Rep. Ilhan Omar was appropriately criticized for the anti-Jewish memes in her recent tweets, and she very appropriately issued a heart felt apology. Some of her supporters, however, evidently think that Rep. Omar is a hypocrite for "unequivocally" apologizing — which she repeated just last Saturday — as they believe that there was nothing wrong with her tweets in the first place. Glenn Greenwald, for example, insisted that Aipac money matters, "and to call that anti-Semitic is just obscene." Among many others, Rebecca Vilkomerson expressed concern that "any and every type of criticism of the Israeli state was now being masked by accusations of anti-Semitism."
But of course, that is not what happened.
Omar's statement wasn't even initially directed at Aipac. She said that American political support for Israel is "all about the Benjamins," thus repeating an ancient and very recognizable conspiracy theory about "Jewish money" and government control, which went far beyond criticism of Aipac or Israeli policies. Omar has recognized this herself, as did Nancy Pelosi and the other Democratic leaders who prompted her apology. As Pelosi emphasized, "Legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies is protected by the values of free speech and democratic debate that the United States and Israel share." And even Omar's own apology, went on to say, "At the same time, I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry. It's gone on too long and we must be willing to address it."
In other words, it is quite easy to criticize Israel and Aipac without being attacked for anti-Semitism. You just have to do it in a non-anti-Semitic way, as Batya Ungar-Sargon recently explained in The Forward, which I will excerpt after the jump.
Here is the gist of Ungar-Sargon's very reasonable standard for criticizing the Israel lobby:
Of course, it’s fair to criticize AIPAC. But Omar did not criticize AIPAC. She characterized it, in a way that is false, and that got the story of AIPAC’s influence wrong in a way that played right into anti-Semitic tropes.
[I]f you want to avoid conjuring an anti-Semitic stereotype, even unwittingly, stick to the specifics.
If you’re upset the U.S. gives Israel unconditional support despite anti-Democratic measures like the racist Nation State bill and the entrenchment of the Occupation of millions of Palestinians, and that the U.S. makes no demands that Israel stop oppressing the Palestinians in exchange for the billions of dollars in aid we supply it, you’re not alone. Many Jews share this frustration. And as an American taxpayer, you are absolutely entitled to this non-anti-Semitic opinion.
So say that. Stick to actual things AIPAC does in your criticism. Talk about specific problems you have with Israel’s conduct and the U.S.’s support of that conduct, and the people who lobby for this support. Be specific about the things you wish AIPAC, or the U.S. government didn’t do.
Do not allow your criticism to balloon into the kinds of vague attacks that well-known anti-Semites use when discussing Jews.
Ungar-Sargon makes other important points, but the most forceful one is that "defending anti-Semitic tropes is not the way to end the occupation."
I had a conversation with someone who complained that the Israelis and their proxies were mudslinging against Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the UK’s Labour Party, accusing him by association of anti-semitism.
They got rather upset at me when I responded – the Israelis mud-slinging against a critic of Israel for his associations with anti-Semites – “is water wet??” Though I think pointing out that Jeremy Corbyn had left so much mud lying around to sling was a more serious issue. Corbyn, inter alia, is one of those fashionably leftwing types who thinks being a “Freedom Fighter” forgives anything.
There are plenty of legitimate issues to criticise Israel about – I think many of Israel's actions are disgraceful – but you always have to remember there are those who will always combine those legitimate criticisms with outright antisemitism.
Further to my earlier post – Corbyn’s problem is that he has been far too comfortable, and far too silent and oblivious when associating with antisemetic critics of Israeli policy – and willing to accept the idea that all Jews agree with all Israeli policies (itself an antisemetic trope.) That’s not to say criticizing Israeli policy equates with antisemitism, but you are guaranteed antisemites will agree.
Corbyn has a lot of ugly associates – and he’s obliviously stood by as they created mud – he seems unable to grasp the problem – he left the mud around and now it’s being flung.
