Caroline Glick: Ilhan Omar & Co. Were Elected Because of Their Racism, Not In Spite of It
Hoyer as well as Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Elliot Engel (D-NY)are strongly pro-Israel. Pelosi, while less outspoken, has never been a foe of the Jewish state or of American Jews who support Israel and seek to secure continued bipartisan support for a strong U.S. alliance with the Middle East’s only democracy.
And yet, all of these leaders gave a pass to a woman who effectively said that American Jews exert malign and all-powerful influence over the Congress with their “Benjamins,” (which we now all know, thanks to Omar’s slur, refers to $100 bills).
What gives?
To find the answer it is necessary to look in two directions – first to former president Barack Obama’s consigliere, Valerie Jarrett.
By all accounts, Jarrett is the closest person to the former president. As a practical matter, it is difficult to imagine that the views she expresses contradict those of the former president even if, from time to time, he strikes a more moderate public stance than Jarrett.
Jarrett is an outspoken supporter of Omar. In a series of tweets, Jarrett has not only supported Omar, she has gushed that Omar represents the future of the Democratic party. On January 3, when Omar was sworn into office, Jarrett tweeted, “You are the change in Congress we have been waiting for. Thank you Ilhan Omar for your willingness to jump with both feet into the arena! Many in the country are both counting on you and have your back!”
In other words, Omar – and Tlaib and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY), whom Jarrett also supports – are the legitimate heirs of Obama’s Democratic Party, as far as his closest and most powerful advisor is concerned. They aren’t marginal figures, radicals with no real links to the party’s power structures. Omar, as well as Tlaib and Cortez, reflect the interests and positions of the most powerful faction in the Democratic Party – the Obama faction.
When seen in this light, the congressional Democratic leadership’s decision to respond to Omar’s latest assault on Jewish Americans and the Jewish state by smacking her with a wet noodle indicates that they are mere figureheads. They have less power than Omar does. Because, as Jarrett told Omar the antisemite, Jarrett, (and by inference, Obama), has her back.
Democrat Identity Politics allow Jew-Haters to seep through the cracks
There are all kinds of Nazis. The worst ones are the Hitlers, the Eichmanns, the Goerings, the Streichers, the ones who went on trial at Nuremberg. And then there are the lower-level Jew-haters who never rise to that level but comparably harbor hate deep within their souls. Thus, Jew-haters take different forms, but they all share that same deep-rooted visceral hate that somehow ultimately targets “the Jews.” Some hate “the Jews” because of a landlord, and others hate “the Jews” because of a tenant. Some hate “the Jews” because of the same kinds of liberals that so many Jews ourselves cannot abide, and others hate “the Jews” because of conservatives like Sheldon Adelson and the comparative political conservatism of Israel’s and the growing conservatism of the Jews of England. Some blame “the Jews” for Communism (Karl Marx, Trotsky) and others blame “the Jews” for capitalism (the Rothschilds, Milton Friedman). It is what it is.Where Are Feminist Democrats on Afghan Women?
But what now is unfolding in the Democrat Party — the party that always speaks of “racism” and “sexism” and “dog whistles,” and that finds racism and this-ism and that-ism in every word that deviates from left-liberal dogma — is that real Jew-haters are starting to come out of the cracks. It is ironic that, even as Louis Farrakhan has termed Jews to be “termites,” his Democrat acolytes of hate are the ones emerging from the woodwork. We have beheld the emergence of Jew-haters (and White-haters and man-haters) Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory as the new leaders of the rapidly decomposing “The Women’s March.” And now two new Democrat Congressional representatives have emerged as outright Jew-haters: Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, the once-“Nice” state where Keith Ellison, anti-Semite, likewise holds court.
Omar, who hails from Somalia, now tweets about Jews and money. Quite a thing when newcomers who themselves are members of demographic groups (Muslim, Somalian) that are labeled by stereotypes, begin stereotyping others. Omar is an irrepressible Jew-hater. The things she says and tweets about Israel, for example, are not simply the legitimate expressions of someone who articulates a political counterpoint. It is perfectly fine to disagree with this or that aspect of Israeli democracy or Israeli politics. For many years, I wrote passionately against Israel’s then-socialist economy. Nowadays my political concern is Israel’s continued failure to increase Jewish housing in Judea and Samaria and finally to annex all of Judea and Samaria — or at least the region known as “Zone C.”
In and of itself, it can be fair to express criticism of Israel. But when one criticizes Israel as a cover for going after Jews, typically reflected by holding Israel to an insanely higher standard that is not expected of any other country, then — ding! ding! ding! — we have uncovered a Jew-hater. When someone has no problem with the state of human rights in Saudi Arabia, Putin’s Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Erdogan’s Turkey, and the like — but demands uniquely that Israel be boycotted and sanctioned, and that investments in companies that deal with Israel be divested, we have not “anti-Zionism” but “anti-Semitism.” It is like saying “I am not against Catholicism. I only despise the Pope and the Vatican and the College of Cardinals and the Archbishops and Bishops and nuns and the Eucharist. But I have nothing against Catholicism.” Zionism, like kosher dietary rules, is part of Judaism.
Protecting women has been a big part of the American effort in Afghanistan. We’ve spent more than $1.5 billion on it since 2001, opening girls’ schools, securing the place of women in Afghan politics, and setting up various projects to keep the issue at the forefront of Afghan development. That’s to say nothing of the fact that fighting the Taliban means checking its brutal Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
All this raises a question: Why did so many Democrats who’ve declared themselves as 2020 presidential candidates refuse to oppose President Trump’s terrible plan to make peace with the Taliban and withdraw U.S. forces? Earlier this month, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand voted against a bill that condemned Trump’s plan.
In Afghanistan, an empowered Taliban and the absence of American troops would mean a future that’s decidedly not female. We know Trump’s thinking on this. He doesn’t believe that protecting women from a hellish life under the Taliban is worth American military action. But all these feminist Democrats? If they explicitly agree with the president on that point, they should be made to say so.