"How did this become about what the Republicans want instead of what the Jewish people wanted?" Because you asked for the answer to the question. This took place in Congress, hence Democrat and Republican. The Republicans had been going into the media demanding that there be a condemnation of her antisemitic remarks. Instead, they got a blasé, "We repudiate all hate speech," and Ilhan Omar slithers out from under. You can't see that because you don't want to see that. Ilhan Omar will continue to make antisemitic remarks, and you won't care because she has a D behind her name.
Since this was about the hate speech of one individual, coming out with a resolution that they repudiated all hate speech means it does not repudiate the statements of that one individual as the Republicans had been demanding. Consequently, they weren't going to vote for the resolution that didn't address the problem of that one particular member of Congress using hate speech.
If you'd done a study of what conservatism is, you'd know that it is not a bunch of hooded creatures brandishing torches and Swastikas. In fact, that was the purview of the Democrats. Now it's the perview of the alt-right, a bunch of loons that represent Republicanism about as much as the Antifa thugs represent mainstream Democrats. I can see the difference between the radicals and the mainstream, but it suits your narrative to not be able to see the difference, so you don't.
BTW, when asked to define "conservativism" in a primary debate, Trump couldn't do it. He defined "conservation." He's not a conservative, he's a populist. But that doesn't fit your narrative, either, so you won't see the difference.
Trump refuses to repudiate the alt-right. Maybe you'd see what's wrong with that resolution if Trump simply issued a statement repudiating all hate groups, left and right. Seems to me he has come out with a squishy statement like that -- which should satisfy no one.
reply
share
BreakbeatSavant (413)
5 years ago
It's pretty rich for Republicans to be demanding a resolution condemning antisemitism from a freshman House member who had already apologized and was strongly condemned by Pelosi, all while refusing to condemn a president who regularly traffics in antisemitism as the link I provided you details.
Yet you refuse to address this hypocrisy in your own party because it doesn't suit your narrative. It's even richer that you would ask why more Jews don't support Republicans in light of their refusal to denounce the president's antisemitism. The president is the one with the most power and influence, not Omar.
Before making demands on Democrats on how they should formulate their resolutions, Republicans should get their own House in order. That starts by practicing what they preach instead of acting like consummate hypocrites in their treatment of the president and voting against resolutions condemning antisemitism that all Jewish groups supported. It proves they don't really care about the issue of antisemitism and were more about trying to score political points accusing Democrats of what they're guilty of themselves.
reply
share
Destinata (2587)
5 years ago
Oh, I think Trump is a total embarrassment and should never have been considered for the Presidency. You haven't been paying attention to my posts is why you don't know I think Trump is an outrageous hypocrite, TOO. Not "instead of," but "TOO." Oddly enough, Rep. Omar's remarks don't seem to bother you, and you don't seem to see the ironic hypocrisy in that.
Somehow I knew your response would be, "But the Prez does it too, and he's worse!" No, he's not "worse." I have zero tolerance for antisemitism. You'll turn a blind eye to it because someone who doesn't have much power, you say. She sits on powerful subcommittees of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. An antisemite can do a lot of damage on the Subcommittees on Global Human Rights, and International Organizations and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
Had she been a Republican, she would have been removed from those subcommittees.
reply
share
BreakbeatSavant (413)
5 years ago
But the president is worse by all empirical measures because 1) he's a repeat offender and 2) the influence and impact his words and actions have inspiring right wing loons to hate Jews and engage in violence.
I look at Omar apologizing and Pelosi appropriately condemning her in the strongest possible terms. Then I look at Republicans refusing to condemn the president's antisemitism when his words have a far greater real world impact. I'm answering your speculation on why more Jews don't support Republicans when they turn a blind eye to the biggest trafficker of antisemitism; the president.
As for your belief Republican leadership would have stripped her of committee assignments on her first offense if she belonged to their party, I don't see how you can say that either when they turned a blind eye to racist Steve King's noxious comments for years. Republicans finally stripped him of committee assignments after he openly questioned how white supremacy became offensive and refused to apologize. Omar apologized immediately and the larger context of her poor choice of words was addressing the issue of influence of money in politics; a legit concern. Her apology for ignorantly using an offensive antisemitic trope was very kind and gracious and I don't believe her to be an antisemite. The two cases aren't even remotely comparable.
Regardless it all pales in comparison to Republicans refusal to censure the president's antisemitism in terms of real world impact. That's my answer to your speculation.
reply
share
Destinata (2587)
5 years ago
I quit reading when it became clear you didn’t know Omar is a repeat offender, too.
