In a headline-grabbing op-ed in the Washington Post, Democratic Representative for Minnesota, Ilhan Omar said of Israel, “We must acknowledge that this is also the historical homeland of Palestinians.”
It seems strange that anyone would let a woman accused of multiple instances of expressions of antisemitism tell the world what it must think. It seems even stranger that someone associated with the liberal left would tell the world what it must think. (How illiberal is the thought that all people “must” think a certain way, take a specific position, because someone in a position of leadership says so?)
But finally, it seems strange that the Jews would accept as credible, the idea that the Palestinian Arabs share the Land of Israel as their “historic” homeland. Palestinians, after all, are a people who didn’t exist until thousands of years after the Jewish people were an established, sovereign entity in the Holy Land. The Jews were in Israel before Mohammed was a glimmer in his mama’s eye.
Why would the Jewish people, of all people, accept this revisionist view of history from anyone at all, let alone from an expressed antisemite?
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Elizabeth Warren:We have a moral duty to combat hateful ideologies in our own country and around the wortd--and that includes both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. In a democracy, we can and should have an open, respectful debate about the Middle East that focuses on policy. Branding criticism of Israel as automatically anti-Semitic has a chilling effect on our public discourse and makes it harder to achieve a peaceful solution between Israelis and Palestinians. Threats of violence -- like those made against Rep. Omar -- are never acceptable.
Bernie Sanders:“Anti-Semitism is a hateful and dangerous ideology which must be vigorously opposed in the United States and around the world. We must not, however, equate anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel. Rather, we must develop an even-handed Middle East policy which brings Israelis and Palestinians together for a lasting peace. What I fear is going on in the House now is an effort to target Congresswoman Omar as a way of stifling that debate. That's wrong.”
Kamala Harris:We all have a responsibility to speak out against anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism, and all forms of hatred and bigotry, especially as we see a spike in hate crimes in America. But like some of my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, | am concerned that the spotlight being put on Congresswoman Omar may put her at risk. We should be having a sound, respectful discussion about policy. You can both support Israel and be loyal to our country. I also believe there is a difference between criticism of policy or political leaders, and anti-Semitism. At the end of the day, we need a two-state solution and a commitment to peace, human rights, and democracy by all leaders in the region -- and a commitment by our country to help achieve that.
As far as I can tell, there is no Jew or Zionist that suggests that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, the way that J-Street and these candidates are saying or implying.
Even the most right-wing Zionists accept the IHRA Working Definition of antisemitism. from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. It was adopted by the US State Department. It says this about criticism of Israel:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
...Contemporary examples of antisemitism could include:
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
The IHRA defines legitimate criticism of Israel as the type that would be leveled at any other country. This is quite fair.
The question is, who would oppose this definition?
Who wants to say that singling out Israel for special criticism when other countries are worse is not a form of antisemitism? Who wants to defend an Electronic Intifada/Mondoweiss worldview where obsessive focus on Israel out of proportion to its actions is considered legitimate debate? Who wants to claim that boycotting Israel, and only Israel, is not antisemitic in practice?
Who wants to say that accusations of dual loyalty is not antisemitism?
Who wants to say that equating Jewish self-determination with racism is not antisemitism?
Either these candidates accept the definition set here, or they don't. If they don't, they should explain the exact problematic part of the definition that they believe is not true - and be prepared to defend that.
No one, and I mean no one, is shutting down debate over Israel when the criticism is legitimate according to this definition. Which means that these candidates, and J-Street, have a completely different definition of what "legitimate criticism" than the IHRA.
What is it?
When politicians talk about how much they are against antisemitism, they aren't saying what that means to them. If the IHRA definition is not to their liking, they must explain what specifically they disagree with.
The Democratic Party can make all this mess go away by adopting the eminently reasonable standard that the IHRA created. And if they did, it is obvious that Ilhan Omar really did spout Jew-hatred and must be censured.
If they don't want to do that, then it is their responsibility to come up with their own definition - and to defend it.
The IHRA should be the baseline for the discussion. It would add clarity to everyone's positions. And that is exactly why the Democratic Party will stay away from it - because it would expose a small but vocal minority of their members as engaging in antisemitic speech, and the party is too frightened to do anything to rein them in.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
The remarks that Ilhan Omar made over the past few days - and watching how her fans in social media are responding to them - shows that she is the Donald Trump of the Left.
