I'm a "leftist goysplainer."

First, I thought this person was a leftist, not a librul. Second, I didn't think he had dived in any way into the SJW shallow pool. I have been wrong before on judging others, in person as well as in cyberspace, and guess I'm wrong again.

That said, non-goys (and non-leftists) Glenn Greenwald (mentioned by said person) and Peter Beinart and Weiss (not mentioned by said person) also basically said that Omar shouldn't have apologized.

Oh, and in the same general vein, let's add Ken Silverstein, who posted at Washington Babylon a free online copy of "The Occupation of the American Mind."

Norman Solomon. Norman Finkelstein. And others. (Several of them on that documentary.)

Maybe they are all ... to use a phrase ... "self-hating Jews."

Phyllis Benis, who actually overheard Omar, must be another self-hating Jew.

As might be David Samel, who points out this is not the first time Batya Ungar-Sargon has made facile anti-Semite claims. Or Mondoweiss editors, who note the Tweet chain of a Ha'aretz reporter about Bibi working to get the remnants of Meir Kahane's Kach party — outright racists and once considered terrorists by the US Government, and by that of Israel, too — into the Knesset.

Or else, like this German Jewish group supporting Palestinians, they're "the wrong kind of Jews."

And, I'm sure Roger Waters is a goysplainer. (Page-Lieberman, in one last post of his I saw before blocking him, called Greenwald the "David Clarke of Jews." So, even if he didn't like me using that phrase, he indulges the idea himself.)

Let me also add that, besides the known-by-group-name Marranos of Spanish history, many a goy may not know their whole family history. Some goys (ahem) have at least guesses in that area. Also, especially from medieval Spain and conversions, that "sangre azul" cuts both ways. It does among Rhineland German Jews too.

THAT in turn leads to the issue of religious Judaism vs ethnic Jewishness. Whoopi Goldberg is the former, but, as far as I know, not the latter.

As for non-leftist Zionism-defending Jews who choose to conflate or confuse (yes, it's a choice) anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism? I have no problem pointing to the Tanakh, specifically, the Nivi'im, and reminding you of Yahweh ordering the Holocaust of the Amalekites.

Those last two paragraphs together get back to Biblical times. Even if half the nations listed in the Torah as living in Palestine promised to Abraham and Moses are fictitious, the other half aren't. Given the actualities of how Israel arose vs myth of the Torah and the Former Prophets in the Nivi'im, there is no pure Jewish bloodline.

I add in the number of post-Return Judahite males Ezra told to divorce. I presume that not all did and that many had kids.

Add in the Idumeans converted at Maccabean swordpoint. The house of Antipater and Herod weren't the only ethnic Idumeans intermarrying with ethnic Judahites.

And, on the leftist vs liberal angle? I again reference Doug Henwood, saying that being a leftist means avoiding unwarranted white liberal guilt.

And, after further back and forth with Mr. MJ (he posts to "public" on Facebook, so not breaking confidences, but I shouldn't have posted back for that reason) ... I've blocked him, after his added response to me of saying I'm 14 and a 4Chaner. Screw you. And your SJWism. Yet another bit of insight as to why I continue to call myself a skeptical leftist, not just a leftist.

As for the issue at hand?

The bottom line is this, per DBC:
  1. Not all Jews are Zionists.
  2. Not all Zionists are Jews.
  3. Not all Jews live in Israel; not even all of them want to.
  4. Not all inhabitants of Israel are Jews.
  5. Not all inhabitants of Israel — Jewish, Muslim, or other [many Palestinians are Christian, my note] —support the current Israeli government or its actions.
  6. Criticizing Israel's government is not the same criticizing Jews.
  7. Even criticizing Jews, whether as individuals or as groups, is not the same as hating them, let alone wanting to see them dead.
  8. Criticizing an organization that represents the Israeli government is not anti-Semitism.
  9. Criticizing a legislator who takes campaign contributions from such an organization is not anti-Semitism.
  10. Criticizing wealthy Jewish donors to these organizations is not anti-Semitism.
  11. Refusing to bow to pressure to pledge loyalty to Israel is not anti-Semitism.
  12. Supporting a group that opposes the Israeli government and its actions is not anti-Semitism.
  13. Muslims (e.g., Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Keith Ellison) are not anti-Semitic just by virtue of practicing Islam.
Per Point 5? Many Palestinians that the Religious Right likes to throw under the bus are Christian. Like Yasir Arafat's wife.

Otherwise? Even many commenters on a page for a site as left-liberalish as Jezebel don't get it. Or don't want to get it. Omar has consistently said "Israel," not "the Jews" throughout. And, contra liberal concern trollers, has condemned Saudi Arabia and other places, too.

Maybe those commenters don't know better. None of this is new, San Husseini notes.

Nor are anti-Palestinian tropes. More on Twitter.

Also not new is confusion and fusion of Judaism as religious practice and Jewishness as ethnicity. I take a deep dive here, primarily on the latter and how "Jewishness" claims have no more standing than any other ethnicity claim that stretches back 2,000 or more years.

==

And, actual anti-Semitism? It's more common among Tories than Labour, more common among Republicans than Democrats. You know, like Mel Gibson and his porn-violence fetish movie.

Labels: , ,
at Tuesday, March 05, 2019 Posted by Gadfly

3 comments:

Smokey_the cat said...

Good stuff, very good and I agree with you.
However, I'm not surprised with AOC.
All of these females will stab each other in the back to get ahead.

9:24 AM, February 13, 2019
Anonymous said...

Thanks for echoing my 13 points, SG. I was indeed thinking of Palestinian Christians, but also of the great number of secularists among them (as Arafat considered himself), especially the younger set.

8:02 AM, March 07, 2019
Gadfly said...

David, figured you knew that point. I like to bring it out as a tool against the Religious Right. I honestly think many of its John/Jane Doe "foot soldiers" don't even know this. That said, for many of them, I suspect that they won't open their minds enough to let this in.

For the national Religious Right, the leadership, this is a call-out to their hypocrisy.

8:39 AM, March 07, 2019

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)