I agree with almost everything stated above.
One note of caution, however. I don't necessarily believe it is useful for a group under attack to dictate to others the "appropriate" way to attack.
Germany recently had the experience of trying to combat hate speech online: ironically, Russia copied the law and then waited for the howls of outrage when Russia did it.
Critics have pointed out: the haters simply modified their speech to avoid the verboten ways of expressing themselves. Language, after all, is almost infinitely flexible and "code words" work just as well as outright slurs.
Just think of all the ethnic slurs you've ever heard. Some would make no sense if you didn't have a definition.
The Left often speaks of "dog whistles." Perhaps they are justified in accusing others of this fault, as they don't seem to hold back anything at all when unleashing an endless stream of baseless exaggerations, accusations and hate speech against those who don't share their views.
The left, of course, won't ever accept any code applicable to themselves. They seem incapable of self reflection: and now, can't even bring themselves to question the tactics of the security state (because they so want to use any means necessary to fulfill their hatred and disappointment about the last election).
So, I'm not sure who will be listening to Ungar-Sargon's prescriptions. The haters on the right will cloak their speech in coded memes; the left doesn't give a … who they insult and how they insult them, and, as established in these pages, much, if not most, of the anti Israel and anti Jew speech in this country now comes from the left.
Here is why I am not sure it is that simple:
Suppose someone wanted to criticize the malign influence of political contributions and how that money influences US policy–whether NRA money that results in no gun control, Koch Brothers money that results in whatever the hell the Koch Brothers want, or AIPAC money that influences policy towards Israel. So imagine one wants to criticize AIPAC's use of contributions to influence policy towards Israel just like NRA's use of money contributes to unregulated firearms (both of which are legitimate criticisms). Is the former prohibited (while the latter is OK) because of the anti-Semitic trope?
Actually, Aipac does not make campaign contributions, and the total of explicitly pro-Israel contributions is in fact relatively small. But in any case, it is wrong to use ethnic stereotypes in pursuit of even valid political positions. There is no doubt that Aipac is influential, but not because of Benjamins.
Actually, though, Steve, it is about the Benjamins.
The fallacy is that Jews are the only ones who have and use them to influence politicians.
The scurrilous calumny against the Jews always has been that they acquire wealth by cheating in business (because they are separate from and never a part of the communities in which they live, so they prey on those who aren't jews) and then use their riches to manipulate and pervert the innocent people of those communities and their representatives, to further the Jews evil plans to dominate the world.
You see this theory advanced in academia fairly frequently. It works so well because Jews who acquire wealth are identified and then any use by Jews of their wealth is easy enough to spot and demonize=.
As pointed out above, the reason this is an example of Jew hate is that every other ethnicity does the same thing. THe argument that AIPAC doesn't make campaign contributions and that Jewish donations are minimal and comparatively insignificant is exceedingly weak and counter productive.
AIPAC wields power, that power is based on money influence (like all the rest of America) and everybody knows it. TO deny it is sort of leading with your chin.
Not sure? Go back to Nixon telling his staff to go after those big "Jew donors."
"The definition states anti-Semitism can take the form of “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” … Macron said … “Anti-Zionism is one of the modern forms of anti-Semitism,” … “Behind the negation of Israel’s existence, what is hiding is the hatred of Jews.”"
AP, WORLD NEWS
02/20/2019 06:06 pm ET
"President Macron: France To Define Anti-Zionism As A Form Of Anti-Semitism"
The author quoted with approval above states:
"If you’re upset the U.S. gives Israel unconditional support despite anti-Democratic measures like the racist Nation State bill and the entrenchment of the Occupation of millions of Palestinians, and that the U.S. makes no demands that Israel stop oppressing the Palestinians in exchange for the billions of dollars in aid we supply it, you’re not alone."
"You're not alone." Yeah. That's the way to say it. For sure: the millions of whom Macron spoke applaud you!
