Is this anti-semitism?

but arguably that's also been a part of the russia-trump stuff too

Iirc people made a suspicious stink that Kennedy was going to pledge allegiance to the Vatican over America, or whatever the anti-Catholic trope was at the time.

xpost Jinx!

Is "allegiance to" something of a term of art in this case? Does it have a specific meaning, like eg preferring that nation's interests over your own?

Maybe people accused irish-americans of promoting republican politics in the US.

They certainly did and not without good reason.

Truth.

I can't think of another situation where people identifying in some way with another country is considered to be fifth-columnism, in the way that it happens with israel.

is this functionally very different from the suspicions people have of muslims in the u.s.? main difference being that there has for a while been a single political entity with which for jews to be identified. there not being a single bloc of muslim-friendly geopolitical interest doesn't seem to stop the sharia-law-panic people from talking and acting as if there is, out there, somewhere outside the u.s.

AND WITHIN IT, TO OUR HORROR

East-asians in another era, also. Slavic people during the cold war, and yeah, Muslims today.

A reminder that the motivation is always, always, always somehow, somewhere, truly economic--someone benefits.

https://qz.com/1201502/japanese-internment-camps-during-world-war-ii-are-a-lesson-in-the-scary-economics-of-racial-resentment/

“Based on an accumulation of evidence, we now know that the government’s action was partially initiated by California corporate agribusiness interests hoping to satisfy their own lust for land while ridding themselves of competition from the state’s most productive family farms.”

As I recently learned from The Mushroom at the End of the World, the Bracero program was started shortly thereafter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_program

a nuance that's sort of being glossed over is that Omar didn't say anything about Jews having allegiance to Israel, she said that members of congress are being asked to have allegiance to Israel

^^ Explicitly unpacked in that WaPo article.

The distinction with, say, Irish republican sympathies is that those sympathies weren't thought to be in contradiction to american interests.

Omar's entire talk has been transcribed here:

https://www.patreon.com/posts/what-ilhan-omar-25142297

(I'm sure i'm wrong about this, I'm just trying to identify why it feels different to me)

wtf was so wrong about what she said ? i don't get it

She insinuated that Congress was not a wholly idealistic enterprise and that her esteemed colleagues were perhaps swayed by motives less pure than an undying love of country and the strictest regard for truth, justice and statesmanlike reason. This was a shocking thing for any member of Congress to say, which is why so many of them instantly impugned her motives as impure, untruthful and unpatriotic.

so she is otm and they are just butthurt clutching their pearls . got it

there not being a single bloc of muslim-friendly geopolitical interest doesn't seem to stop the sharia-law-panic people from talking and acting as if there is, out there, somewhere outside the u.s.

Julia Ioffe immediately went to "oh yeah well where is Omar's criticism of Saudi influence HUH" on Twitter and deleted it when she was immediately corrected by Omar herself.

I can't think of another situation where people identifying in some way with another country is considered to be fifth-columnism, in the way that it happens with israel.

Fifth-columnism not what's happening, though. The criticism is that the ruling class's 'support for Israel' is to their own ends (anti-Muslim fervor, imperialism, the military-industrial complex, etc.) to the detriment of the public good of Americans.

Julia Ioffe immediately went to "oh yeah well where is Omar's criticism of Saudi influence HUH" on Twitter and deleted it when she was immediately corrected by Omar herself.

― Greta Van Show Feets BB (milo z), Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:29 PM (eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The irony is that the reason people get the impression that Omar "focuses" on Israel and not other things is that her critics focus on her focus on Israel and make lots of noise about it, whereas there doesn't appear to be an equivalent level of pro-Saudi noise/outrage when she criticizes SA (although they clearly target her in other ways). It's precisely the criticism of her statements about Israel that magnifies them so much.

Fifth-columnism not what's happening, though. The criticism is that the ruling class's 'support for Israel' is to their own ends (anti-Muslim fervor, imperialism, the military-industrial complex, etc.) to the detriment of the public good of Americans.

this may be so, but there's certainly some 'fifth-columnism' involved - that jewish-americans are actually working against US interests to support Israel.

not really, Congress is like 5% Jewish. The loudest voices for Israel have been WASPs for two generations.

People who automatically equate "American use of Israel as a client state" with "Jews" are kind of telling on themselves.

The idea that taking issue with support of Israel means one is necessarily criticizing Jews as Jews ignores the last few decades of political developments around the United States’ relationship with Israel. “Supporters of Israel” hasn’t been a synonym for “Jews” since the 1980s. I have to repeat this: In the United States today, a “supporter of Israel” is much more likely to be an evangelical Christian Republican than a Jew.

tbc "impossible to have a conversation about" is not synonymous with "we talk about it all the fucking time"

― Mordy

most of the things people talk about all the fucking time are things i find it basically impossible to have a conversation about

example: steely dan

So for me I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is ok for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country. And I want to ask, why is it ok for me to talk about the influence of the NRA, of fossil fuel industries, or Big Pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobby that is influencing policy.

