AIPAC

[Blue3]

If you had to pick the one closest to your views, which one?

[OSR stands with Israel]

These options are total BS

[Big Abraham]

AIPAC should be dismantled along with Israel's ongoing occupation of Palestine

[Santander]

[Sirius_]

[DavidB.]

The eagerness with which people like OP jump on the bandwagon of Jew-hate once their example in Congress has done it is disturbing, but not surprising - we've seen the same phenomenon in UK Labour as well as on the right numerous times. I think a lot of liberal Jews are opening their eyes now.

[Comrade Funk]

The eagerness with which people like OP jump on the bandwagon of Jew-hate once their example in Congress has done it is disturbing, but not surprising - we've seen the same phenomenon in UK Labour as well as on the right numerous times. I think a lot of liberal Jews are opening their eyes now.

Lmao. Enjoy another 75-25 walloping in 2020. Perhaps even worse.

[Kleine Scheiße]

You have phrased those options in such a way that you would have to be frothingly insane to choose the second option.

Regardless, AIPAC is too powerful because the way we run our legislature is based on lobbying. AIPAC is too powerful because they are lobbyists and all lobbyists are too powerful.

There is no legitimate reason to single out AIPAC for being very effective at their job. There is no legitimate reason to oppose a two-state solution. There is no legitimate reason to insist that international law does not apply to Israel. There is no legitimate reason to insist that Israel does not have the right to protect its borders.

Israel is not some magical paradise that can just up and defend itself with thoughts and prayers. Israel needs allies and we are one of those allies. That doesn't mean we can't disagree with them and disagree loudly if need be -- it is far easier and more effective to work with allies toward compromise than to make enemies of entire regions, and if nothing else, we have to work with what we have at the moment.

Obviously, Israel has no excuse for human rights violations. No nation does. That has never stopped us from working with those nations before, and to single out Israel on that charge, to pretend that so much of the rest of the world is not doing equally bad things, is an antisemitic position. Not everyone who makes that charge is doing so consciously, granted, but whether a given individual is behaving knowingly or unthinkingly is outside the scope of this present discussion. The point is, it is the wrong thing to do.

EDIT: Also, because I forgot to point this out, antisemitism is just as much a social justice issue as anything else. Anything else is patent hypocrisy. I'm glad that many Republicans are willing to call out antisemitism because it's a point where they and I agree. This is not a partisan issue -- nor should be racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, ageism, or any other question of bigotry and social power dynamics. The fact that conservatives are more readily and reliably willing to talk about antisemitism does not mean that the elimination of antisemitism ought just be a conservative position. That is reductionist, mean-spirited, and lives hang literally in the balance of such a question.

[DavidB.]

The eagerness with which people like OP jump on the bandwagon of Jew-hate once their example in Congress has done it is disturbing, but not surprising - we've seen the same phenomenon in UK Labour as well as on the right numerous times. I think a lot of liberal Jews are opening their eyes now.

Lmao. Enjoy another 75-25 walloping in 2020. Perhaps even worse.

Enjoy another loss, hahaha.

[Sestak]

David, I'm curious, where do you see the line between "legitimate criticism of AIPAC" and making anti-Semitic statements?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

AIPAC should be free to operate just like any other lobbying organization and those who seek to single it out are antisemitic in action if not 100% in intention.

[Horus]

David, I'm curious, where do you see the line between "legitimate criticism of AIPAC" and making anti-Semitic statements?

Any and all criticism of anything even remotely related to Israel is anti semitic. There is no line here, they don't wish to actually debate these issues.

[Sestak]

David, I'm curious, where do you see the line between "legitimate criticism of AIPAC" and making anti-Semitic statements?

Any and all criticism of anything even remotely related to Israel is anti semitic. There is no line here, they don't wish to actually debate these issues.

I’d prefer not to think that’s his conclusion, so I’d like to hear his response.

[Blue3]

Quite a few people here are posting like they believe in the second option.


This thread is based on the recent news story concerning a freshman Congresswoman who was forced to apologize for being Anti-Semitic because she criticized AIPAC.


I'm (part) Jewish too. I believe in human rights and equal protection under the law. But if this choice seems ridiculous, its reflecting the reality of how AIPAC Supporters attack AIPAC Critics... and that reality is deeply deserving of ridicule.

[wesmoorenerd]

If you had to pick the one closest to your views, which one?

Did you guys seriously not read the original post? These are clearly not intended to be representative of a whole spectrum of views.

[Xeuma]

Would you rather eat a salad or smoke crack?

[RaphaelDLG]

It totally makes sense why Omar's comment was perceived as anti-semitic, because as you know it is very similar to a historically ubiquitous antisemitic trope about rich Jewish financiers being the "evil puppet masters" that you can trace from Hitler all the way to Alex Jones and the Rothchild / "globalist" rhetoric of today.  Of course, if you are not a crazy racist, you realize that the idea that there is a smoke-filled room of Jewish people consciously manipulating everything in othe world to their benefit is absurd.  Perhaps she buys into that vile nonsense in her heart, who knows.

But I think that these two statements

- accusing Jewish organizations of "wielding unprecedented power in the political system" when it is clear as damn day that they don't.
- accusing Jewish donors of having "undue influence" over political figures. (this includes George Soros, Sheldon Adelson, Mike bloomberg etc...)

are obviously patently false.  There does not need to be a smoke-filled room full of anti-semitic puppetmaster caricatures for the above things to be true.

Of course AIPAC wields tremendous, undue influence in the political system, as all massive lobbying groups the size of AIPAC do.

Of course Soros, Bloomberg, Adelson wield tremendous, undue influence in the political system, as all billionaire donors do.

