The House Democrats are preparing a resolution on anti-Semitism following some statements made by Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota).
From what I’ve read, Representative Omar seems to be making the following argument.
American-Israeli groups / lobbyists donate to some lawmakers.
Those lawmakers support Israel.
Therefore those lawmakers (some of whom are Jewish) are taking money from and being influenced to support a foreign power.
She has called out this money flowing into American politics, including the now infamous “all about the Benjamins” tweet. This has led to charges of anti-Semitism against Representative Omar.
Here’s the debate. Are the things Representative Omar has said anti-Semitic, and if so why? IMHO the things she has said are not anti-Semitic. She has criticized some particular groups such as the Israeli government and American-Israeli lobbying organizations, but AFAICT has not said anything about Jews in general. The Israeli government and lobbyists working on their behalf ≠ Jewish people in general. I don’t see criticism of other governments, even explicitly religious ones, leading to similar charges, including these examples.
Many people, including many Catholics, criticize the Pope and the Vatican without being labeled anti-Catholic. Although they do not lead nations, the religious leaders from many other demonations are similarly criticized without those doing the criticizing being labelled as bigoted against the denomination in question
Many people criticize many governments and world leaders from autocratic nations like Kim Jong Un, Nicolas Maduro, Raul Castro and their regimes, but they are not automatically labelled as being bigoted against Koreans, Venezuelans, or Cubans.
In other words, I don’t get why Representative Omar is being attacked the way she is. What am I missing here?
OK, now it’s my turn to reveal some of my own bias. That explanation would fly if she was a member in a Republican led congress and being attacked by the likes of Steve King. The Democrats, however, should be better than that, and I’m disappointed at the behavior of Pelosi and crew regarding how they’ve handled the situation. I know the Democrats aren’t perfect, but the side claiming to be the ones that aren’t bigoted against any minorities should be better than this.
One question I have, and I genuinely don’t know the answer: does the American Israel Public Affairs Committee have analogous organizations that promote the relationship between the US and other nations?
Is there some organization that’s basically the American Spain Public Affairs Committee? The American Mexico Public Affairs Committee? The American South Africa Public Affairs Committee?
If so, do any of them have the staffing, budget, or political pull that AIPAC has?
If AIPAC is unique, either in existence or in reach, then it’s fair to examine their influence. If they’re not unique, then someone who zeroes in on them ought to have their motives examined.
It’s also fair to note how Netanyahu, and the Israel jingo lobby, have an effective tool to shout down any questioning of his government’s actions - the accusation of antisemitism. It shouldn’t, but does, need to be pointed out regularly that Jewry, Israel, and Likud are not synonyms.
First of all, the pro-Israel donors are Americans, not “American-Israeli”. Just because someone happens to be Jewish and pro-Israel does not make them any less American. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, the Israeli government does not donate to American politicians.
Second of all, she hasn’t accused them of supporting a (minor, local) foreign power; instead, she has accused them of “allegiance to a foreign country.” Support is one thing; allegiance is something completely different, which feeds into the classic antisemitic canard of dual loyalty. After all, an American can advocate that the U.S. support another country and still be a patriotic American, but own who gives “allegiance” - a claim that she does not support in any way - cannot.
And who she is has nothing to do with the fact that people are criticizing her - she’d get exactly as much heat if she were a white dude. In fact, I’m personally inclined to cut her some slack because of her background.
By my reading and understanding, Omar has mixed some entirely reasonable criticism of Israeli govrenment policies and some US office-holders unquestioning support for these policies with some unfortunate anti-semitic tropes (like the “all about the Benjamins” and “allegiance to a foreign power” stuff). I think it’s reasonable to criticize her for utilizing these anti-semitic tropes, even if it’s unintentional.
I’m hopeful that she’ll learn how to make these reasonable criticisms against Israeli policy, and the unquestioning support of that policy by some US politicians, while avoiding those anti-semitic tropes.
