General Discussion

Saudi Arabia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia_lobby_in_the_United_States

Why some seem to be fixated on the "evils" of the lobbying of AIPAC, and seem to minimize other lobbying groups over AIPAC, makes me wonder


The killing of Jamal Khashoggi, and hesitation of the U.S. to act, is one small example of the influence of the lobbying of Saudi Arabia in the U.S., and that influence has been going on for decades.

Of course we also have the PHARMA lobby which sure hasn't helped with the price of drugs, long with other lobbying groups.

The point I am making is shouldn't the influence of ALL lobbying be frowned upon, not just the ones people don't agree with?

Those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016 helped mold the Supreme Court which opened the door to Citizens United, and the influence of even more money in politics.

I find it interesting that some don't seem to understand why Representative Omar's tweet was offensive to some.

In fact, some identify themselves as Jewish, or married to a Jewish person, as though that identification makes them an authority why it shouldn't be offensive is a fallacious argument. Justice Thomas happens to be an African American, but isn't particularly sensitive the issues of the African American plight in this country.

Being critical of the Israeli government is not necessarily anti-Jewish, nor are advocates for the BDS, but when using terms toward it that have the same vernacular as The Protocols of Zion, and other anti-Jewish verbiage, or implication pointing to "Jews and money",
that starts to cross a line.

The association of Jews and money has always been a favorite theme of those who are anti-Jewish. The stereotypes have run rampant for decades in this country.

Ironically, Trump caused a similar controversay during his 2016 campaign when he tweeted an image depicting Clinton, cash and the Star of David, and no doubt that was a dog whistle to those who harbor anti-Jewish sentiments in the country, in the same way as his racist, bigoted statements were to those who share those "values"

If one is against lobbyists, one should be against all lobbyists, not just the one's they disagree with?

There was a reason that Representative Omar apologized, and that was a good thing, though interestingly enough when asked about comments from 2012 regarding Israel's powers of hypnosis" she said she didn't understand why it was offensive. As a NY Times editorial points out:

"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.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/opinion/ilhan-omar-israel-jews.html

So yes, there is sensitivity to that, just as there was sensitivity among African Americans, and Northam's yearbook

We get into problems though, when assertions are made to question a congress persons dual loyalties just because of a position they take on an issue. Ironically, that same argument could be hurled against those who are making those "dual loyalty" accusations

The problem isn't disagreements on issues, that is a fact of life, the problem as I see it is a double standard on a lot of things.