She'll say something that is an obvious antisemitic dog whistle (starting with how Jews are "hypnotizing the world" and then going on to falsely claim how AIPAC, regarded as the "Jewish Lobby," spreads money around to keep Congress in its pocket, being "all about the Benjamins."
As with Trump, her followers and fans understand her statements exactly as the people being targeted do. They compliment her on her bravery in taking on these powerful interests. They disparage those who call her out on the dog whistles, claiming that she is only noting her displeasure at Netanyahu and Likud an the "occupation", even though neither of those were even implied in her statements.
And then she takes the ball and runs with it, claiming the same thing.
Being opposed to Netanyahu and the occupation is not the same as being anti-Semitic. I am grateful to the many Jewish allies who have spoken out and said the same.
Her attacks were on American Jews and American supporters of Israel, not Netanyahu.
See this exchange:
Our democracy is built on debate, Congresswoman! I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee. The people of the 5th elected me to serve their interest. I am sure we agree on that! https://t.co/gglAS4FVJW
Who is demanding that she give allegiance to Israel? No one. But her charge that her opponents do exactly that is yet another antisemitic dog whistle. Bret Stephens called her on it, and she responded with a Trumpian tweet, claiming that she didn't do what she so obviously did, complete with misspellings:
People do every single day, and no I haven’t attached pro-Isreal Americans. I have questioned our politics! You want to paint every word I say as such, and that’s more of your problem. https://t.co/KxhRlfYRfq
In one important way, Omar out-Trumps Trump. Omar uses her color and religion as both a shield and a club - claiming that she knows what discrimination is and therefore cannot be bigoted, and that those people who attack her obvious antisemitic statements are Islamophobic and racist.
It is the Trumpian skill of changing the subject taken to a new level.
As with Trump, the fires that she sets continue to burn in her wake. As with Trump, her fans run with the bigotry that were introduced into the discourse by a prominent politician, and topics that were rightly taboo because they are racist or antisemitic suddenly become subject to debate. As with Trump, she claims innocence that her statements could ever be interpreted in a bigoted way. As with Trump, the people who call her out on her bigotry are enemies to be targeted by her fans.
As with Trump, Omar is not stupid - she cannot claim to be ignorant of what her words mean.
As with Trump, Omar using her platform to mainstream hate is wrong and irresponsible, if not downright malicious.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Jewish Insider reports that Ilhan Omar, Minnesota representative in Congress, said some more outrageous antisemitic stuff.
First, the usual "Jews are attacking my antisemitic statements because I'm a Muslim and I'm only criticizing Israel:"
Rep. Omar elaborated that when she hears her Jewish constituents offer criticisms of Palestinians, she doesn’t automatically equate them as Islamophobic but is “fearful” that people are painting her as anti-Semitic because she is a Muslim. Omar continued, “What I’m fearful of — because Rashida and I are Muslim — that a lot of our Jewish colleagues, a lot of our constituents, a lot of our allies, go to thinking that everything we say about Israel to be anti-Semitic because we are Muslim,” she explained.
No, she is being "painted" as antisemitic because she intimates Jewish control over Congress and Jews hypnotizing the world.
But then comes the real hypocrisy:
“To me, it’s something that becomes designed to end the debate because you get in this space of – yes, I know what intolerance looks like and I’m sensitive when someone says, ‘The words you used 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…we get to be labeled 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 okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” Rep. Omar exclaimed, seeming to suggest, as Tlaib had in a tweet of her own, dual loyalty among a particular group of Americans. Loud rounds of applause and shouts of affirmation punctuated the event’s heavy focus on Israel.
If she was only criticizing Israel then no one would say anything about antisemitism.
But look what she does here: first she implies that Jews who criticize her are Islamophobic and then she says another blatantly antisemitic statement, that Jews have allegiance to Israel above the United States - and she can proudly say that to her leftist fans because she already inoculated herself by suggesting that her critics are Islamophobic!
It isn't the false accusations of antisemitism that are shutting down debate about Israel. It is false accusations of Islamophobia, and racism, and misogyny, that is shutting down Democratic debate about her consistent habit of using antisemitic tropes!