Steve: But suppose AIPAC did make monetary contributions to candidates or did spend money to support candidates and issues. Would it be off limits to criticize AIPAC for that because it comes close to the trope, while being ok to criticize other groups for doing the same thing?
You are missing the point, Howard. Ethnic stereotypes are corrosive and damaging, especially when they have historically been used for discrimination and oppression, even if there is occasionally some truth to them.
Imagine that a congressperson tweeted something that evoked a stereotype about a minority group, evoking, say, violence or drunkenness or dishonesty or laziness or stinginess. You wouldn't rationalize it by saying "well, sometimes it's true" or "suppose that it sometimes happens." Rather, you would call it out of bounds, and rightly so.
The claim that "Jewish money" controls the government is every bit as objectionable.
Steve:
I am not suggesting the stereotype is sometimes true so traficking in it is ok.
I am asking whether it is ok to criticize a specific Jewish group for the true fact that it is spending money in order to influence politics in the same way you would criticize a non-Jewish group for the true fact that it is spending money in order to influence politics. If [Insert Jewish Group] is making political contributions to influence politics just as [Insert non-Jewish Group] is making political contributions to influence politics, is it not OK to level the "spending money to influence politics is bad" criticism against the former but OK as to the latter?
Let me frame it differently: In the OP, you suggest that people can and should stick to specific problems with Israel conduct and policies. But what if my criticism is that all of these groups, including the Jewish groups, are spending lots of money in politics and that this is a bad thing? Are Jews immune from that criticism in a way that other groups spending money are not?
Let me put it this way, Howard: How do you feel about Viktor Orban's posters calling George Soros a puppet master and blaming him for illegal immigration in Hungary?
But to answer your question, sure, listing Aipac in a group of too-influential lobbies would not be anti-Semitic. Falsely accusing Aipac, and only Aipac, of controlling U.S. policy with "Benjamins" was offensive. And later saying, "Oh, I meant everyone," doesn't fix it.
That was Ungar-Sargon's main point. If there is a specific criticism of Aipac, say it, but don't resort to harmful stereotypes. Same goes for other minorities.
Wait just a sec. AIPAC does use money as a lever to exert political influence. I don't think links are allowed in comments here, but just Google "AIPAC Congressional Club" for one such mechanism. Of course, AIPAC is not alone in doing this–most if not all issue groups do similar things. Nonetheless, it cannot be any more inappropriate to call out AIPAC for doing this than it would be to call out the NRA or Ducks Unlimited or MADD (though the last two seem to have gotten a pass…).
The fact that a reprehensible stereotype holds that African Americans are lazy does not mean that no one can ever criticize a particular African American for laziness. The existence of a terrible stereotype holding that Native American drink too much does not mean no one can ever criticize a specific Native American for drunkenness. And the fact that Jews have been unfairly and incorrectly castigated for using wealth to control politics does not mean that AIPAC cannot be criticized for efforts to do just that.
Cries of antisemitism, at least those made by Omar's opponents in this case, are just a crutch. It's a far more difficult task to demonstrate that she's wrong using logic and evidence. In this case, though, it would be particularly worthwhile. Because, if you can demonstrate that she's wrong on the facts–that AIPAC does not achieve its influence through money, or that U.S. policy is not discernibly more pro-Israel than the opinions of the electorate would support–and if she continues to assert the same opinions without addressing the identified inaccuracies, then–THEN!–it would be quite reasonable to raise the possibility of antisemitism as an explanation.
So we're back to the "no singling out" principle. Criticism of a Jewish organization's use of money to influence politics bleeds into anti-Semitism when only the Jewish organization is criticized for it. Just as criticism of Israel bleeds into anti-Semitism when Israel is singled out from among all governments for some conduct. That makes sense.
But does a critic then have to qualify the criticism every time: Can I say "I do not like the way [Jewish Org] uses political contributions to influence policy"? Or must I say "I do not like the way [Jewish Org] uses political contributions to influence policy, much as I don't like how the NRA and other groups use political contributions to influence policy."