Fair points. I should have been more precise by specifying Jewish Americans rather than Israeli-Americans. I admit to not being familiar with the whole allegiance to a foreign country being a classic antisemitic canard of dual loyalty. I’m familiar with it regarding Catholics and that it was a concern about Kennedy back when he was running for president in 1960, but had never heard this about Jewish people. Other than Israel since 1948, I wouldn’t even be able guess which other nation a Jewish person would be accused of being loyal to. Does it go back far enough that the reference is to the ancient Kingdom of David?
What you leave out in calling Israel a “foreign power” is that they are an ally of the United States, not an enemy. “Foreign power” invokes the idea of a country working against US interests. But, if we’re allies, we kinda have to try and work within the interests of both countries.
So treating this like a bad thing invokes a historical issue: that of claiming that people of Jewish descent have too much power in our government. She’s even specifically referencing monetary power. She’s just invoking all of the tropes against Jewish people.
It would be different if her argument was that we shouldn’t be allied with Israel. There’s no reason to bring up money and other trappings, or to imply Israel is a “foreign power” working against our interests, or that people of a Jewish decent have an allegiance to that foreign power. There’s no reason for her to be touching the antisemitic tropes with 10-foot pole, but she keeps doing it.
And, seeing as the pro-Israel lobbyists are part of the coalition of the Democratic party, it’s entirely understandable that the Democratic Party is wanting to do something to distance themselves from this person who is treating them like the enemy. It makes sense to reiterate that, while it’s okay to not agree with Israel, it’s not okay to be antisemitic. Because this new representative is starting the precedent of antisemitic adjacent rhetoric.
Her ethnicity is only relevant in that it is one that has traditionally been antisemitic. On its own, it means nothing. But, when someone keeps on invoking antisemitic tropes, one starts to wonder if it’s because of her culture. At the very least, it seems to have not prepared her for the acceptable and unacceptable ways to voice disapproval with the US allyship with Israel–the way that doesn’t come off as antisemitic.
I don’t think “all about the Benjamins” is necessarily an anti-semitic trope, though - at least not in the context of what she said. She didn’t necessarily single out Jews; she was responding to a comment made by Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, who criticized US political leaders - Jewish or not - for their positions on Israel and on free speech rights, to which she responded “It’s all about the Benjamins.” By that she presumably meant that US politicians who support Israel do so because they get financial incentives to do so - but that’s true of politicians who support other kinds of political interests. It’s just woven into the mind of everyone that any remark like hers that is critical of Israel is inherently anti-Jewish, which actually speaks to how successful pro-Zionist groups have been in getting post-WWII guilt-laden Americans in conflating Israel and Judaism.
As I’ve said in other threads, though: she has to understand she is the last person who can say such a thing. Not just because she’s a Muslim but because she’s a foreign-born Muslim, and born in a country with a history of anti-US sentiment. It’s not fair - she should theoretically have the same right to express herself as the rest of us, particularly given her commitment to public service. But sometimes optics matter, and this is one of those times. She can still criticize Israel but using Twitter to do it isn’t the right approach, IMO
Really, it’s not so much a matter of allegiance to foreign countries as it is lack of allegiance to their own countries. “Dual loyalty” is another way of saying “not fully loyal”. Jews have always been accused of being loyal to themselves only, as traitors hiding among loyal patriots, ready to stab their country in the back in the name of “international Jewry”. It’s why Jews weren’t allowed full citizenship anywhere in Europe until the 19th Century.
I thought the all about the Benjamins was meant to be more of a double entendre rather than specifically anti-Semitic, the obvious one being Franklin with the other being Netanyahu.
She probably wasn’t intending to utilize the trope of a Jewish conspiracy controlling money and using it to manipulate people, but just as there are words, references, and allusions that one should avoid using when criticizing a black person, the same goes for criticing a Jewish person (or Jewish organization), IMO. That doesn’t mean that all the criticism against her is reasonable – much or most of it is not. Especially those that criticized her for daring to question the US relationship and support for Israel. It’s entirely reasonable to question our relationship with and support for Israel; it’s not reasonable to utilize anti-semitic tropes (intentionally or not) when doing so.
