The WaPo item link. The Strib link. Guardian analysis of subtleties underlying the bullying against Ilhan Omar and how some question the haste of entrenched inner party "I'm the boss, we're the bosses" reactionism.
Dan Burns posts two interesting links concerning "Ms. Omar Goes to Washington." Shut up and toe the party line seems a strange and inhospitable way to welcome a new member of Congress. AOC is hearing it too, different issues, same message. Fresh ideas are like fresh air. Healthy.
Several Paul Waldman online items.
UPDATE: Readers are urged to check out the "Great Freakout" trifecta items Timmer has posted with regard to the previous Omar statement (the one drawing attention before her questioning the judgment of those who'd impose a preconceived foreign relations policy upon her Committee membership in Congress). Timmer's items in chrono order, here, here and here. Waldman's WaPo item's links re Omar's Committee assignment; here, here, here, and here. Those latter four items bolster Timmer's "Great Freakout" choice of headlining, and demonstrate that Chicken Little lives and thrives among those in our unfortunate right wingnut fringe population.
FURTHER UPDATE: Dissension and its airing in debate seems more viable within segments of our Jewish community than among our population of right wing idealogues.
FURTHER UPDATE: Is it a sign of sagacity that when an Israel lobby functionary writes Pelosi a letter saying, "Jump" that she seems to conform to the tagline of asking, "How High," on the way up? Is leadership asleep at the switch, in terms of sensitivities not having been written in stone on a mountaintop? Along that dimension, as a hypothetical if James Dobson wrote Mike Pence a letter saying, "Jump," what should be expected? Along that dimension, what's best for the nation, that being a far harder question.
FURTHER UPDATE: Strib, today, Mar 7, posted what appears to be a video AP carry item - "Omar supporters rally amid remarks controversy -- Supporters of freshman House Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar called on Congress to change their responses to the Minnesota congresswoman amid controversy over her remarks on Israel" - with the following image being Strib's lead online videothumbnail:
 |
| image source |
This item adds to the legend, mystique, and mystery touching Rep. Omar's first days in Congress.
The particular mystery felt here: Is the young woman on the left side of the image intending a message, and if so, to mainstream media P3 personnel [Paparazzi with Press Passes], to the Israel Lobby, or to Pelosi and Hoyer as a judgment of their quick wisdom -- and if either or all, is it an appropriate message?
In weighing the question it is worth noting that Strib, the same morning, had a lead feature locally written, "House Democrats grapple with fallout from Rep. Ilhan Omar's remarks on Israel -- Leaders of the House's Democratic majority were forced to delay a planned vote on a resolution to condemn anti-Semitism. - By Patrick Condon Star Tribune - March 7, 2019 — 12:07am," using the same lead video and thumbnail. The text of Strib's online posting along with the dual use of the visual element makes it uncertain whether the visual was an AP feed item or Strib's own (while that reporting added context information to the question of the young lady's possible messaging/intent). In any event the opinion about messaging held here is irrelevant to your own reaction and feelings, and shall go unstated - who knows, possibly all three; or none of the above - a mere coincidence?
FURTHER UPDATE: The Patrick Condon item is well structured, and in part states:
Leaders of influential Jewish-American groups and a number of prominent Democratic lawmakers bristled at what they saw as a suggestion of dual loyalty, pointing out that charge has been used against Jews for centuries to marginalize them politically and socially.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Wednesday called charges of dual loyalty “particularly dangerous.”
But in recent days, a number of prominent Democrats have come forward to defend Omar, including two of the party’s high-profile presidential candidates — Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Kamala Harris of California.
Harris said she was concerned that the outcry could put Omar “at risk,” while Sanders, who is Jewish, said he feared putting legitimate debate over Israel’s policies off-limits.
“What I fear is going on in the House now is an effort to target Congresswoman Omar as a way of stifling that debate,” Sanders said in a statement. “That’s wrong.”
A growing number of progressive groups and officials have also spoken on Omar’s behalf, including a coalition of Muslim and Jewish groups that gathered at the nation’s Capitol on Wednesday.
“Anti-Muslim bigotry and hypocritical double standards are a driving force behind the proposed resolution condemning Congresswoman Ilhan Omar,” said Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, a Washington-based civil rights organization.
[italics added] What appears the case, per Crabgrass guessing, is that Omar was clear that she felt pressured in relation to her foreign affairs committee assignment to treat Israel and its conduct as a political "third rail" because of the vigor and tenacity of the Israel Lobby, in particular AIPAC. A kind of "don't poke a stick in the hornets' nest" as a weight pressed against the young Congressional freshman. She felt it and did not like it and there is much to be said in favor of her speaking out instead of letting her anger and surprise fester unspoken. As in "BRAVO."
The Israel Lobby reacted. Feeling smug perhaps over past triumphs, it jumped on and bullied; and Hoyer and Pelosi reacted as that Lobby expected; but then the situation grew legs that the Lobby, Pelosi, and Hoyer had not anticipated because of thinking having in the past always been one way.
Bernie's statement is most welcome, and shows what a sound and sensible candidate he is.
OKAY - Unanticipated blowback has resulted which AIPAC types in better judgment might have foreseen: raising the question of what is next. With the bullying, the BDS question gains a new ray of sunlight, and should be a focused part of any further analysis and debate. BDS worked against South Africa. That is fact.
BusinessInsider reports:
Omar supports the movement to boycott Israel and has been critical of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. She has also been vocal in her opposition to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington that nearly always aligns with the Israeli government.
Last month, Democratic leaders in the House condemned another tweet in which Omar argued that pro-Israel American lawmakers were influenced by donations from groups like AIPAC. Omar apologized amid the intense backlash.
[links in original] Presumably, after that earlier SNAFU and apology (the situation which motivated the earlier referenced Timmer writings) the Israel Lobby insiders then regarded Rep. Omar as a speak-but-fold kigme and pressed their luck with their next lean-on, which showed they miscalculated.
"Hoist in their own petard" is a saying that comes to mind. BDS discussion should result, not dessicated and Bowdlerized nor as an intimidated older-generation Koolaid thing, but anew and fresh. Resulting discussion should be deep, explorative, objective, and vigorous, unbiased either way at the outset.
Focusing on Condon's mention of Bernie, as italicized in the quote, accessing Bernie's senate "Newsroom" webpage shows very interesting content, but not any posted content about Congresswoman Omar. A second BusinessInsider item presents the complete present Sanders statement in a thorough context which everyone should read. No quote here; check it out, please. Level minds are taking over the issue, and all well-intentioned people should benefit.
IN CLOSING: A collateral plum from a serendipitously worded websearch turned up an Omar reaction to a comment from a different "Sanders", which led to another BRAVO for Rep. Omar.