What do you think, Howard? You can have the last word.
Again, it is futile to instruct one's opponents about the proper way to deliver criticism. The Left specializes in this tactic, because the Left believes that above all else, the elites in the Left must have the power to control every aspect of the lives of every person: what they say, what they think, what they do, what they have, etc.
And, again, it IS all about the Benjamins. "There is no doubt that Aipac is influential, but not because of Benjamins," Steve says. This is an untenable position. For all lobbying groups, it IS all about money and influence, and, in this society, the two go hand and hand.
What is valid is to push back on the "jewish conspiracy" theories peddled by Jew haters. But, in so doing, let's not pretend that the truth isn't the truth. That makes Jews seem to be demanding special treatment.
And, again, this fits nicely with the Left. The Left believes that certain favored groups deserve special treatment, and can break the rules with impunity. Let's not allow the Left to coop Jewish thought and discourse, and enfold the Jewish community in its elevations of supposed "victimhood" (real or imagined) as a proxy for, once again, power.
I think there should, at the very least, be a strong presumption of bigotry when criticism of a member of a group is based on longstanding and pernicious negative stereotypes, and when a similar criticism is not proportionally made to other groups.
This would apply if you disproportionately criticize specific Native American individuals or communities for their alcoholism, irrespective of whether the individual or community in question has a problem with alcoholism. This would likewise apply if a disproportionate share of your "don't be lazy" criticism is directed towards African Americans — even if you do not exclusively criticize African Americans.
Here, even if it were true that AIPAC uses money to exert influence, Rep. Omar's critique would be problematic insofar as it disproportionately singles out the influence of "Jewish" money. I suppose I don't know for sure, but I'd be shocked if the amount of attention that Rep. Omar has given to the influence of "Jewish" money isn't substantially disproportionate to either any relative influence of "Jewish" money or to the attention that Rep. Omar has given to the influence of other lobbies.
In short, and this is mostly directed to Howard, it may be possible, as a White man, to legitimately care deeply about laziness in African American communities without giving nearly as much attention to greater problems of laziness in other communities, including your own. But given the longstanding negative stereotype, I think it's also entirely fair to seriously question whether such a selective belief and passion is rooted in bigotry (with, as I argue above, a presumption towards answering that question in the affirmative). And accepting that laziness in the African American community is a relatively minor issue, you wouldn't defeat this presumption of bigotry simply by advocating against, for example, "the plight of laziness among African Americans among our community of retirees."
*…AND among our community of retirees.
a non
Although I agree with your point in general, aren't you sort of beating around the bush, so to speak?
The bottom line is that this person doesn't direct her venom at other lobbying groups like the NRA and the fossil fuel industry (as she claimed in her "apology") in the same manner she does AIPAC because, in truth, she hates Jews: it is obvious, and I think everybody knows it.
a non, your overall point is well taken about groups that find so much fault with those they despise (and never find anything of merit), but base their opprobrium nearly solely on traits that their group typifies just as much as the despised group that is their constant, never ceasing target.
Democrats come to mind.
anon@ 1:56pm — I doubt that Rep. Omar "hates" Jews; in any event, that's far stronger of a claim than I'm willing to make. But I also think that, applying my framework above, it's entirely fair to apply a presumption of bigotry to her comment. And this would hold true even if she directed similar critiques to the NRA and the fossil fuel industry.
hate: to feel intense or passionate dislike
bigotry: (Merriam Webster) : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Me thinks you might be slicing the baloney a bit thin.
I would add that it is quite obvious that the new Left (that is, the wing gaining ascendency) hates, in addition to Israel and Jews, all Republicans, most male white people (especially old male white people), and above all, Donald Trump.
This is not political opposition. This is hate.
Don't think so? Watch Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC for few nights (or, actually, any panel on any of its "news" shows). The unrestrained venom is really quite something.
Let's call hate for what it is. The haters on the Left are proud of their hate. Let's not deny them their satisfaction. Their hate mongering makes them feel superior.
