Thursday, August 1, 2019

 

AOC just gave an in-depth interview on Israel, anti-Semitism, the Holocaust and Bernie Sanders

ADVERTISEMENT
(JTA) — Despite the president calling her an anti-Israel Jew-hater, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hasn’t actually said a ton about Israel and the Jews.
Until now, that is.
In a lengthy radio interview Tuesday, AOC expounded on a huge range of Jewish topics — from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to anti-Semitism to Jewish social justice activism to her use of the term “concentration camps” to her possible Jewish ancestry to Jews of color in Israel to Bernie Sanders.
The conversation about Jewish issues lasted more than 12 minutes, a long time on radio. The interview aired Tuesday on “Ebro in the Morning,” a show on New York City hip-hop station HOT97. The show is hosted by Ebro Darden, whose mother is Jewish, and who attended Hebrew school as a child. In addition, a co-host, Peter Rosenberg, is Jewish.
Ocasio-Cortez is critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and opposes Israel’s occupation of the West Bank — but framed it as a criticism of Israeli policy, not of Israel’s existence. She said that doesn’t mean she’s anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. She gave a shoutout to the leftist Jewish group IfNotNow, which opposes the occupation and is controversial in many parts of the Jewish community for not taking a stance — for or against — Zionism, the Israel boycott or the “question of statehood.”
She also accused the Trump administration of anti-Semitism. She defended her use of the term “concentration camps” to describe detention centers on the border. She praised New York City Jews for standing up for minorities. She discussed Ethiopian Jews protesting in Israel.
Her comments have drawn criticism from the Republican Jewish Coalition, which objected to her agreeing with Darden’s comment that “what’s going on with Israel and Palestine” is “very, very criminal and is very, very unjust.” (Ocasio-Cortez responded, “Absolutely.”)
RJC also objected to comments by Darden, who said, “It’s an oxymoron: How do you have white supremacist Jews? How do you have people like Stephen Miller? How do you have these individuals who are legit aligning with racism and white supremacy, but they’re Jewish?” Ocasio-Cortez was not heard to respond to those questions.
“Ocasio-Cortez could be forgiven for being ignorant about history, about Israel, or about the Jewish community, but these comments don’t come from a place of ignorance,” the RJC said. “They come from an intolerance of Jews and Israel that is unacceptable in the halls of Congress and in American political discourse.”
The RJC, as well as Fox News, claimed that Ocasio-Cortez said Palestinians “have no choice but to riot.” In the full quote, said while discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, she appears to be saying that under oppressive conditions, all peoples have no choice but to riot.
“Once someone doesn’t have access to clean water they have no choice but to riot and it doesn’t have to be that way,” she said. “And I’m not even talking about Palestinians. I’m talking about people, communities in poverty in the United States. I’m talking about Latin America. I’m talking about all over the world.”
Here are the main points of AOC’s most Jewish interview ever.
On Israel:
“The Netanyahu administration is very much like the Trump administration.
“The right wants to advance this notion that if you engage in critique of Israeli policy, that you are anti-Semitic, but it’s the furthest thing from the truth.
“The same way that me criticizing Trump doesn’t make me anti-American, criticizing the occupation doesn’t make you anti-Israel, frankly. It doesn’t mean you are against the existence of a nation. It means you believe in human rights. It’s about making sure that Palestinian human rights are equal to Israeli human rights, and there are a lot of troubling things happening there.
“We don’t engage in any other country like that. We don’t talk about the U.K. like that, we don’t talk about China like that, we don’t talk about the United States… If you criticize any other country, they don’t say ‘Do you believe in Britain’s right to exist?’
“And I understand that there’s a very deep history, there’s a reason why we ask that question when it comes to Israel, because Jewish people have been persecuted throughout all of human history. But I don’t think that by marginalizing Palestinians you create safety.”
(Earlier in the interview, she suggested that “young Jews in Israel are sick of” Netanyahu and Israel’s right-wing policies. Some undoubtedly are, but as a group, young Israeli Jews are more supportive of Netanyahu than older ones.)
On anti-Semitism (and accusations of anti-Semitism): 
“You want to engage in actual discussions of anti-Semitism? That is a legitimate conversation that we can have, because anti-Semitism is on the rise in the United States,” she said.
“The actually troubling part about it is that I believe this administration does traffic in anti-Semitism, and then they play these cards as though it’s like their cover. But it’s super disturbing.”
On her use of “concentration camps”:
“If I didn’t say it that way, no one would be talking about concentration camps. We’ve got members [of Congress] going to the border every single weekend because we jostled this discussion. And we named it for what it was.
“I didn’t pull that word out of anywhere. Academics, historians, people who study political science, they all started coming and saying, ‘This is what this is’ before I did. I just amplified what the experts were already saying, and people tried to make this about anti-Semitism too. But I never said these were Holocaust-style concentration camps or death camps. We have had concentration camps before in the United States when we interned Japanese Americans.”
(After Ocasio-Cortez’s use of the term “concentration camps,” the U.S. Holocaust Memorial and Museum said that it “unequivocally rejects efforts to create analogies between the Holocaust and other events, whether historical or contemporary.”)
On the social justice activism of New York City Jews:
“Growing up in New York — New York is like a Jewish capital of America, in many ways of the world. It is a huge part of our culture here and one of the things that I always knew and appreciated growing up is that this is a huge part of why New York Jews have been such staunch advocates for marginalized communities. Jewish communities have long stood for civil rights. They’ve long stood for people who are economically marginalized, for low-income people, for the arts, for all of these things, because it is literally in the culture to say, ‘We don’t let anyone get left behind.'”
On Jews of color and her own (possible) Jewish roots:
“There are Ethiopian Jews, there are Latin American Jews. I mean, Puerto Rico, we have Sephardic Jews. I haven’t done a [DNA test with] 23andMe, but I wouldn’t be surprised if I was part Sephardic. In fact, my uncle did a genealogy and there’s a lot of stuff in my family history that points to the fact that we were Sephardic Jews that fled the Spanish Inquisition and ended up in the Caribbean.”
“That’s important because in Israel they are also targeting Jews of color,” she added, presumably a reference to accusations of discrimination there against Ethiopian immigrants and Mizrachi Jews.
(In December, at a Hanukkah event, Ocasio-Cortez said, “One of the things that we discovered about ourselves is that a very, very long time ago, generations and generations ago, my family consisted of Sephardic Jews.”)
On Bernie Sanders and the Democratic presidential primary:
“[I] love Bernie and I love Elizabeth Warren. Those are not just my politics, but I think they really in a big way check off that box in advocating for the things that I think can win a presidential election,” she said. “But there are a lot of other really great people out there.”
 