You’re what they used to call a “Yaller Dog Democrat.”
reply
share
BreakbeatSavant (413)
5 years ago
Oh you mean from the 2012 tweet that referred to Jews as "hypnotizing the world"? It had honestly slipped my mind and you're right she had made that comment but I note she had also apologized in January for that after reading Barry Weiss's New York Times column pointing out why it was wrong. That's still more accountability than the president or Steve King has ever shown. Are you really suggesting it's not right for me to cut her more slack because she apologized over someone that doesn't?
Obviously if it keeps happening her apologies will start ringing hollow, I just haven't seen enough to warrant not giving her the benefit of the doubt. She is young and does appear genuine in her sincerity.
It's unfortunate that you can't keep things civil and would stoop to name calling.
reply
share
Destinata (2587)
5 years ago
No, one does not have to dig back that far. The first I knew was her snide "it's all about the Benjamins, baby" crack, implying that old, antisemitic trope that Jews influence governments with money. Then came her suggestion that Jews had an allegiance to another country. Both hateful, antisemitic tropes were said in the very recent past. But thanks for pointing out she has a history of this years' long.
One Jewish Congressman felt he had to apologize to his constituents because of her behavior: https://nypost.com/2019/03/21/max-rose-apologizes-to-jewish-constituents-for-ilhan-omars-anti-semitic-tropes/[/url]; and some Jewish Democrats now feel "homeless" because of the defense they're seeing of antisemitism in the party: [url]https://nypost.com/2019/03/16/jewish-voters-are-furious-at-dems-defense-of-ilhan-omar/
It DOES keep happening and that's why her apologies ring hollow.
Apparently you don't know what a "Yaller Dog Democrat" was/is, and why I heard so many people say it with great pride. The horrible "name-calling" that I would "stoop" to is simply noting that you're Democrat through and through, giving them an impassioned defense whenever you can.
I must admit it was also something of a litmus test for both age and political savvy. 😉
reply
share
BreakbeatSavant (413)
5 years ago
True about the dual allegiance mention as well. I recognize there's wide disagreement in the Jewish community over Omar's comments. I tend to be more forgiving so long as the offender expresses contrition which Omar has. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt the last 3 months have been a learning experience for her because I assume it's quite likely in the Somali Muslim immigrant community she'd been exposed to antisemitic ideas that she just wasn't aware was offensive. Gentiles are inherently less aware of what could be interpreted as an antisemitic trope than Jews. Perhaps you're not, and I commend you for it. But I recognize that not everyone will be and it's not necessarily out of any fault of their own. Jews are steeped in their own history in ways that others are not. To the Jewish ear, any talk of money or dual allegiance is reflexively put though the antisemite detection filter whereas that’s not the case for everyone. Holding others to a strict standard where every utterance must be perfectly phrased in order for there to be legitimate discourse is, in my opinion, an unrealistic standard. To be able to allow for a robust and healthy dialogue about Israel, we can’t stop the conversation every time a gentile makes a statement which might possibly, in certain contexts resemble, if you squint hard enough, the silhouette of an antisemitic trope. When we do that, we stop addressing the issue being debated to censor those who aren’t ‘sensitive enough’, and that prevents any progress or enlightenment on the original issue.
This is how I read Omar's comment responding to a Glenn Greenwald (Jewish) tweet who was criticizing the role of money in politics and AIPAC's outsized influence on our political process. "It's all about the Benjamins baby" is a Puff Daddy lyric and I think she was trying to be cute agreeing with Greenwald's point while not aware she was using an offensive antisemitic trope. She was tweeting to a Jew, what would be the point? To offend?
reply
share
[deleted]
5 years ago
Who is Steve King (not the writer) and who is Donald J. Trump and why am I bringing them up? Have either of them been removed from office?
Most American Jews vote Democrat because the Democratic party represents their world view on most/all issues, including the Israeli/Palestinian issue.