I feel very confident in saying that "the new Left" does not "hate" "Israel and Jews, all Republicans, [or] most male white people (especially old male white people)." This is an unfortunate emerging trope of the Right — one that has the effect, either intentionally or unintentionally, of avoiding Left critiques that often have a kernel (or more) of the truth.
There are valid critiques of Israel. There are valid critiques of Republican positions and of Republic politicians. There are valid critiques of the way "whiteness" and masculinity often manifest in today's culture. Lumping these valid critiques all into the category of implicitly unreasoned "hat[red]" invalidates these critiques on non-substantive grounds. Presumably if you're posting on this board, you're a law professor. Regardless, you can do better than this.
Again, perhaps we are using the term "hate" differently.
Once again, I invite you to spend a week watching prime time MSNBC.
Let's check back with each other then.
In the meantime, it occurs to me that there are some striking parallels between hating Trump, and therefore all Trump supporters, and hating Israel, and therefore, Jews (who are presumed to support Israel).
When the last president was in office, I remember the wails and gnashing of teeth from the Left (who ultimately, it seems to me, finally saw him for what he really was, which was not their messiah) about any criticism of him. Many times I heard folks like Eric Holder calmly explain that the white people of America only found fault with this faultless man because they are racist.
Now, we see the logical extension. Trump is evil, therefore, that kid in the red hat attacked an Indian man, white men in red hats in Chicago attacked a black man, etc. The "white people" (read Republican) people of America are evil, and there's your proof. Right?
What has this to do with Israel? A lot. Just as leftists rush to judge hoaxes and misinformation true because they hate Trump and his supporters so much, these paragons of virtue rush to believe any and every calumny about Israel, are completely uninterested in the truth, and refuse to believe that there is any defense for the Jewish state. The New Left (and, of course, so many millions world wide) revile Jews anyway (do you actually deny this?), but the New Left now has Israel-hate to rationalize their hate and give their Jew-hate cover.
If hoaxes are increasingly prevalent to stir up hate of Trump and republicans, do you not think the incentives are that much greater in the Middle East?
Let's not mince words here. You are spinning to say "oh, c'mon, it isn't that bad … nobody actually hates anyone because of republican or jewish affiliation" but, you seem quite able to understand racism, for example. Why is it so hard to understand this? I'm not speaking about finding fault with these groups: I'm speaking about hate.
I would respectfully request that if you want to take an even-handed stand, you might start by acknowledging the sort of shocking level of hate speech and anger on the new Left and stop pretending that this isn't motivated by hatred (see, definition above).
I think the answer is plain: the moral superiority that is associated with the policies of the Left (controlling everything people say, do, think, eat, etc.) depends on the those who rule over everyone else being superior in every way to those they control. To admit their base emotions and aspirations to power would undermine the control of others they seek.
anon — quickly, because it's late, I don't see any "hoax" regarding Nathan Phillips. I watched the videos. The kids there were being kids, but they were also plainly being disrespectful kids. A lot of that probably comes from ignorance. But I don't think there's any question that doing the "tomahawk chop" in that moment, for example, was not intended as a respectful gesture.
To be clear, I'm not offering a full-throated defense of the Left. My original posts here call out Rep. Omar. My point is that there's a real different between offering valid critiques of things that should be critiqued — including some of Israel's policies — and disproportionately targeting a minority group using longstanding invidious stereotypes — as Rep Omar did regarding Israel.
There are, undoubtedly, those on the Left who do hate Donald Trump and, by association, hate at least some of his supporters. If that's different from the Right and Obama, it's only because there was also an invidious racial element to that hatred. I don't think, however, that the sort of "hate" that you describe is nearly as widespread as you believe.
Most crucially, I think that you are attributing numerous valid (or at least good-faith) criticisms of Republican policies, of Republican politicians, of "whiteness," of toxic masculinity, and of other such cause célèbres of the Left to hatred.