August 1 - 3, 2019 / 29 Tammuz 5779
 
  

Baltimore: 6 Jewish Facts

by Dr. Yvette Alt Miller

  

[VIDEO] Word by Word: Rebuilding Together During the 9 Days

by Rabbi Yisroel Majeski and NesProductions

  

  


  

  

  

PODCAST: Why Are We Here?

by Heather Dean

  

The Religious Significance of Israel

by Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks

Weekly Torah Portion Click Here...
 
Today's Quote – Tammuz 29
The Meaning of Hessed
Today's Photo – Tammuz 29
Archaeological Ruins on Mount Gerizim
Photo of the archaeological ruins on Mount Gerizim near Shechem/Nablus by David Rabkin.
Daily Question
Ilhan Omar is scheduled to come to Israel. What do you think are the must-see spots she should visit to get an accurate picture of Israel?

 
 

Featured at Aish.com

 
     
     
 
 

Graham moves controversial asylum bill through panel; Democrats charge he's broken the rules

Graham moves controversial asylum bill through panel; Democrats charge he's broken the rules

Graham moves controversial asylum bill through panel; Democrats charge he's broken the rules
The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill to overhaul U.S. asylum laws on Thursday, waiving committee rules to force the legislation through over Democrat objections. 
 
The Judiciary Committee voted 12-10 to send the bill, spearheaded by Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), to the full Senate, where it's not expected to get the 60 votes needed to ultimately pass. 
 
The decision by Graham to force his bill through the committee sparked outrage from Democrats on the panel, who accused him of busting up the rules on how legislation gets taken up in order to push through a partisan bill. 
 
As Graham asked for a vote to formally schedule a time to pass his bill, Democrats protested and argued that Republicans were breaking the rules. Graham ignored them.  
 
"You're breaking the rules of the committee," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said as Graham directed committee staff to ignore Democratic attempts to speak ahead of the vote. 
 
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) interrupted the roll call vote, questioning what rule Graham was using "that allows you to do this." When a committee staffer asked Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) how he was voting, he replied, "I decline to vote on the grounds that this is an illegitimate process." 
 
The flashpoint on the committee comes after all Democrats except Feinstein skipped a business meeting last Thursday when Graham's bill was on the agenda. Under committee rules two members of the minority party have to be present to take up legislation or to hold it over until the next meeting. 
 
Because Graham wasn't able to hold over his bill, Republicans had to vote to "deem" it as held over, letting it bypass the panel's rules making it eligible for a vote on Thursday. 
 
Graham defended his decision saying he wasn't "changing the rules. I am making a motion in response to what you did last week." 
 
"Last week you choose not show up … What am I supposed to do?" Graham asked. "The committee can't be a place where nothing happens because the House may not pass it." 
 
