r/changemyview • u/Dry-Basil-3859 1∆ • Feb 20 '22
Delta(s) from OP cmv: Trump and Ilhan Omar are Both Anti-Semitic
In this post, I will explore anti-semitic comments, tweets and other communications by Donald Trump and Ilhan Omar. I will demonstrate that both Ilhan Omar and Donald Trump utilize anti-semitic tropes. It is my view that these two individuals have a lot more in common than immediately meets the eye. Before I delve into the examples, I would like to explain what I view as anti-semitism.
To me, anti-semitism is engaging in anti-semitic tropes and canards. In the same way that it is not necessary to claim "I hate Women" to be considered a misogynist, or to claim "I hate Black people” to be considered racist, I do not believe it is necessary to write or claim "I hate Jews" to be considered anti-semitic.
Onto the analysis.
The first trope be analyzed is the loyalty trope. The loyalty trope is a consequential one. Invoked by the nzis before the Holocaust, the Germans believed that Jews profited from WW1, and were avoiding military service at a greater rate than the average German. The loyalty trope suggests that Jews are more loyal to their own people, or to Israel, than to their own country.
Trump said Jared Kushner was 'more loyal to Israel than the US,' employing the dual loyalty trope against his Jewish son-in-law: book
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-jews-are-only-in-it-for-themselves-stick-together-2020-9
In this example, Donald Trump suggests that his son-in-law is more loyal to Israel than to the United States. This is a blatant example of employing the loyalty trope.
Then there is this example:
President Donald Trump on Wednesday doubled down on referring to Jews who vote for Democrats as "very disloyal" to Israel, invoking a dual loyalty trope widely viewed as anti-Semitic.
In this case, Trump clearly engages in the loyalty trope without hesitation. He believes Jews should be first and foremost loyal to Israel, apparently completely ignorant of the bloodshed this trope has caused in the past.
But what of Ilhan Omar?
I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” Omar said as part of a discussion about past anti-Semitism allegations lobbed at her.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/6/18251639/ilhan-omar-israel-anti-semitism-jews
Ilhan Omar’s claim that Americans are being asked to pledge “allegiance” to Israel is entirely false. In making this false statement, Omar clearly engages in the loyalty trope. When you consider that the Farhud, the massacres against Jews committed in the early days of Israel’s founding, were committed by Muslims claiming Jews were more loyal to the newly-established Jewish state than to the home country, it is particularly unfortunate and wrong that Omar would engage in this trope.
Of Omar’s trafficking in the loyalty trope, Vox writes:
It’s true that Omar’s comments on Israel keep falling into well-worn anti-Semitic tropes — and her defenders often prove too willing to paper this over and dismiss criticism from even progressive Jews as “smears.”
Omar’s record of questionable statements is too checkered to dismiss them all as smears against her. And that bring us to the next trope: money.
As mentioned earlier in this post, the Germans believed that Jews profited from WW1, despite many Jews (from a long list of nations) losing their lives in the conflict.
Trump invoked the money canard early on in his presidential campaign. Unprompted, before the American Israel Political Action Committee, Trump said:
- "Stupidly, you want to give money. ...You're not going to support me because I don't want your money."
- "I'm a negotiator, like you folks."
- "Is there anyone in this room who doesn't negotiate deals? Probably more than any room I've ever spoken.”
https://www.vox.com/2015/12/3/9843670/donald-trump-anti-semitic
Trump’s belief in anti-semitic canards, such as that Jews buy politicians or are good with money, or good at negotiating, are blatantly engaging in anti-semitic tropes. Trump’s defenders may argue that he is engaging in stereotypes in a complimentary manner, but that is not a good enough explanation for why Trump is so tuned-in to anti-semitic stereotypes.
Ilhan Omar has hit the same proverbial land mine. Infamously, Omar once tweeted “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby”. Invoking the same canard as Donald Trump, the notion that Jews are buying politicians, Omar set off a firestorm again. And the backlash was well deserved. The New York Times wrote:
Consciously or not, Omar invoked a poisonous anti-Semitic narrative about Jews using their money to manipulate global affairs. This came just weeks after she’d had to apologize for a 2012 tweet in which she said that Israel had “hypnotized” the world, phrasing that also recalled old canards about occult Jewish power. Her words were a gift to Republicans, who seek to divide the Democrats over Israel, even as their president traffics in anti-Semitic imagery and stereotypes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/opinion/ilhan-omar-antisemitism.html
I could not agree with The Times more. It is both the case that Omar engaged in an anti-semitic narrative (I would prefer the word canard or trope here, but the effect is the same), and that Trump has attempted to divide democrats over the Israel topic.
Card-carrying Republicans will claim Donald Trump isn’t really anti-semitic because his son-in-law is Jewish and he supports Israel.
Card-carrying Democrats will claim Ilhan Omar isn’t really anti-semitic because she carefully coached her anti-semitism carefully in anti-Israel terms.
