honorentheos wrote:I disagree that Rep. Omar's statements reflect a political complaint towards a particular lobby's influence in the same vein as arguing the NRA's influence is bad for America. I also think the apology she provided was a net positive in moving the discussion in the direction you rightly argue shouldn't be out of bounds.
Her statement was essentially a collection of tweets arguing US politicians were being paid to be pro-Israel by AIPAC. Maybe I have a weird idea of what criticism looks like but that isn't it, in my opinion. That's something else.
I don't understand your distinction at all. Let's just frame this up correctly. It wasn't a "collection of tweets" -- it was exactly two tweets. The first was in response to a tweet by Glen Greenwald asking why McCarthy (house minority leader) was spending so much time and effort trying to lobby for taking some action against Omar and Tlaib. His basis was accusing them of being anti-Israel. She tweeted "It's all about the Benjamins." When asked what money she was talking about, she tweeted "AIPAC" That's it.
So, what she did was claim that a politician was taking actions that were motivated by lobbyists dollars. She didn't criticize AIPAC. She didn't criticize Jews who donate to campaigns. She criticized McCarthy. It's no different from criticizing a Senator for voting against a gun bill and citing the reason as being the large contributions he received from the NRA.
Referring to her tweets as being similar to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as some politicians did, is absurd. She didn't make any use of the "rich Jews who control the world" anti-Semitic trope. She just claimed that a politician was acting to the benefit of his donors.
So, it seems we can criticize any lobbying group for exerting influence over politicians. Any lobbying group, that is, except AIPAC. Because even mentioning AIPAC as having influence over politicians is anti-semitic.
honorentheos wrote:The House Democrat Leadership's statement:
"Legitimate criticism of Israel's policies is protected by the values of free speech and democratic debate that the United States and Israel share. But Congresswoman Omar's use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel's supporters is deeply offensive. We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments."
Her apology:
"Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes," Omar said. "My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize."
"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."
Should we feel this adjustment was a net negative for free speech? I don't.
I think she handled herself in a classy manner once it became clear that her leadership was going to throw her under the bus. I don't see this as a positive development for free speech at all. How are we supposed to be able to rationally and openly discuss Middle East policy, when any criticism in the vicinity of Israel gets shut down for anti-semitism?