Please, people. “All About The Benjamins” has been standard slang at least sincePuff Daddy’s 1997 single, and of course refers to Franklin’s portrait on the $100 bill. Even Weird Al did a version. To conclude the use of the term is antisemitic, you have to *want *to conclude it.
First of all, before declaring Rep. Omar innocent of all charges – let’s remember that she issued what I viewed as a sincere apology for her comments, IIRC the “all about the Benjamins.” (I actually believe her apology was sincere, as opposed to Steve King’s re: white nationalism.) So to assert that she did nothing wrong, when she quite specifically said she caused offense in a way that she regrets, is a non-starter.
Second, I will admit that this is conjecture, but based on the way she has talked about Israel, I get the feeling that she just doesn’t know a whole lot about the subject of U.S.-Israeli relations. For example, her “benjamins” comment implies that AIPAC is giving large campaign contributions to politicians. The fact is that AIPAC does not. AIPAC spends tons on lobbying, which includes things like mobilizing their membership, big annual conventions in DC, organizing trips for lawmakers to Israel, and so on.
Further, it sounds like her perception of U.S.-Israeli relations could be shaped substantially by her family and community – which I think isn’t a stretch to say has a substantive objection to Israeli policies in general. This probably contributes to her admitted ignorance of harmful antisemitic tropes. So, it sounds to me like she has heard a lot of one side of the story, but very little of the other side. Which kind of makes a neat parallel to the lobbying efforts of AIPAC: they talk a lot about one side of the story, so lawmakers hear that side a lot; but the Palestinian side of things does not get a lot of currency. I think it’s a problem if people are only hearing one side of story, period, no matter what the issue is.
I’m not exactly clear on what the resolution does, but I think its absolutely clear that Rep. Omar has definitely used antisemitic tropes in discussing U.S.-Israeli relations. I would generally say that I’m inclined to say that she has done so without understanding that her words could be taken as so offensive. Perhaps a rough equivalent may be the octogenarian who freely uses the word “Chinaman,” because that’s the term he’s always used without meaning offense, or realizing how offensive it is to everyone else.
But why does this issue have such legs? Probably not because her comments are construed as an attack on our ally Israel, but because they are an attack on the integrity of her fellow lawmakers. She is effectively calling them people who are willing to change positions for campaign contributions and people whose patriotism is questionable and out to sale for the highest bidder. I can see how her fellow politicians would take umbrage.
The term isn’t anti-semitic in a vacuum. When used flippantly about a Jewish organization, it’s reasonable to criticize it. Not because of something inherent about the phrase, but because of the anti-semitic trope about Jewish control of money and usage of money to manipulate others. It’d be no different if she had used the phrase “it’s all about the money”.
EDIT: I don’t think it was a big deal – she gave a good apology for it. Reasonable to criticize her for it and reasonable for her to apologize. A little thing.
I think that it’s reasonable to assume that she’s anti-Semitic. She traffics in anti-Semitic stereotypes that are no different than the anti-immigrant and anti-racial minority tropes coming from the right. She apologizes for her ‘benjamins’ quote and then immediately within days in a completely tone deaf way brings up the ‘divided loyalties trope’ while saying that what she said the first time shouldn’t really be considered anti-Semitic anyway. It’s obvious that she’s pretty bathed in anti-Semitic thought and at this point doesn’t even realize that she’s being anti-Semitic since in the middle of her apology she digs a deeper hole.
ISTM that there are two separate but related issues. One is that yes, Rep. Omar has used language that is anti-Semitic. The other is that she has criticized the US - Israeli relationship. What prompted my post is that it seems to me that her critics are attacking her for the first issue and then using that attack to try to shut down debate on the second issue. It’s the latter that Rep. Omar is fighting back about, and I agree that even if one critic of that relationship (herself) has used anti-Semitic language, that doesn’t mean that US - Israeli relations should not be criticized or debated.