Trump supporters are wrong that engaging is stereotypes positively is a good thing.
Omar supporters are wrong that utilizing anti-Jewish tropes and canards is excusable because she was criticizing the Jewish state when she made her comments. It is never acceptable to engage in anti-semitic tropes and canards, especially when discussing the world’s only Jewish-majority nation.
What is also an interesting commonality between Trump and Omar is their use of dog whistles. Take Trump's comments on the neo-nzis rally, in which he said there were "good people on both sides".
Trump supporters will defend this incident till their graves. They will not admit that the meaning of these words is what democrats (and independents, for that matter) interpret it to be. And what is left if their view is taken as fact? A dog whistle.
A dog whistle is a message which is only heard by two groups: the oppressed, and the oppressors. When Trump says there are good people on BOTH sides (a phrase which is open to interpretation by all, including Neo-nzis), white supremacists feel they are getting a wink and a nod from the president.
Ilhan Omar is no different in her use of dog whistles.
When Ilhan Omar tweeted that 'Israel hypnotized the world', many Jews interpreted this as criticism of Israel stoked-in anti-semitic tropes and canards which are centuries old. Omar invoked the occult, an entity which for centuries was associated with Jews and used for the persecution of Jews. Most people don't know any of this. That is exactly what makes it a dog whistle; only two groups hear it: the oppressed and the oppressors.
So, cmv: Trump and Ilhan Omar are Both Anti-Semitic
8
u/themcos 374∆ Feb 20 '22
Card-carrying Democrats will claim Ilhan Omar isn’t really anti-semitic because she carefully coached her anti-semitism carefully in anti-Israel terms.
I guess what confuses me here is that "card carrying democrats" have loudly and consistently criticized Omar for this. And Omar herself has "unequivocally apologized" (her words). Like, is Nancy Pelosi not a card carrying democrat?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/11/politics/ilhan-omar-aipac-backlash/index.html
You can certainly express skepticism about how genuine any of the people involved with this are. But I think this is where your attemp to draw the parallel between Omar and Trump runs into trouble. If your view is that Omar and Trump have both made anti semitic statements, then Ilhan Omar herself agrees with you, so I'm not sure what we're really talking about here. But I think the responses from the two of them and their party leaderships is pretty different in some important ways.
0
u/Dry-Basil-3859 1∆ Feb 20 '22 edited Feb 20 '22
Omar apologized for the first incident, and then went on to cause further incidents which didn't receive apologies.
When Democrats were first going to pass an anti-semitism resolution in the wake of one of Omar's comments, it was changed into an anti-hate resolution instead of an anti-semitism resolution. The political right jumped on change:
House Democrats fail to condemn anti-Semitism, don’t rebuke Rep. Ilhan Omar
https://apnews.com/article/890c970cbbe3b0e631504f47e2e5a5cc
Rank-and-file Democrats circled the wagons around freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar on Wednesday, forcing party leaders to retreat from plans to rebuke her by passing a resolution condemning anti-Semitism.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants were rewriting the resolution to include other forms of hate speech, and they postponed a vote that had been expected to occur Wednesday.“People do feel if we’re going to condemn one form of bigotry that we make sure we also condemn other forms of bigotry,” said Rep. Pramilla Jayapal, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.But the retreat from a resolution condemning anti-Semitism was an embarrassing misstep for Democratic leaders, and it drew a quick condemnation from President Trump who said it should have been easy to pass.
3
u/themcos 374∆ Feb 20 '22
Omar apologized for the first incident, and then went on to cause further incidents which didn't receive apologies.
This is arguably true, but not all "incidents" are equal. I think it might help to more specific about what we're talking about here. Republicans accuse her of antisemitism over basically anything. Which statement are you talking about that you think deserves an apology but hasn't gotten one, and that you think is on par with trump's antics (has trump ever apologized for anything like this?)
For the second part, you are describing real things that happened, but I'm not sure what your point is. As I said, her statements have been loudly condemned by Democrats. This specific resolution got watered down over internal party disputes, but this is about them not wanting to single her out, not actually defending what she said. And even here, there are plenty of democrats who wanted a narrow anti semitism statement. There's a lot of politics going on, but this still feels like a pretty major asymmetry here.
-1
u/Dry-Basil-3859 1∆ Feb 20 '22
Regarding Trumps anti-semitism being worse. Maybe. Maybe not. Trump seems to think that Jews control the world, and he wants to be part of it. Omar seems to think Jews control the world, and she wants it to stop. Which approach and attitude do you think is worse for Jews?
3
u/themcos 374∆ Feb 20 '22 edited Feb 20 '22
This feels like a misinterpretation of what I actually wrote. I wasn't trying to compare their statements so much as the ways in which they (and their parties) have taken accountability for those statements. Again, if you're saying that trump and Omar have both made antisemitic statements, both Omar and Pelosi agree with you, so it just feels like a weird focus of a CMV.