In other words:
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
The way that so many people continue to defend Ilhan Omar is stunningly hypocritical.
The most-often seen defense is that Omar wants to simply open up a conversation about how money can corrupt politics, and that there is nothing antisemitic about bringing it up.
Typical is a tweet from Omar's fellow member of Congress Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez where she says "I’m proud @IlhanMN raised the issue of lobbyist 💰 in politics & equally proud of her sensitivity to communities. Both are possible."
But lobbyist dollars are equally given out on the Left and the Right. Ocasio-Cortez accepted money from many left-wing PACs. Omar received some $60,000 from PACs, including from the Council of American Islamic Relations.
Singling out AIPAC - which isn't even a PAC! - when every single member of Congress receives PAC money is hypocritical.
But this is far worse.
The word "AIPAC" is a dog whistle for the "Jewish lobby." In left-wing and Muslim circles, it means Jewish control of Congress and of the US government.
Looking the actual numbers shows what a lie this is.
In terms of lobbying causes to Congress, the pro-Israel lobby comes in at number 50, with $15 million spent in 2018, a tiny percentage of what the top lobby spent - $400 million from the securities and investment industry.
(UPDATE): Even that number is deceptive, because for the purposes of these statistics, J-Street is considered part of the "pro-Israel" lobby - and their policies are against what the Israeli government wants in virtually every case. J-Street account for half of the "pro-Israel lobby" dollars listed!
Even if for some reason you believe that money to lobby for other countries is more insidious than the billions spent scores of domestic lobbies with their own agendas, the Israel lobby is still not the largest.
Those would be South Korea and Japan, whose foreign lobbies spent many millions more than Israeli lobbies registered under FARA.
Arab countries also outspend the Israel lobby.
AIPAC is influential, no doubt. However, the emphasis on AIPAC plays on antisemitic stereotypes of Jewish money, Jewish influence and a Jewish agenda that is at odds with what is best for America.
It doesn't get more antisemitic than that.
The people who are trying to excuse Omar as somehow ignorant of this, as well as those who are pretending that she somehow is only exposing the general influence of money in politics, are being disingenuous. The Israel lobby is not at or near the top of any metric in spending or influence among all the lobbies in Washington.
Choosing to only highlight AIPAC as the source of all Washington corruption is antisemitic. Ignoring that this is what Omar did, or pretending that she understands this now when she tries to pretend that she just randomly chose AIPAC as her example, is enabling and excusing antisemitism.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
In 2015, Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik shot and killed 14 and injured 22 more at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California. They were killed in a shootout with police later that day.
Farook had a life insurance policy and checked it to make sure it was still valid right before the attack, and his mother fought to remain the beneficiary.
In 2017, a state representative in Minnesota introduced a bill that would allow insurance companies to limit payments to beneficiaries if the insured’s death occurs directly or indirectly because of “furtherance of terrorism.”
One person voted against it because he thought there was a loophole that could cause insurance companies to not pay for legitimate claims.
The other person was Ilhan Omar, new member of Congress.
Omar literally wanted terrorist families to be paid by life insurance companies if they get killed by police after their attacks.
Knowing her politics and sympathies, I don't know any other way of interpreting her vote except as an explicit support for terrorists on American soil.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 14 years and 30,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Radical activist Ezra Nawi has died, aged 69
-
*Ezra Nawi, who died on 9 January 2021, was a radical activist in the
tradition of the Jewish communists of Iraq. Many of his activities were
controver...
It’s Not Paranoia
-
Jewish paranoia. The phrase is ridiculous. Paranoia suggests delusion. But
they have been hating, expelling, and murdering Jews for being Jews since
there ...
Jabotinsky in the New York Times, 1915
-
I learned from reading a JTA archived news item, while looking from
something else entirely (I love researching), that sent me to another
source that:
*...
International Holocaust Memorial Day 2021
-
It is International Holocaust Memorial Day today, and although it is not
marked in Israel since we have our own Yom Hashoah after Pesach, this is a
fitting...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Oped in the Jerusalem Post (with links)
-
The Jerusalem Post published an oped of mine on the Al Durah affair. Here
it is, unedited, with links: Al Durah Affair 20 Years On Today is the 20th
annive...
Wednesday, March 20, 2019
Posts