RE: the "kids harassing an elderly Indian man" all one can say it, you haven't done your homework and you are getting your news, apparently, from only one-sided sources … Stay tuned. The libel suits have been filed. Let's see how those suits come out.
" If that's different from the Right and Obama, it's only because there was also an invidious racial element to that hatred." Again, way to miss the point! See, above, re: Holder's take on it. Yours is likewise. I recall a whole lot of criticism of Obama, like any president. But, I don't recall the full scale demonization of his supporters. That is the parallel with Israel:Jew hate that I think is telling.
You seem to be in error about the fact that legitimate criticism can be leveled at one who is the target of hate, at least if the target is Israel or a republican. If you believe the criticism is valid, then it seems you deny the hate. This is logically unsound.
You excuse Obama, for example, by saying "there was also an invidious racial element to that hatred." You find it quite easy to characterize criticism of him as motivated by racism, but you seem to go on and on about the fact that we should only speak, when we address Israel hate, about legitimate bases for finding fault with the country's self-defense.
In this discussion, one thing is plain. You are applying a double standard. Please give it some thought before just claiming, over and over, that there are some faults with Israel.
Perhaps you might start with finding faults with the New Left.
***"RE: the 'kids harassing an elderly Indian man' all one can say it, you haven't done your homework and you are getting your news, apparently, from only one-sided sources … Stay tuned. The libel suits have been filed. Let's see how those suits come out."***
I didn't say anything about "harassing an elderly Indian man." I said the kids were being disrespectful. That's not based on where I'm getting my news; that's based on watching the videos myself. I really don't think there's a reasonable point of disagreement about it either. There are legitimate points of disagreement about to what extent their disrespect (towards an elderly Native American gentleman) was provoked by the nearby Hebrew Israelites or even by Philips himself; and there are legitimate points of disagreement about what sort of consequences 16-year-olds should face for disrespect (death threats, for example, are far beyond the pale). But I really don't think there's any question re the fact of the disrespect.
Also, what's the libel here? Irrespective of how you feel about who got a fair rap in the media, the libel case seems utterly without merit.
***" If you believe the criticism is valid, then it seems you deny the hate. "***
Let me clarify: I think it's possible for legitimate criticism to be motivated by hatred and bigotry. To be clear, I think that's a lot of what happens in the case of Israel. There are a lot of legitimate bases for criticizing Israel's policies and practices. The way that these critiques are made, the disproportionate focus on Israel over many other similar or worse human rights offenders, and the exaggeration of claims against Israel, reveals the likely bigotry that is often at the heart of these critiques. But the existence of this bigotry does not invalidate the critiques. In a non-bigoted world, there would be a lot more criticism directed at the human rights practices of a lot more countries and, even if it would not receive anywhere close to the focus or vitriol that it gets today, Israel would not be entirely spared.
My concern with your attitude is that you imply that a critique motivated by bigotry or hatred is rendered invalid because of that bigotry or hatred. And, moreover, you extend the label of "hatred" to cover many if not all of the Left's social critiques. The implication of what you write is that concerns about, for example, the effects of toxic masculinity expressed by the Left may be ignored because they are simply just "hate" for men.
Turning to Obama, I absolutely think that there is a kernel of legitimacy to many of the critiques of him from the Right. I wasn't trying to invalidate those critiques in the manner that I believe you potentially do for the Left. I was just pointing out that hate directed at a president by the opposition party is nothing new (and I strongly disagree that the level of the hate from the Left towards Trump today is materially different from the level of the hate directed from the Right towards Obama). I also think that the racial bigotry at the root of much of the anti-Obama vitriol is not at all dissimilar to the religious bigotry that is at the root of many critiques of Israel.