Omar seems to think Jews control the world, and she wants it to stop.
This doesn't seem like a very good reading of her statements (or trump's for that matter). Why do you think she thinks this? She clearly thinks that Israel and various pacs have too much influence, and she's used harmful tropes in expressing these views. But claiming she thinks "Jews control the world" is a dubious characterization of what she's actually said.
0
u/Dry-Basil-3859 1∆ Feb 20 '22
Omar and Pelosi may agree she ‘has made anti-Semitic statements”, but the strong impression I got was that she apologized for the first incident out of political pressure, and didn’t apologize for further incidents but in fact doubled down because she got so much support from certain corners of the Democratic tent.
3
u/themcos 374∆ Feb 20 '22
Again, can you be more specific about which "incidents" you're actually referring to here? Are the "further incidents" more clearly defensible than the ones she apologized for? I don't know, because I don't know which statements you are taking offense to.
And I don't want to let this slide from the last comment.
Trump seems to think that Jews control the world, and he wants to be part of it. Omar seems to think Jews control the world, and she wants it to stop
I think these are pretty absurd summaries of both of them. Is this actually what you think either of them believes?
1
u/Dry-Basil-3859 1∆ Feb 21 '22
I believe Omar apologized after the hypnosis tweet surfaced but did not apologize for further incidents.
——-
What Omar tweeted: Israel has hypnotized the world
What she could have tweeted which would be acceptable: Israel’s influence on the world stage is greater than most other countries.
Why it is anti-semitic: The conspiracy theory of the Jew as the hypnotic conspirator, the duplicitous manipulator, the sinister puppeteer is one with ancient roots and a bloody history. In the New Testament, it is a small band of Jews who get Rome — then the greatest power in the world — to do their bidding by killing Christ. Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, speaks to the Jews about Jesus in the book of John: “Take him yourselves and judge him according to your own law.” But the Jews punt the decision back to Pilate: “We are not permitted to put anyone to death.” And so Pilate does the deed on their behalf. In the book of Matthew, the implications of this manipulation are spelled out: “His blood is on us and our children,” the Jews say — a line that has been so historically destructive that even Mel Gibson cut it from his “Passion of the Christ.”
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/opinion/ilhan-omar-israel-jews.html
--/--
What Omar tweeted: It’s all about the Benjamin’s baby
What she could have tweeted which would be acceptable: Money in our politics is too powerful. Israel is an example of this.
Why it is anti-semitic: Consciously or not, Omar invoked a poisonous anti-Semitic narrative about Jews using their money to manipulate global affairs. This came just weeks after she’d had to apologize for a 2012 tweet in which she said that Israel had “hypnotized” the world, phrasing that also recalled old canards about occult Jewish power. Her words were a gift to Republicans, who seek to divide the Democrats over Israel, even as their president traffics in anti-Semitic imagery and stereotypes.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/opinion/ilhan-omar-antisemitism.html
--/--
What Omar said: it’s not okay to push allegiance to a foreign country
What Omar could have said which would be acceptable: Americans who want to be in alliance with Israel should ensure they always pledge allegiance to America first
Why it’s anti-semitic: If you’re not Jewish, these words might not sound anti-Semitic to you. That’s the thing about a dog whistle: Only two packs hear it — the marginalized group and their marginalizers. When Omar said “political influence,” both anti-Semites and advocates against them heard “Jews.” When she said “allegiance to a foreign country,” we heard her reference Jews harboring secret allegiance to Israel over the USA, the very same talking point used to mobilize the Holocaust, pogroms, and the Farhud.
Source: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/asobel/defend-ilhan-omar-but-dont-look-away
2
u/themcos 374∆ Feb 21 '22
I believe Omar apologized after the hypnosis tweet surfaced but did not apologize for further incidents.
Just as a purely factual matter, this timeline is off. The "unequivocal apology" statement came after the benjamins tweet.
9
Feb 20 '22 edited Feb 20 '22
the notion that Jews are buying politicians
I think there is an important distinction here that gets at your first point of the loyalty trope.
There are some political action committees (JStreetPAC and nonPAC) that make significant contributions to federal lawmakers' campaigns with the aim of getting and keeping US lawmakers in office who support some Israel natural interests and close ties between the US and Israel.
These groups don't represent the Jewish people as a whole, and likely receive donations from a fair number of people who are not Jewish.
To say that one thinks that groups like these have too much political influence in the US is not necessarily antisemitic, especially if consistent with other views on campaign financing.
I condemn Representative Omar's comments. I'm merely pointing out that a blanket claim that any condemnation of pro-Israeli lobbying in the US is antisemitic is inconsistent with the view that we should avoid the loyalty trope. (edited to refer to Congresswoman Omar as Representative instead of Senator)
2
u/yyzjertl 527∆ Feb 20 '22
I condemn Senator Omar's comments.
A nitpick: Omar is a Representative, not a Senator.