The Democratic party and only the Democratic party has Israel's back. The Democratic party has been the most pro-Israel. The Democratic party is the party that launched an unheralded heroic megawar against antisemitism within the United Nations. The Democratic party has been the most successful at mediating rapprochement between Israelis and Arabs/Palestinians (Arabs because I'm referring to 60 years worth of rapprochement). The Democratic party (specifically Bill Clinton....) is the party that set the ball rolling on the Oslo Accords which were the cornerstone of a peace process that could have succeeded. The Democratic party flipped Fatah from "bad" to "good". The Democratic party carved in stone the rule that Palestinian statehood had to be negotiated through their neighbour Israel (giving Israel a major victory, Palestinian statehood is based on large part by Israel's terms). The Democratic party is the party that crushed the Palestinian UN Statehood vote because Palestinian leadership wanted a statehood declaration for the sole purpose of legalizing terrorism as legitimate military strikes against Israel and against the Jewish population of the West Bank and Jerusalem (whom are considered by many as legitimate military targets) , and because going to the UN bypassed a negotiated agreement between the two principal parties and undermined decades of agreements and signalled that the West Bank Palestinian government would end diplomatic engagement with Israel (not a good way to begin statehood....). The Democratic party is the party that understands blowback (against Israel and Jews), something that happens when you undermine negotiations (Bush II), undermine the UN (Trump: US is no longer fighting antisemitism within the UN), intentionality express anti-Islam sentiments (Trump/R), start wars all over the globe against Islamic nations/peoples (Republicans), push codified institutionalised anti-Islam policies (Trump/R: refugee ban, travel ban, asylum ban, cutting off aid to Palestinians and UNESCO, etc), get wreckless with drone ware (Republicans: constantly killing Muslim civilians), and cheerlead bad self-sabotaging destabilizing policies by the Israeli government (Trump/Republicans).
reply
share
Destinata (2587)
5 years ago
I notice the PM of Israel seemed to disagree with you on who was backing Israel and who wasn’t. Nice try. Thank you for playing, but you’re too angry to be amusing, too repetitive to be interesting, and too prone to Strawman Arguments to bother with. Welcome to the blocked list. You’ll find it a veritable echo chamber.
And yes, I know you’ll still respond to me. But I wouldn’t block you if you didn’t repeat yourself and the same, tired liberal arguments I’ve heard for years. Toodles! 🙋🏼♀️
reply
share
[deleted]
5 years ago
I notice the PM (who thankfully is not the King of the Jews, neither are you, neither is Trump, neither are Republicans, and neither are Christians) of Israel disagrees with you on who was backing Israel and who wasn’t. And the proper wording is, who is backing Israel and who isn't. Nice try. Thank you for playing, you've exposed yourself a racist and antisemite and somebody who is astoundingly devoid of knowledge of the Israel/Palestinian issue and politics in general. You’re too angry to be amusing, too repetitive to be interesting, and too prone to Strawman Arguments to bother with. You haven't offered anything other than "liberals murder babies and support killing jews and this Irish candidate is a subhuman criminal who wants to kill babies too!" while your own President is a racist antisemitic white supremacist criminal cheerleading the destruction of minorities (while his party cheerleads the destruction of babies every time they pay their mistresses millions of dollars to have an abortion) from all over the globe and cheerleading the destruction of Muslims and Jews and Israel and Palestinians and Gaza and the West Bank and Jerusalem while Steve King (not the writer) is a proud white supremacist sitting in Congress with the full support of Republicans and the full support of you. You refuse to answer anybody's specific political questions (and the other person did a nice job exposing you as a liar and hypocrite) and instead reply to people with tired worn out Republican tropes and standard ad hominem attacks. Democrats condemned their own representative for her antisemitic language (and she voted for the Resolution, taking personal responsibility) while Republicans elect (and routinely elect) antisemites and racists to office who do not have Israel's back and giddily push policies that directly undermine Israel's national security and directly result in blowback against Israel and Jews the entire world over. Democrats push policies that are in the best interest of protecting the state of Israel and Jews the entire world over, hence the reason why most American Jews vote Democrat. The fact that most American Jews vote Democrat nullifes your "democrats are the party of hitler!" position. They vote Democrat because that is the party whose worldview and policies match up with theirs the most, including the Democratic party's Israel/Palestinian position (and Democratic Presidents historically provided more aid to Israel than Republican Presidents; Barack Obama provided more aid to Israel than any President before him; Barack Obama also labelled most criticism of Israel as antisemitism.....), a position that has historically been the most successful and beneficial toward protecting the security and stability of Israel and Palestinians and the surrounding Arab states alike. The Democratic party cares more about Israel than Israel does.
You're not blocking me because "you're repeating everything!", it's the first time that I've ever posted something explicit about the Israel/Palestinian issue - it's because you're an empty troll lacking the knowledge to discuss politics.
reply
share