Finally, you accuse me of applying a double standard. I want to point out, again, that this discussion started out with me criticizing the statements of a member of the "New Left" (without directing any similar criticism to the Right).
a non
First, I believe that you clearly are misinformed about the Sandmann incident. The fact that you base your opinion on a brief clip of what appears to be a smirking boy(s) and repeat nearly verbatim the spin that was promulgated about it (just like the incident in Chicago), and the fact that you seem to know nearly nothing at all about what actually happened, and what was said about what happened (two different things) that forms the basis of a lawsuit that you have dismissed without knowing anything about it, makes it impossible to discuss this incident with you. It is you being very disrespectful.
As for the lawsuit, CNN reports " the lawsuit claims that the Post "wrongfully targeted and bullied Nicholas because he was the white, Catholic student wearing a red 'Make America Great Again' souvenir cap on a school field trip to the January 18 March for Life in Washington, D.C."
You are, sorry to say, repeating some the same canards that form the basis of the suit. We'll see how the suit fairs, given the issue of whether Sandmann can be deemed a public figure. You say the suit has no merit. There will be money paid, I suspect. We'll see. Let's debate this when you know more, and the likely motion to dismiss by the Post is heard.
With all due respect, you are just talking past my main two points. First, you are quite ready to attribute criticism of Obama to racism but you won't back off the notion that criticism of Israel and Zionist is but a legitimate form of critique (one could not even say Obama's full name without being accused of racism!), even if motivated by Jew hate.
After paying lip service to the unfair way that Israel (and "Zionists") are often portrayed by haters, you say: "the existence of this bigotry does not invalidate the critiques." So, all in all, Israel deserves it, you say (but Obama didn't, one infers). You fail to acknowledge the difference between legitimate critique of actions and the demonization of Jews and other supporters of Israel, the point of the original post above.
Second, yes, it was my point was that Obama was, like Bush and Trump, the subject of criticism and hate. But my further point was that I don't recall those finding fault with Obama demonizing his supporters in the same way that Trump supporters are demonized. This is, in my view, analogous to Israel:Jew hate, and you haven't really addressed that point.
As I read your comment above, I think that you go half way in conceding that hate is at the root of many critiques of Israel ("I also think that the racial bigotry at the root of much of the anti-Obama vitriol is not at all dissimilar to the religious bigotry that is at the root of many critiques of Israel.") But, I don't see that you concede that hate toward supporters of Israel is justified in the same way, and justifies the demonization of its supporters: just as in the case of Trump, republicans, in the case of Israel, Jews.
You are prepared to believe the worst, and say the worst, about that kid in the red hate because of your attitude toward Trump. Some are just as prepared to say and believe the worst about Jews because of their attitude toward Israel (even more unjustified, of course). And, as you say, hatred of Jews motivates many to find fault with Israel on bases that may have no merit.
So, all in all, I think we've exhausted the subject on both sides. I brought up the New LEft because: a. it is marked by a distinct form of zealotry, hate speech and provocations which appear to include a lot of Jew hate, b.) it is a long, long way away from the democratic party of JFK. It is time that "liberals" turn their sharp tongues and constant criticism of others on themselves.
anon — I am basing my conclusion re the Covington Catholic kids off of watching HOURS of video. I've actually read reasonably little coverage on either side. Tell me, seriously, how the 'tomahawk chop' is not disrespectful in this context?
Also, I seriously question whether you understand libel law. If the Washington Post pays anything — and I highly, highly doubt that they will — it's not because their attorneys think that there's a reasonable chance that they will be held liable.
***"you are quite ready to attribute criticism of Obama to racism but you won't back off the notion that criticism of Israel and Zionist is but a legitimate form of critique"***
That is simply untrue. I have explicitly stated that there is legitimacy to critiques of both Israel AND Obama — and I have explicitly stated that I believe that bigotry underlies and motivates the extent and vitriol of BOTH critiques.
***"I don't recall those finding fault with Obama demonizing his supporters in the same way that Trump supporters are demonized."***
I simply disagree with the factual predicate to your point here.