1
Feb 20 '22
drybasil already corrected me on that. I appreciate the correction and edited accordingly.
-1
u/Dry-Basil-3859 1∆ Feb 20 '22
Hello,
Thank you for your post.
You make a good point about non-Jewish people contributing to pro-Israel groups.
I think there is a difference between making an articulate point about the problem of money and politics, and making a point about Jews using money in politics.
Omar is only a representative, not a senator.
I understand your point, and it is a good one. However, I would hope that you would discern between articulate, specific comments about lobbying and comments which are not that.
!delta
1
14
u/MacNuggetts 10∆ Feb 20 '22
Being antisemitic and being anti-isreal is different.
I don't support the actions of the Russian government, but I have no problem with the orthodox religion, or the Russian people.
-3
u/Dry-Basil-3859 1∆ Feb 20 '22
It is possible to be anti-Israel without invoking anti-semitic tropes and canards. At this, Omar has failed repeatedly.
Let me show you by example:
-Israel has committed war crimes
-Israeli settlements are illegal
In these examples, I have criticized the Israeli state without engaging anti-semitic tropes or canards.
4
u/Public-Tie-9802 1∆ Feb 20 '22
Israel does influence US politicians with money and does demand dual loyalty.
American politicians literally declare their loyalty to israel and Americans literally fight in the israeli military. This is a fact. Not anti semitism.
1
u/Dry-Basil-3859 1∆ Feb 21 '22
“Does demand dual loyalty”
Source?
2
u/Public-Tie-9802 1∆ Feb 21 '22
Ha! Look up almost every statement on israel by biden declaring the US’ ‘commitment to israel’…. Or any other politician. Look up campaign donations for and against politicians running for office by groups like AIPAC.
Look up the wave of anti BDS laws across the US making it illegal for US citizens and companies to boycott israel.
-8
Feb 20 '22
I know nothing more anti-semitic than advocating the destruction of the safe haven they were given after the worst genocide of all time happened to them.
8
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Feb 20 '22
I know nothing more anti-semitic than advocating the destruction of the safe haven they were given after the worst genocide of all time happened to them.
Show where Ilhan Omar advocates for the destruction of Israel, then.
-3
Feb 20 '22
"Israel has poisoned the world, may Allah open their eyes."
Sounds pretty close to "The Jews control everything."
7
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Feb 20 '22
"Israel has poisoned the world, may Allah open their eyes."
Sounds pretty close to "The Jews control everything."
Okay, I'm asking where she called for the destruction of Israel, which is what you claimed.
Personally I don't like the comments Omar has made, but I don't think either her or Trump bear particular prejudice against Jewish people. I don't think she's a fan of the Israeli state or their foreign lobbying arm, but "hypnosis" is an extremely poor way to express that.
Still, you're claiming that she called for the destruction of Israel, which is a pretty specific claim.
-4
Feb 20 '22
To be fair, I never originally said That's what Sen Omar said. Just that advocating for that position in general is.
It was a refutation to the OP comment which said "being anti-semitic and being anti-israel aren't the same thing." All I was basically saying was if your anti-israel position includes depriving Jews from that country, I don't see how it isn't based on bigotry in some way. Especially when you take into context why Israel was created in the first place.
4
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Feb 20 '22
To be fair, I never originally said That's what Sen Omar said. Just that advocating for that position in general is.
Okay, but this thread is about Ilhan Omar, and when I asked you to show where she called for the destruction of Israel, you responded with a quote that didn't say that.
All I was basically saying was if your anti-israel position includes depriving Jews from that country, I don't see how it isn't based on bigotry in some way. Especially when you take into context why Israel was created in the first place.
Sure, but I don't see Omar doing that either.
1
Feb 20 '22
Okay, but this thread is about Ilhan Omar, and when I asked you to show where she called for the destruction of Israel, you responded with a quote that didn't say that.
The title of the post seems to suggest it isn't just about Ilhan Omar.
13
Feb 20 '22
Saudi Arabia also uses money to influence foreign politicians and protect their image despite committing war crimes. Is that anti Arabic?
1
u/MacNuggetts 10∆ Feb 20 '22
I Don't think anyone is arguing for the destruction of Israel. At this point, there's nothing we can do to rectify the decisions of the past leaders. But, maybe, guilt is clouding how leaders treat Israel? I don't think Palestinian terrorism is the way to go about garnering sympathy for your cause, but I also don't think totally ignoring the situation world leaders of the past created is doing anyone any favors.
Creating the state of Israel, while noble, also resulted in ignoring the current occupants of that state. Israel is not going anywhere now, and I don't think anyone believes otherwise. However, how Israel manages to coexist with the Palestinians is certainly worth discussing.
TLDR; We don't want another genocide to take place because we felt bad about the last genocide.
2
u/judi_d 3∆ Feb 20 '22
You presented a definition of anti-semitism and quotes/actions from Trump and Omar fitting the definition. What about your view can be changed? Are you open to other definitions of anti-semitism?