Graham specified to The Hill on Wednesday that the decision to waive the committee's rules would only apply to his asylum bill, not any future legislation that's taken up by the committee. 
 
He countered on Thursday that a provision in the panel's rules allows a majority to change how legislation is handled. When Durbin challenged him, Republicans on the panel voted to uphold Graham's decision. 
 
But that did little to assuage Democrats, who fumed during the hour-long committee hearing. 
 
"I am sick at heart of what we have done," Whitehouse said after the committee approved Graham's bill along party lines. "I hate what has just happened."
 
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), a former chairman and current member of the panel, physically ripped up a copy of the committee's rules as he lectured Republicans. 
 
"If the majority is willing to break any rule in order to report this bill today, there are no rules. …This committee is nothing but a conveyer belt of ultra-partisan ideas. It's under the thumb and control of Donald Trump," Leahy said. "This is suppose to be the Senate Judiciary Committee. Not the Donald Trump committee." 
 
Graham appeared visibly angry and red-faced as he responded to Leahy, saying Democrats were effectively trying to strip him of his chairmanship. 
 
"What you're telling me is that I should ignore what you did to me last week? I will not. …You're not going to take my job away for me. I take this very personally," Graham said. "You may not like what we do over here, you can vote no. But this committee is not going to be the dead end committee." 
 
Graham’s bill touches on the detentions of families who cross the border, as well as their possible separations, one of the most sensitive issues in politics right now.
 
It would increase the number of days a family can be held together from 20 days to 100 days, preventing family separations but lengthening the period children could be held in custody with their parents. 
 
It would also require asylum claims be filed in Mexico or a home country instead of the United States, provide funding for 500 new immigration judges and allow unaccompanied minors from Central America to be sent back to their home countries, similar to unaccompanied minors from Canada or Mexico
 
Feinstein said the bill "has no chance of becoming law" and that she had confirmed with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that it would not get a vote. 
 
"The committee will be breaking and violating its own rules. Why even have rules?" Feinstein asked. "It should also be noted by moving forward today, the majority will be breaking the rules of the Senate." 
 
She added "we're not the House. This is not a body intended to run on power alone, and majority will." 
 
Graham acknowledged that his bill was unlikely to get Democratic support if it is brought up for a vote on the Senate floor but he didn't want the panel to "become irrelevant." 
 
"I don't want bills like this to go directly to the floor … but I am not going to stop the process," he said. "It is now time for us to move forward and get this bill out of committee." 
 
 
   
LOAD COMMENTS (277)

Phil Pasquini / Shutterstock

Army veteran, police officer announces campaign to unseat Ilhan Omar in 2020

Democrat Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar has proven to be nothing but trouble for her own party and the country since winning her congressional seat in 2018, a brief tenure that has been characterized by a series of remarks viewed by many as anti-American and anti-Semitic.

A 2020 challenger to Omar has already emerged in the form of a decorated veteran of the U.S. Army who has also served as an officer in the Minneapolis Police Department for over two decades.

Campaign announced

The challenger for the Fifth Congressional District seat is Chris Kelly, who on Monday officially launched his campaign to secure the Independence Party’s nomination to run against Omar.
Kelly previously attempted to secure the Republican endorsement for a state Senate seat in 2016, but ultimately failed in that endeavor.

According to Kelly, the primary motivation behind his decision to run against Omar was her dismissive remarks earlier in the year about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, which Omar had described merely as “some people did something” and which she framed as hurting Muslims in America more than the actual victims who died in the attacks.

A positive voice

Speaking with Fox News about his decision to run, Kelly said: “Sept. 11 was a terrible loss of life, not just for police officers and firefighters and other first responders, but 3,000 people and non-combatants died, and to be dismissive of that was an outrage.
“I could sit and complain or I could do something about it,” he added. “And I believe I can be a positive voice in standing up for people in our country, and for our first responders and the people every day on the frontlines.”

Aside from underscoring Omar’s scandalous commentary on 9/11, Kelly also asserted that the freshman congresswoman seemed more focused on raising her “celebrity” status than actually serving as a lawmaker.
He further revealed how very far apart he and Omar are on certain hot-button issues, such as securing the border and stemming the flood of illegal immigration, as well as reining in federal spending and addressing the national debt.

Non-controversial candidacy

As for his planned run against Omar, Kelly vowed to have a “positive, fact-based campaign” that would refrain from personal attacks against his opponent.
“I won’t be bringing in controversy and scandal. I will be bringing firsthand knowledge of the things that I know are going on in the community as an officer. I see a lot every day — the homelessness, the opioid crisis — I want to bring these things to the forefront and put some ideas on the table on how to deal with them,” Kelley said.
He went on: “I want to do anything I can to make people’s lives better; I just want to sit and listen to people and make some positive change.”



Reader Interactions

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *