I don't think you understand the breadth and diversity of views on Israel among American Jews. My rabbi at a major synagogue in NYC has been "blackballed" by the Israeli government.  So all of this presumed uniformity is just awkwardly incorrect IMO.  No, it's not my opinion--it's just wrong.

And I don't know what you mean by "pushback."  I'm not here to defend AIPAC, but I think there was "pushback" when President Obama negotiated the Iran Deal, but he still got the deal, no?

And why would it be my burden to disprove the thesis that American Jews are not loyal to country (or are dually loyal), or that American Jews (through AIPAC) control American foreign policy?   I would think that it's more properly your burden to somehow show that this persistent "pushback" you treat as a given: (a) is real; and (b) leads to Jewish control of foreign policy.

Now, finally, there are many Jews who use allegations of antisemitism against those who in no way deserve to be called antisemites.  For folks like me, not the cardboard cutouts that make this debate for some easier, I've been branded a KAPO for defending the Women's March.  A Kapo by fellow Jews.  Do you have any idea what that means?  I've felt the wrath so many seem to fear of being called Jew-hater.  And it's ultimately a big fat so f'ng what. 

Thanks for trying to bridge.

Like what, when Mitt Romney goes to Israel and starts hitting up donors or Sheldon Adelson holds his fundraisers there, it pisses me off much more than Rahm Emmanuel and countless others serving in the Israeli army, which is of course pretty hard core dual allegiance. When our Iranian policy - as fucked up as it is thanks to overthrowing Mossadegh and backing the Shah way too long gets kidnapped by Bibi's paranoia and political scheming, I get pissed off, and much of that is framed by these AIPAC fuckers as "we have to support Israel" rather than "we have to come up with a sane balanced sustainable Mideast policy rather than troops on the ground and 0 political progress". Note that Israel is not responsible for our initial fuckups with Iran, but she doesn't help much in calming and figuring out the current situation. And from what I see the "dual allegiance" comes as much or more from these religious and neocon conservatives - most non-Jewish - than any welling up of American Jewish conflicted loyalties. I mean, we have our "Special Relationship" with the UK, which largely got us into 2 world wars (and Iran), and that's of course largely an ethnic tie for us Anglo-Saxons, but we're older than 8, so if UK wants to nuke the Falklands, we pull back on our side of the reins. (But we will show sympathy when the lead singer of Prodigy or Talk Talk dies - we have that much shared compassion and loyalty).

I'd beg you to consider how much of these crackswe can't step on are largely antiquated in our current social-political context, not that skinheads andcan't GOP allies can't pull out renaissance shibbeloths to stoke fires, and that in this case the terms used are in a more precise political context reflecting AIPAC and its adherents who've largely walled off proper debate on their largely by now toxic influence, even though like Marion Barry they once served a useful purpose.

I recall when The Godfather played on TV first they had to put up a big disclaimer from the Anti-Defamation League or similar that there basically is no Mafia, it's just a slur against Italians, yadda-yadda... Not that I think most Americans looked at most Italians as Mafia members, or thought their summer trips to Italy were to meet their Capo. But yeah, the Mafia is a real thing, and while I agree it can get exaggerated, it's also counter-productive not to be able to discuss.

Think of AIPAC as similar to the NRA - hasn't our impression of them changed over the last decade, esp the last 2-3 years with Butina et al. Are we allowed to cross this sacred 2nd Amendment line to notice what effect they have? Do I care whether it's guns or abortion or Israel or prayer in school or voter IDs that these groups use to marginalize debate and enact bad policy?

If Omar wasn't talking about Israel when she made her comment about "allegiance to a foreign country" the conservatives now attacking her would be cheering her on. While I think conservatives demagogue and exaggerate the problem of dual citizenship and birthright citizenship I partially, perhaps mostly, agree with them on the substance. I have problems with those with dual citizenship, even Canadians, being able to vote in both countries elections. This is also a controversial issue in Canada. I think birthright citizenship is being abused in the US. There is a thriving business bringing Chinese pregnant women into the US to have children, get citizenship, and return to China to raise the child. That's quite different from a child born to non citizens who is then raised in the US with American cultural and political values. Again conservatives, and perhaps Omar, exaggerate the extent of the problem. But that doesn't mean there are no issues concerning allegiance to a foreign country and that does include some American Jews as well as other nationalities. Omar never claimed or implied that all American Jews have an allegiance to Israel despite what some articles on the subject claim. I don't see the comment as anti-semitic.

Touché 

The overall point is that the response to the comments are overblown. Omar is not the problem.

Edit to add:

I should have said

And while we're debating this, we're not discussing what sinister deal Bibi's involved with w Trump, the Saudis and UAE, arguably more important.

Mixing apples and orange-ade.

Yeah, I can agree that targeting any group of fighting aged men with drones wasn't very progressive (though it kept us from sending troops in, which would have been less progressive).

But to what end? What's the purpose, end goal of diving into this now with the new House majority, Trump under the gun, etc? Will it help improve pressing legislation? End some current Executive Dept action? Further the 1st 100 Days Agenda?