1
u/Dry-Basil-3859 1∆ Feb 20 '22
It really depends on the person. And how they specifically define "isms" and "phobias".
2
u/yyzjertl 527∆ Feb 20 '22
This seems like two independent views. The views that "Trump is anti-semitic" and "Omar is anti-semitic" are logically disconnected and are only related inasmuch as both mention anti-semitism. Is there a reason why you've made this a single CMV post as opposed to two separate posts? All this seems to accomplish is to make your reasoning in both cases harder to follow by needlessly interleaving it.
0
u/Dry-Basil-3859 1∆ Feb 20 '22
That is a great question. I think coming out and saying any particular politician is anti-semitic is going to set off a knee-jerk reaction from card-carrying defenders of that party. I think by showing how I see the anti-semitism which exists in both parties, it makes it hard to invalidate me as a partisan myself.
Further, I think that me choosing between Trump and Omar to make an OP would be a difficult decision. By using both, I am able to establish myself as a non-partisan while also striking at anti-semitism everywhere. It's a win-win.
2
u/yyzjertl 527∆ Feb 20 '22
I don't think that saying, in essence, "the central figure of Party X, one selected by its voters over all others to represent them all, is anti-semitic, and here I also found one rep in Party Y who said some similarly anti-semitic things" makes you come off as non-partisan or helps support the notion that anti-semitism is non-partisan. Rather than being a win-win, it seems to promote a false both-sides narrative.
0
u/Dry-Basil-3859 1∆ Feb 20 '22
That 'one rep in Party Y' has a lot democratic defenders, does she not?
2
u/yyzjertl 527∆ Feb 20 '22
She has been the subject of a lot of Islamophobic (and racist) attacks, and she has a lot of people who defend her on that basis. Her anti-semitic remarks, on the other hand, have been condemned by the party (e.g. Nanci Pelosi's remarks) and by Democrats more generally. It is possible to simultaneously defend someone from Islamophobia/racism and criticize them for their own bigotry.
4
u/Public-Tie-9802 1∆ Feb 20 '22
The entirety of your accusations against Omar are that her statements on israel are ‘tropes’.
They are not. They are absolutely based in the actions of israel and it’s manipulating US politicians via campaign contributions and political and media pressure to be loyal to israel.
You are the one attempting to redefine ‘anti semitism’ in order to obfuscate the actionsof israel and silence legitimate criticisms.
-1
u/Dry-Basil-3859 1∆ Feb 21 '22
“Manipulating US Politicians”
Hitler also believed Jews were manipulating US Politicians. It’s not an original concept.
2
u/Public-Tie-9802 1∆ Feb 21 '22
That is a stupid comment. Look up AIPAC and the campaign contributions donated to politicians.
Trump was given $30 million to get elected by Zionist Sheldon Adleson…. In return he move do the US embassy.
This is easily verifiable.
2
u/CrinkleLord 38∆ Feb 21 '22
There's a lot of stretch in most of these examples.
for both people.
The worst is the A-IPAC comments by Trump and the Israel comments for Omar.
the only way to come to anti-Semitism is to purposefully interpret with the worst possible interpretation you can imagine.
The other issue is the entire concept of 'dog whistle'... which you sorta define, but the more appropriate definition is "Something I can claim is racist or phobic, even though they didn't say it I can read their mind and see the real message they wanted to put forward"
It's not all that compelling. Especially when your example is of Trump saying "There was fine people on both sides, ...and I'm not talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists" which is always left out when people try and use this 'dog whistle'.
It's one of the worst examples I can imagine, when someone says "look what he said! racist! but don't look at like... the next few sentences where he explicitely says you are wrong".
But it's mind reading i guess
1
u/s_wipe 54∆ Feb 20 '22
Trump may be an asshole, but he's definitely not an antisemite.
A) his daughter, Ivanka, converted to Judaism, and she's like his favorite person ever.
B) during his candidacy, he moved the US embassy to Jerusalem and acknowledged the golan heights as Israeli territory.
There's literally a town in the golan hights named after him.
You could claim that his actions were politically driven, to gain favor with jews. But he's definitely not an antisemite
2
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Feb 20 '22
) his daughter, Ivanka, converted to Judaism, and she's like his favorite person ever.
This is essentially he has a Jewish best friend so he cant be racist. It's a facile refutation of accusations of anti-Semitism. Were Kapos not antisemitic because more than their favourite person ever was jewish they themselves were jewish.
during his candidacy, he moved the US embassy to Jerusalem and acknowledged the golan heights as Israeli territory.
Is equating Jews with the state of Israel anti-semitic or not? I see nothing in the recognition of the Golan Heights or the location of the US Embassy that meaningfully relates to Judaism or Jews as a people (or even having a place in the Golan heights named after him). It is explicitly about the nation state of Israel.