So in context she is clearly talking about AIPAC, not Jews in general. Pretty unobjectionable when you read the whole thing imjo

it's being spun all over as 'coded wording' which is fucking absurd. I've seen people on social media basically copy and pasting the same 'explanation' as though if they pass it around enough it will become true.

the most grotesque part of this is that a bunch of evangelical christian theofascists, who devoutly wish to bring about a rapture in which, in their eschatology, jews will descend to the fire pits of hell, are lecturing me, a jew, on what constitutes anti-semitism.

i know that is just one part of the dynamic but it's a key part

ppl completely ignored the first paragraph of her speech too

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/07/debunking-myth-that-anti-zionism-is-antisemitic

Part of the problem (which Beinart fails to address) is that Zionism is a less stable concept than first meets the eye. As far as I understand it, it doesn't have to be synonymous with ethnic nationalism and anti-Palestinian sentiment, which is how most of its critics view it.

Honest question from someone trying to learn more about this, is there a better (or more up to date?) than Beinart's on Zionism?

Urgh, better book on Zionism I mean, there are probably better books lol.

Part of why I'm normally hesitant in this debate, I think I've said before (maybe even in this thread), is that "zionism" sometimes gets used in squishy ways that do actually bleed into anti-semitism (i.e. the idea that "Zionists" = the shady Jewish international banking cabal controlling the global levers of power, as opposed to just people who support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state). I don't think Omar's remarks really crossed that line though.

Perhaps worse than Ilhan Omar comments is the reaction to it. The dubious claim that I keep seeing over and over is that America can't have a debate about Israel without being accused of anti-semitism when clearly, for fuck's sakes, legitimate criticism of Israel is aplenty in American media. It is widely present in both social and traditional media. Just search "Netanyahu" in the New York Times search bar and it's there. I mean the present situation is proof that these things can be discussed. All of that is happening, what? 5 years after the Iran deal happened despite the lobbying of AIPAC and Netanyahu? You know that thing that was praised by many as one of the great Obama foreign policy. No one is being silenced over this.

I think it's tough to legit criticize Israel when a ton of fellow critics are hardcore anti-Israel/anti existence/anti-Semitic, and also when tons of supporters are right wing assholes who are probably also anti-Semitic. Leaves very little room for reasonable positions in the middle, even when someone offers seemingly reasonable positions, which puts everyone on edge.

Just search "Netanyahu" in the New York Times search bar and it's there

yes, they criticize netanyahu. at the same time they write those weird headlines about palestinians spontanesouly dying

Part of the problem (which Beinart fails to address) is that Zionism is a less stable concept than first meets the eye. As far as I understand it, it doesn't have to be synonymous with ethnic nationalism and anti-Palestinian sentiment, which is how most of its critics view it.

― pomenitul, Thursday, March 7, 2019 12:12 PM (seven hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i have not had any luck trying to get this across to my palestinian and other friends and colleagues from the arab and muslim world. the nuances of zionism as an historical phenomenon do not interest them; i think they have a point that "zionism" has come to be synonymous with the policies and philosophy of the present-day israeli state and that's what it will continue to mean going forward.

i just don't know....

Zionism always envisioned the establishment of a homeland in Palestine for all Jews. As it pursued this goal it constantly evolved and I think it is legitimate to conclude that the present state of Zionism is embodied by the present state of Israel. Whatever philosophical differences exist within Zionism today, those differences can only be realized within the state of Israel. No Zionists seriously propose destroying Israel and starting over. Under the circumstances, it is hard to separate the two.

i mean, "communism" had many and contested meanings before 1917, even before marx iirc, but for the past century it's essentially meant the ideology characteristic of the soviet state and others who sought to emulate it. it would be pointless to try to go back to an earlier meaning, unless you're writing a history book.

not sure if that is entirely analogous but i don't think it's inapposite.

what a fucking joke

https://www.thedailybeast.com/meghan-mccain-breaks-down-in-tears-over-ilhan-omars-scary-israel-comments

love when these dumb ass WASPs tell us what anti-semitism is.

― affects breves telnet (Gummy Gummy), Thursday, March 7, 2019 8:14 PM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It's odd that we defer to the Marxist definition of, say, socialism, when Marxism has been only one strain among many in British socialism. Not that I disagree with the marxist def per se, it just seems out of place for how the word 'socialism' has been used in the UK for the past century.

“If what Ilhan Omar were saying for the past few weeks were said by a white Republican male, how would you be reacting to it right now?”

we fucking wouldn't

xpost

i think the right-wing "defers" to the marxist definition of socialism

bernie et al certainly don't. they're part of an older, broader tradition.

like the President of the United States and Republican members of Congress post shit that signals anti-Semitic tropes on a daily basis, Dems are so fucking stupid for publicly calling her out and proving how right she really was