***"You are prepared to believe the worst, and say the worst, about that kid in the red hate because of your attitude toward Trump."***
Not at all! I don't care in the least bit what hats they are wearing, and you have no idea about my attitude towards Trump. I found their conduct disrespectful based on watching hours of tape. I was a high school teacher for a many years, and it's pretty easy to spot disrespect. These kids were, simply put, not on their best behavior. Had they gone to my (public, right-leaning) school, there would have been real discussions about respect. Again, there are reasonable points of debate about this incident–including what, if any, consequences they should face. I find it unreal that anyone seriously believes these kids were acting in an entirely commendable way.
I don't think I'm going to change your mind, because you seem entirely unwilling to view my comments outside of the narrative that you've constructed for yourself about the Left and about who you think I am. And that's really, really unfortunate.
Please, before you accuse me of ignorance about defamation law and the lawsuit, please note: "tomahawk chop" is completely irrelevant to the context and the suit under discussion. You have the wrong party and the wrong basis for the claims in mind. You are repeating, almost verbatim, the talking points repeated over and over on the "news.")
REcently, a more accurate picture is appearing. See, e.g., Washington Post, Feb 14, "Investigation finds no evidence of ‘racist or offensive statements’ in Mall incident":
Although some of the students "perform[ed] a “tomahawk chop to the beat of Mr. Phillips’ drumming” (long an issue at baseball games, for example), Sandmann, the plaintiff in the suit we are discussing, according to his attorney:
"[D]id not approach Nathan Phillips — he was confronted by Phillips who picked Nick as his target. Nick did not block Phillips’ path — Phillips made no attempt to get around or avoid Nick. Nick did not verbally assault, taunt, mock, harass, disparage or threaten Phillips in any way — Nick remained calm and well-mannered despite Phillips’ loud chants and drumbeating inches from his face. Nick did not utter one word."
As I said above, we'll see if Sandmann is held to be any sort of public figure. In the meantime, I think it is fair to say that you seem to be still smearing him (the plaintiff in the suit) by, among other things, referring to conduct by other persons. That sort of broad brush is what we are talking about here.
For the record, I have no interest in "who you are." You have personalized the conversation by speculating about whether I'm a law professor, accusing me of ignorance of the law, etc.
My main points have been made. The main thrust of this thread was "condemn bad behavior, but don't tar a whole group of people with the same brush." My points have been:
1. That hatred is behind many efforts to tar all Jews with age-old "Jewish conspiracy" theories, and that haters use criticism of Israel and Zionism as a pretext (citing the recent statements of Macron, etc.);
2. Therefore, it isn't sufficient to say, "well, there's some truth to it"; there may be; but recognizing the hatred is important too;
3. Leftists and Democrats can easily accept this point when it comes to someone like Obama (i.e., noting the racism is important and can't be shrugged off by noting that some of the criticism was well-taken), but seem to find it hard to accept when it comes to Jews;
3. Demonization of Jews as "supporters" of Israel seems to fit a pattern of demonization by the Left of Trump "supporters"; this demonization of supporters of Obama was not mirrored in the Obama era (i.e., by demonizing all Obama supporters in the same way).
Frankly, I don't think you've refuted any of these points. So, I think we can leave it at that for now.
You all need help.
Former VP Spiro Agnew in 1980 Asked Saudi Leader for Money to Fight U.S. ‘Zionists’
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/former-vp-spiro-agnew-in-1980-asked-saudi-leader-for-money-to-fight-us-zionists-1.6959767
MSN
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/fmr-vp-agnew-sought-saudi-millions-to-fight-zionists-document-1446525507834
Rachel Maddow did almost her whole show on this subject the other night.
She wanted to smear the Saudis and Trump and republicans, of course.
As if the democrats have had no hand in Saudi pockets. (bowing to them? no way that will be mentioned.)
And, if I heard the report correctly, it wasn't "Zionists" that were the targets. This issue is mentioned above, in this thread, with respect to what Agnew's boss had to say. I think they were more honest about the target of their hatred.