These general principles backed up by a mountain of political science research done in the last few decades. 

All of these groups/billionaires holding outsize influence, even the ones I rather like (NEA, Soros, Steyer), should not be allowed to have the type of influence they do.

The question in the case of AIPAC is is the result of their undue influence in the best interest of the people of the United States, or is it pernicious like, say, the NRA?

I would say, like Mearsheimer and Walt do in their 2007 paper, that mindless support for Israeli foreign policy has sometimes worked to the United States' best interest but as of late has often not.

If you are of conscience, you have to admit it is possible to make that argument in good faith without automatically being a raging antisemite.

The problem is is that it is very effective in American politics to hysterically accuse your opponent of some personal defiiency rather than engage in a good faith debate with them, thus the OPs frustration.

[RaphaelDLG]

To add to my previous comment, I would say that AIPAC, while a powerful lobby, is far, far from the most powerful lobby in American politics, and so to say that they hold more power than, say, defense contractors or oil companies, would be wrongheaded and possibly suspect.

[HillGoose]

"AIPAC should be given everything it wants without question, those who criticize are Anti-Semitic" is the one closest to my views.

Not afraid to admit it.

[Don Vito Corleone]

You have phrased those options in such a way that you would have to be frothingly insane to choose the second option.

Regardless, AIPAC is too powerful because the way we run our legislature is based on lobbying. AIPAC is too powerful because they are lobbyists and all lobbyists are too powerful.

There is no legitimate reason to single out AIPAC for being very effective at their job. There is no legitimate reason to oppose a two-state solution. There is no legitimate reason to insist that international law does not apply to Israel. There is no legitimate reason to insist that Israel does not have the right to protect its borders.

Israel is not some magical paradise that can just up and defend itself with thoughts and prayers. Israel needs allies and we are one of those allies. That doesn't mean we can't disagree with them and disagree loudly if need be -- it is far easier and more effective to work with allies toward compromise than to make enemies of entire regions, and if nothing else, we have to work with what we have at the moment.

Obviously, Israel has no excuse for human rights violations. No nation does. That has never stopped us from working with those nations before, and to single out Israel on that charge, to pretend that so much of the rest of the world is not doing equally bad things, is an antisemitic position. Not everyone who makes that charge is doing so consciously, granted, but whether a given individual is behaving knowingly or unthinkingly is outside the scope of this present discussion. The point is, it is the wrong thing to do.

EDIT: Also, because I forgot to point this out, antisemitism is just as much a social justice issue as anything else. Anything else is patent hypocrisy. I'm glad that many Republicans are willing to call out antisemitism because it's a point where they and I agree. This is not a partisan issue -- nor should be racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, ageism, or any other question of bigotry and social power dynamics. The fact that conservatives are more readily and reliably willing to talk about antisemitism does not mean that the elimination of antisemitism ought just be a conservative position. That is reductionist, mean-spirited, and lives hang literally in the balance of such a question.

[Blue3]

If you had to pick the one closest to your views, which one?

Did you guys seriously not read the original post? These are clearly not intended to be representative of a whole spectrum of views.

[Blue3]

Thank you to Celes for writing a reasonable post. I appreciate it and agree with most of it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@Blue:


No. That is bullcrap.

You don't get to make a ridiculous poll and then attack people who call it out for being garbage.

Literally no one here said you can't criticize Israel, but ok.
Literally no one here said you can't criticize AIPAC, but ok.

I don't care if someone is full-jewish, half-jewish or 1,0030303th jewish. It should not be hard to see why Omar's comment was antisemitic and why she is a horrible human being.

AIPAC does not donate money to candidates. Nor has it ever done so.
AIPAC operates within its legal rights as a political organization, just like any other special interest group.

Stop giving legitimacy to people like Horus who have, for years, used their own jewish identity as a battering ram against other Jews and actually talk to other Jews on this forum who have been willing to discuss this in depth.


As to respond to someone else's question. What do I consider crossing the line?

- Gaslighting Jewish individuals, Jewish orgs, Pro-Israel orgs, Israelis or Israel under one brush instead of criticizing specific policy planks on the merits of the policy question under discussion.
- comparing Jews to Nazis.
- accusing Jewish organizations of "wielding unprecedented power in the political system" when it is clear as damn day that they don't.
- accusing AIPAC or other orgs of "buying congress."
- gaslighting Jewish people for fighting back against antisemitism.
- accusing Jewish donors of having "undue influence" over political figures. (this includes George Soros, Sheldon Adelson, Mike bloomberg etc...)
- Using excessive hyperbole to demonize or dehumanize one side of the conflict.
 - How could I forget? Accusing a Jewish country of "hypontizing" people

1. If my comment didn't apply to you, why are you so outraged?

2. AIPAC does have a lot of influence. Special interests exist in the foreign policy realm. It shouldn't be Anti-Semitic simply because of some old stereotype about Jews and money. Nobody is saying they're against human rights, equal protection under the law, protection from discrimination, or democracy. Just against special interests in foreign policy, and our blind support for Israel is up there (as is our blind support for Saudi Arabia).

3. For the rest of your "crossing the line" list, when did I or the Congresswoman do any of that?

[darklordoftech]

If AIPAC said, "the drinking age is anti-semitic", I'd love them.

[S019]

AIPAC should not be singled out just because they are a lobbyist group that supports Israel. This is like saying should we end the ACLU because it advocates for civil liberties. (The answer to that question is "no") AIPAC is not doing anyone harm, it is just trying to tell the world that Israel has a right to exist. Lobbyist groups like this do nobody any harm. AIPAC and Israel should be allowed exist without being constantly criticized for asserting their own rights.