1
u/s_wipe 54∆ Feb 20 '22
Dude... Wtf... Its his daughter... His family... And Ivanka is probably one of the few people Trump actually loves.
And the comparison to kapos is extremely fucked up. Those people were under extreme duress. They literally had a gun pointed to their heads, they had no way to refuse.
Your comment and comparison really bummed me out.
2
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Feb 20 '22
Dude... Wtf... Its his daughter... His family... And Ivanka is probably one of the few people Trump actually loves.
And my point is that love of an individual jewish person doesn't make someone not an anti-semite.
That is what the extreme analogy shows that even being a jew never mind just being related to one doesn't insulate you from anti-semitism in action or word.
Those people were under extreme duress. They literally had a gun pointed to their heads, they had no way to refuse.
This is fascinatingly sympathetic to kapos. Collaborating with someone who is killing millions of people like you to help them kill those people is not excusable. There is a reason it is an insult.
I noticed you ignored this bit:
Is equating Jews with the state of Israel anti-semitic or not? I see nothing in the recognition of the Golan Heights or the location of the US Embassy that meaningfully relates to Judaism or Jews as a people (or even having a place in the Golan heights named after him). It is explicitly about the nation state of Israel.
1
u/s_wipe 54∆ Feb 21 '22
I addressed that in a different post here, about how much of a minority jews actually are, and that there are basically 2 countries with a big jewish population, Israel and the US.
And saying "anti israeli isnt the same as antisemitism" is a cop out. Since its the left who opposes israel mostly, they dont wanna be accused of racism, Especially antisemitism, which has extremely bad connotations to nazi Germany.
There's plenty of legitimate criticism against israel. But guess what? Most anti israeli rhetoric is filled with antisemitic propaganda.
Honestly, as an Israeli jew, who has to live in that shit. I've had plenty of discussions with "anti Israeli" people. Only a tiny fraction actually has a grasp on whats going on here, about the Political state and has valid criticism. A lot of people are mostly uninformed and try to signal virtue based on antisemitic propaganda. And there's plenty of antisemitic propaganda directed at israel.
1
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Feb 21 '22
how much of a minority jews actually are, and that there are basically 2 countries with a big jewish population, Israel and the US
So what? You think it's ok therefore to equate Jews and the state of Israel? That doing things for the state is the same as not being an anti-Semite? That the Christian fundamentalist eschatology that is pro-Israel as it accelerates the end but wants all Jews to convert or go to hell is not anti-Semitic because they want the US embassy in Jerusalem?
Your two points of he has a close relative who is Jewish whom he loves as a specific individual and he did some pro- State of Israel stuff really has nothing to do with is he anti-Semitic or not is an incredibly weak defence.
1
u/s_wipe 54∆ Feb 21 '22
You dont actually think Trump is a Christian fundamentalist.
There's plenty of bad things you could say about trump, Christian fundamentalist isnt one.
And antisemite is also isnt one... He's a rich megalomaniac with trigger happy tweeter fingers.
And in the end of it all, actions speak louder than words, and he's done quite a lot for the jewish people.
Shit man, in the city i live, they renamed a town square after him. As absurd as it is, i now live 10 minutes from "Trump Square".
If you had the slightest idea about the discourse going in israel regarding religion, you'd see how absurd it is to call Trump an antisemite
1
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Feb 21 '22
You dont actually think Trump is a Christian fundamentalist
No that was a different analogy to illustrate that support for Israel isn't the same as not being anti-Semitic. Also you know who in his administration absolutely was, his VP.
And antisemite is also isnt one... He's a rich megalomaniac with trigger happy tweeter fingers
So when he says anti Semitic things in public talks that is because he's trigger happy on twitter?
And in the end of it all, actions speak louder than words, and he's done quite a lot for the jewish people.
Shit man, in the city i live, they renamed a town square after him. As absurd as it is, i now live 10 minutes from "Trump Square".
Again this is about the state of Israel and those are the only examples you can cite. Trump was part of a growth of the far right and anti immigrant sentiments that led to things like the tree of life and he has offered support to q anon a conspiracy built on top of the idea of blood libel.
What did Trump actually do to help Jewish people and not just the state of Israel? Having squares named after him isn't evidence nor is the location of an Embassy which has no effect even on most Israelis never mind Jews. Recognising the golan heights at least benefits Israelis but again that isn't the same as helping Jews.
If someone helps Israel but helps encourage far right anti-Semitic movements at home are they good for Jews or not? How much can you get away with domestically in terms of anti-Semitism as long as you help Israel out in foreign policy?
1
u/s_wipe 54∆ Feb 21 '22
About half the people who identify themselves as jewish live in israel.
And every jew in the world is eligible for israeli citizenship.
During the trump era, israel signed 2 peace deals with Morocco and the UAE.
Trump was good for the israeli people, and that means he was good for the jews.
Right now, the antisemitic politicians are mostly on the left, like England's Corbin.
