"And that the former president is criticizing American Jews for being ungrateful, commanding them to show him proper respect—and issuing a veiled threat if they do not."
This part is the lie that undoes this article. There is no command in Trump's post, and there is no threat in Trump's post. There is a WARNING - a very legitimate one. Ba…
"And that the former president is criticizing American Jews for being ungrateful, commanding them to show him proper respect—and issuing a veiled threat if they do not."
This part is the lie that undoes this article. There is no command in Trump's post, and there is no threat in Trump's post. There is a WARNING - a very legitimate one. Bari admits its legitimacy in the rest of this column, as the left-wing movement poses serious threats to Jews. Yet she acts as though it's heresy to follow those facts to their logical conclusion: Support the movements that defend Jews or fall victim to those who hate Jews.
Interestingly enough, this article drops several hours after National Review's Philip Klein wrote a piece on exactly the same collection of public statements. No citation, Bari? I suspect that reading Klein's column inspired this one in its entirety.
I fully agree. Ye's statement and Trump's statement are not related in any way.
Bari's TDS has led her to complain that the biggest supporter that Israel has ever had has somehow criticized Jews. He's sounding the alarm about how dangerous the Dems are for peace in the middle east.
Readers can disagree regarding whether there is a veiled threat in Trump's statement, but, regardless, that statement does not undo the rest of this article.
People can disagree with anything, but some disagreements are far less rational than others.
As for the article, it is a trope at this point that otherwise good writeups are undermined by unnecessary, gratuitous mentions of Donald Trump (besides the fact that including that Trump quote made it very plain that she just rewrote Philip Klein's article without citation). Moreover, the weakness of the claim that Trump was being anti-Semitic is discrediting.
I didn't read Trump's statement a a veiled threat, but given Trump's history of turning on "friends" that he deems no longer sufficiently grateful, I can understand where Bari is coming from. The main point of my comment is that one, rational disagreement should not discount the remainder of someone opinion.
"And that the former president is criticizing American Jews for being ungrateful, commanding them to show him proper respect—and issuing a veiled threat if they do not."
This part is the lie that undoes this article. There is no command in Trump's post, and there is no threat in Trump's post. There is a WARNING - a very legitimate one. Bari admits its legitimacy in the rest of this column, as the left-wing movement poses serious threats to Jews. Yet she acts as though it's heresy to follow those facts to their logical conclusion: Support the movements that defend Jews or fall victim to those who hate Jews.
Interestingly enough, this article drops several hours after National Review's Philip Klein wrote a piece on exactly the same collection of public statements. No citation, Bari? I suspect that reading Klein's column inspired this one in its entirety.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/10/can-people-just-stop-talking-about-the-jews/
I fully agree. Ye's statement and Trump's statement are not related in any way.
Bari's TDS has led her to complain that the biggest supporter that Israel has ever had has somehow criticized Jews. He's sounding the alarm about how dangerous the Dems are for peace in the middle east.
Not just criticized, threatened. How ironic that Trump's comment is perceived as the threat to Jews.
Readers can disagree regarding whether there is a veiled threat in Trump's statement, but, regardless, that statement does not undo the rest of this article.
People can disagree with anything, but some disagreements are far less rational than others.
As for the article, it is a trope at this point that otherwise good writeups are undermined by unnecessary, gratuitous mentions of Donald Trump (besides the fact that including that Trump quote made it very plain that she just rewrote Philip Klein's article without citation). Moreover, the weakness of the claim that Trump was being anti-Semitic is discrediting.
I didn't read Trump's statement a a veiled threat, but given Trump's history of turning on "friends" that he deems no longer sufficiently grateful, I can understand where Bari is coming from. The main point of my comment is that one, rational disagreement should not discount the remainder of someone opinion.
Edited: I linked the wrong NR column initially. The point stands, though.