Courtesy of The Nation, here is her exact words:
I know what intolerance looks like and I’m sensitive when someone says, “the words you use Ilhan, are resemblance of intolerance.” And I am cautious of that and I feel pained by that. But it’s almost as if every single time we say something, regardless of what it is we say, that it’s supposed to be about foreign policy or engagement, our advocacy about ending oppression, or the freeing of every human life and wanting dignity, we get to be labeled in something, and that ends the discussion, because we end up defending that, and nobody ever gets to have the broader debate of “what is happening with Palestine?” So for me, I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country. I want to ask, why is it OK for me to talk about the influence of the NRA, of fossil-fuel industries, or Big Pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobby that is influencing policy.…
I mean, most of us are new, but many members of Congress have been there forever. Some of them have been there before we were born. So I know many of them, many of them, were fighting for people to be free, for people to live in dignity in South Africa. I know many of them fight for people around the world to have dignity, to have self-determination. So I know, I know that they care about these things. But now that you have two Muslims who are saying, “here is a group of people that we want to make sure they have the dignity that you want everyone else to have!”…we get to be called names, we get to be labeled as hateful.
Notice what she’s not doing. She’s not saying “Jews have a dual allegiance”. She’s not saying “certain jews have a dual allegiance”. She’s saying “AIPAC is pushing for dual allegiance”. AIPAC, which is trying its best to expand its outreach beyond jews, it may be worth noting. And, last I checked, that’s hardly controversial - they demand that from anyone they support. Marco Rubio pushed a bill that would refuse government funding to people who support BDS; this is apparently already the norm in some states. Senators and Congresspeople repeatedly swear to uphold our special relationship with Israel. It’s hardly controversial that AIPAC’s goal is for people to align themselves with Israel’s policy - it’s pretty blatant about it. It’s hardly unreasonable to call them out for doing so.
And to claim that this is somehow some antisemitic dog whistle that’s beyond the pale… No, I’m sorry, I don’t see it. And I guarantee most people who aren’t explicitly told about it won’t see it. And it sucks as a dog whistle, because it’s coming from the mouth of someone most American antisemites have zero interest in supporting - a black Muslim woman. Tell me that David Duke said that as a dog whistle? Okay, I buy it. Tell me that Ilhan Omar did as a dog whistle? Naw. Fuck no. And this is supposed to be grounds to kick her out of congress?
And hey, look, we still haven’t had that conversation on Palestine, because for some reason, the person who wants to have it keeps getting smeared as “antisemitic”. Huh, I wonder if that’s happened before? I wonder if that’s happened every single time this discussion comes up, regardless of who tries to bring it up? It’s a pattern of bad-faith criticism, which is easy to do because “antisemitic tropes” is a very broad list that includes such things as “having influence” or “having money”.