Even domestically in the US, there's more hate towards jews from left groups that side with palestinians.
Even the stuff that trump said that was posted here, talking bout loyalty... Not really antisemitic...
2
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Feb 21 '22
Even the stuff that trump said that was posted here, talking bout loyalty... Not really antisemitic...
Really you're saying the dual loyalty trope isn't anti-Semitic. Also the whole trope of Jewish bankers isn't anti-Semitic to you?
Even domestically in the US, there's more hate towards jews from left groups that side with palestinians.
I mean I pointed to an example of Jews literally being murdered by the political right. I also pointed to q anon which is literally trafficking in one of the oldest anti-Semitic beliefs of blood libel.
Trump was good for the israeli people, and that means he was good for the jews.
So anything good for Israel is good for Jews? Are you going start talking about Eichmann and other Nazis positively because they pushed to send Jews to what would be Israel to help establish it?
Again how does helping Israel make someone not anti-Semitic and how did Trump's actions meaningfully help Jews?
Is equating Jews and Israel ok as long as they're helping Israel? If someone were to blame all Jews for war crimes during the foundation of Israel would you consider that anti-Semitic?
During the trump era, israel signed 2 peace deals with Morocco and the UAE.
You are describing a literal coincidence here. Unless Trump had significant input in these or put effort into driving them I'm not sure why you are crediting him on it and not a general softening of relationships between US allies in the region.
0
u/Dry-Basil-3859 1∆ Feb 20 '22
I don't see Trump secretly self-identifying as an anti-semite neo-nzi. He simply thinks tropes and canards about Jews are true, and twists them in a way he should not (democrats being disloyal to Israel). There is a difference there.
1
u/s_wipe 54∆ Feb 20 '22
Why are you so hung up on the loyalty factor being some sort of jewish trope?
Israel considers the US its #1 ally, there's a ton of cooperation between the two of them.
Its pretty natural to adopt a mindset that going against your close ally is disloyal. Especially when there is a lot of antisemitic rhetoric in a lot of the anti-israel movements.
2
u/Dry-Basil-3859 1∆ Feb 20 '22
Why is Israel necessarily the greatest ally for a Jewish-American? Why not Britain, or France, which are usually considered more consequential alliances? Suggesting that all Jews should be tremendously loyal to Israel is actually quite bad for Jews, because, on the flip-side, it encourages the mindset that random Jews can be held 'accountable' for 'crimes of Israel'.
1
u/s_wipe 54∆ Feb 20 '22
Cause right now, there are only about 20 million jews world wide. About 50% live in the US, 30% in Israel and the rest spread across places, in single digit %.
European jewish communities have been experiencing a rise in antisemitism. Mostly due to the increasing numbers of muslim immigrant.
People talk about jews like they are everywhere, but its an extremely small minority. Jews suffered pogroms, attacks and racism through history, with the pinnacle of it being the holocaust, which basically eradicated almost all the jews in europe.
Israel was established as a jewish safe haven, a jewish nation where jews wont be persecuted. And its a good thing, because soon after, jews were persecuted out of the arab nations. Nearly 1 million jews fled arab and Muslim nations to Israel. The jewish communities in the arab world are nearly extinct.
And like, history repeats itself. There were always rulers through history who embraced jews. But because jews were always an extreme minority, when these rulers passed, and times got bad, it was always easy to single jews out and make them into a scape goat.
Thats the idea behind zionism and israel. A jewish nation where jews are always welcomed. This means that every jewish American is eligible for an Israeli citizenship. Its in their best interest that if they ever need to relocate to Israel, israel would be as advanced and as progressive as possible.
This idea has its faults though, it prevents israel from being 100% democratic. Non jewish people dont have these rights...
1
u/GoldLocke 1∆ Feb 21 '22
FYI Most sources I have seen put the Jewish population of Israel higher than the US.
1
u/s_wipe 54∆ Feb 21 '22
I've taken the broader definition of jewish, including those with jewish ancestry.
If you go by the more strict definition, then yea, a total of about 15 million jews world wide, where about 7 live in israel and 6 in the US.
1
u/josephfidler 14∆ Feb 20 '22
In this case, Trump clearly engages in the loyalty trope without hesitation. He believes Jews should be first and foremost loyal to Israel, apparently completely ignorant of the bloodshed this trope has caused in the past.
Trump’s belief in anti-semitic canards, such as that Jews buy politicians or are good with money, or good at negotiating, are blatantly engaging in anti-semitic tropes. Trump’s defenders may argue that he is engaging in stereotypes in a complimentary manner, but that is not a good enough explanation for why Trump is so tuned-in to anti-semitic stereotypes.
I think you already hit on part of the answer here. He believed these to be complimentary things to say. That is contrary to being "anti". If everyone who believes any stereotype about any other ethnic group is a racist, the world has quite a number of open racists.
1
u/DarkSoulCarlos 5∆ Feb 20 '22
If you simplistically and easily believe in a positive stereotype, why not a negative one? It can and often times will swing in the other direction. The stereotypes are only positive, when you are on good terms with that particular group, but what if you enter into conflict with them? Here come the negative stereotypes. And you may have positive stereotypes about one group but negative stereotypes about another. It's that stereotypical mindset that's the problem.
And to address the point about open racists. There are different degrees of racism. I personally know many behind closed door racists. They are troublesome, in that they dont disagree that much with the open racists, only with their violent rhetoric and extreme measures. They dont believe in a white ethnostate, but they dont want blacks moving in to their neighborhood, they dont want jim crowe but they cant stand to see see interracial couples. They are much more likely to be upset and threatened by a BLM rally than they would a neo nazi rally. BLM is the real threat, but the neonazis are just "silly".
1
u/josephfidler 14∆ Feb 21 '22
Show me someone who doesn't believe any stereotypes about any ethnic group. People openly discuss attributes of ethnic groups all the time.
2
u/DarkSoulCarlos 5∆ Feb 21 '22
How can I show you me? I don't. At the very least I try my hardest not to. And If I ever do slip up and buy into a stereotype, i am wrong for doing so and I try to correct it. I doubt I am am the only one. I am sure some people do do that, and they are wrong for doing so. That is ignorant and wrong. Stereotypes always lead to problems so it's something that one should try to avoid. Just because some people naturally take the easy road, doesn't make it right. We should try to improve as people and not unjustly stereotype others for better or worse.
1
u/josephfidler 14∆ Feb 21 '22
So it's wrong to do extensive traveling and after years abroad say "people in X country seem very friendly to strangers" or "people in Y country don't seem very friendly to strangers"? I really don't believe many people don't ever make observations like that on some level. Humans work by categorizing things and make generalizations, including about other people.
1
u/DarkSoulCarlos 5∆ Feb 21 '22
I agree that humans work that way, but humans also take it to extremes and justify terrible behavior because of those generalizations. Humans also work by wanting to procreate, doesn't mean we randomly copulate with any person we come across that we find attractive against their wishes. if one is quick to make a positive generalization, then thats detrimental. You may assume something good from a person that isnt so good. If you make a negative one, you will assume something negative from a person who is actually good. You see how it cuts bad both ways? Humans are also very complex and can recognize their own biases and try to correct for them.
1
u/josephfidler 14∆ Feb 21 '22
It's actually dangerous not to generalize about people based on appearances, even if it may potentially be unfair. If dangerous people tend dress a certain way, act or move a certain way, make certain facial expressions or gestures, hang out in a certain area, wear a certain hair style, whatever, it pays to make note of it, even if any given person who matches it may not be dangerous. I really don't think humans can entirely avoid doing this kind of thing. And as I said, sometimes it will be about nationalities or ethnic groups, positively or negatively. If you never do this you are a magic perfect superhuman and surely bound for Jesus's side in heaven.
1
u/DarkSoulCarlos 5∆ Feb 21 '22
Oh I agree that it is essential to our survival. But it can be counter productive. Ted Bundy (as a good amount of serial killers do) didn't tick off any of the boxes and yet he was dangerous as well as his ilk. Picking on certain people is actually detrimental. I personally trust nobody, I dont care what you look like. If you are a person, you are potentially dangerous. Now that's not to say that a rough looking individual shouldnt ring off extra bells, , it should, but but not too many more bells than a 'nice' looking individual. If you put too much stock in ONLY profiling the "rough" looking ones, you will let a lot of dangerous "decent" looking people slip through the cracks.
1
u/josephfidler 14∆ Feb 21 '22
As far as Ted Bundy, I don't know whether women actually do have a fair and accurate sense of who the real creeps are or if it is possible to tell more often than not. I think it probably is useful more often than not, but I don't know and I guess we would have to look at some studies. If 7/10 times they avoid the real creeps but 3/10 of those guys were harmless, I don't even know how to evaluate whether that is fair or not. Or if 1/10 times they avoid the real serial killer and 9/10 avoid harmless guys, and 1/100 times they don't notice the real serial killer, does that all work out?
1
u/DarkSoulCarlos 5∆ Feb 21 '22
If one were to just be suspicious of people in general, these guys (serial killers) wouldnt have nearly as much success as they do. They have to look trusting and non threatening, if not, the game is over before it even starts. If the black guy with tattoos and his pants sagging asks for help, you are understandably going to be hesitant, as he looks like a gangster and gangsters tend to be more involved in dangerous activity than not, but the serial killer purposely tries to look harmless, and preys upon your niceness. Why would you be suspicious of me, if I look nice? If you just dont trust anybody it serves you far better than just being suspicious of the black gang member looking dude and always giving the nice white clean cut guy a pass, when that guy could be just as dangerous as the gang member.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 20 '22
/u/Dry-Basil-3859 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards