And now for someone really controversial: Ilhan Omar

Ilhan Omar’s latest remarks at the bookstore event last week came while arguing that critics calling her anti-Semitic were trying to silence debate in bad faith.

“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,” Omar said

Omar doubled down on her comments over the weekend, despite criticism from Congressman Engel (D-N.Y.) and House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Lowey (D-N.Y.). (both of whom are Jewish)

“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 a committee,” Omar tweeted.

“I am told every day that I am anti-American if I am not pro-Israel. I find that to be problematic and I am not alone. I just happen to be willing to speak up on it and open myself to attacks.”

There are two ways in which Rep. Ilhan Omar, the Somali-born Minnesota congresswoman, is offensive to the hard-line pro-Israel set in D.C. The first is the simple fact that she’s Muslim—one of the first two Muslim women to be elected to the House, in fact, along with Rashida Tlaib. It would be possible, just, for her to fly under the radar for this original sin, provided she declared herself a moderate and bent the knee to greater political forces. The fact that she adamantly refuses to do so brings us to her second, and far greater, offense: She is a Muslim woman with the audacity to criticize Israel. That is unforgivable and makes her an object of fear—a fear that the GOP party in West Virginia recently tried to make explicit with a poster likening Omar to the 9/11 terrorists. And beyond brazen displays of Islamophobia that make the prejudice clear, her first few months in Congress have proven that the respectable set won’t stop until they destroy her.

 

The first “controversy”—I put that word in quotes, because literally every controversy that has transpired (and almost certainly every controversy that will transpire) follows the same exact formula of Rep. Omar making a valid criticism of Israel or AIPAC, and pro-Israel entities quickly spreading bad faith interpretations of her comments to push a narrative of anti-Semitism. House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy made vague threats of punishment against Omar and Tlaib for supporting the BDS movement and allegedly making anti-Israeli statements.

Now, let’s list a few facts:

  1. AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is an enormously powerful lobbying group that directs a whole lot of money to American politicians for a very specific cause.
  2. Here’s their modus operandi, from the “Our Mission” section of their own website: “The mission of AIPAC is to strengthen, protect and promote the U.S.-Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of the United States and Israel.”
  3. They literally pay politicians money so they’ll support pro-Israel policies. Nothing Omar said was wrong, and nothing she said should be considered even remotely controversial.

Nevertheless, the attack narrative quickly gathered momentum: Omar, in accusing Kevin McCarthy—a Christian man, for the record—of espousing pro-Israel views in part because of the money he received from AIPAC…well, that was anti-Semitic, because of the racist trope about Jewish people and money. Amazingly, the line quickly emerged that yes, you could criticize AIPAC, but only if the criticism didn’t involve money.

I’m confused. Is calling out AIPAC anti-Semitic?

Not in theory, no. You can criticize AIPAC without being anti-Semitic.

However, when you focus on AIPAC as the example of money in politics or link Jewish influence to deep pockets, that’s when it becomes a problem. As JTA Editor-in-Chief Andrew Silow-Carroll pointed out, “Invoking ‘AIPAC!’ as a metonym for the influence of money in politics was a minefield, and the idea that she doesn’t know that by now—coming only a week after she apologized for her 7-year-old ‘hypnotized’ tweet—is implausible.”

See if you follow the not-very-subtle implication: AIPAC’s purpose is to use influence (i.e. “money”) to push for pro-Israel policy, and sure, you can criticize them…but only if you don’t mention money.

I have to reiterate: This is not an isolated position. This is what everyone on the anti-Omar side was saying. The fact that she brought up AIPAC’s financial influence made her anti-Semitic, because, the accusation went, mentioning money in the context of Israel’s influence is inherently anti-Semitic. Along the way, there were a few minor bad-faith interpretations, such as the idea that Omar was saying that all of America’s support for Israel stems from money (it obviously doesn’t, and she never said that unless you get deceptively hyper-literal with her Puff Daddy reference),

Regardless, it’s not hard to see where this logic leads: If you can’t criticize AIPAC for anything related to money, you simply can’t criticize AIPAC. Do so, and you’re an anti-Semite.

The power of the AIPAC set quickly became clear—Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the House Democratic leadership called for Omar to apologize for “anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations,” saying they were “deeply offensive.” Omar, before long, caved to the pressure.

Eventually, the story faded, but the target was on Omar’s back, and her opponents had learned that they could successfully bully her. Even some of her staunchest allies, like Alexandria-Ocasion Cortez, into tacitly accepting the narrative that criticism of AIPAC or pro-Israel politicians in American from a financial standpoint is inherently anti-Semitic. There was no way Omar would stay out of the spotlight’s glare for very long.

As expected, it was less than a month before she found herself under attack yet again. This latest incident began with a quote from Omar at a recent D.C. town hall last Wednesday, emphasis mine:

“What I’m fearful of is that, 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.”

Omar, who was flanked by Tlaib as she spoke, said the accusation of anti-Semitism was “designed to end the debate” about “what is happening with Palestine.”

Then she added as the enthusiastic applause abated, “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”

Here, the word “allegiance” triggered the frenzy—that term, the story went, signaled an accusation of “dual loyalty,” which is another apparent anti-Semitic trope. There’s a sinister stereotype that all Jewish people are secretly loyal to Israel, and Omar was invoking it here much the way the Know-Nothing party of old would insinuate that all American Catholics were, deep in their hearts, avowed papists.

This was another obvious bad-faith interpretation—Omar was specifically talking about “political influence,” not painting with any kind of broad brush that implicated all the Jewish people of America (who are not, despite what her critics would have you believe, a homogeneous ideological group). Moreover, she clearly meant the word “allegiance” as the metaphorical political allegiance that specific politicians influenced by AIPAC and other pro-Israel interests demonstrate to that country. Again, nothing she said was wrong, and nowhere did she imply anything about “dual loyalty.” Nor did she suggest what lies at the heart of the “dual loyalty” trope, which is that these politicians bear greater loyalty to Israel than America.

But the truth couldn’t get in the way of the spin machine, which began in earnest when Rep. Eliot Engel, a Jewish Democratic congressman from New York, demanded an apology for her “vile anti-Semitic slur.” A day later, Omar’s fellow Democratic Congresswoman Nita Lowey equated her words to the ugly 9/11 poster in West Virginia

From Paste @ http://www.pastemagazine.com

“Ilhan Omar strength inspires me and so many. She is being targeted just like many civil rights icons before us who spoke out about oppressive policies. As she uplifts my Sity and other Palestinians in the name of justice and peace, she shows us real courage”  Rashida Talib

 

2 thoughts on “And now for someone really controversial: Ilhan Omar

  1. The corrupt conservative cowards on both sides of the political aisle can’t handle the truth. It’s all about the Benjamins, baby! 💰🇺🇸💰 Of course, the cowards’ real problem with Rep. Omar (D – MN) is threefold:
    #1. She’s Muslim.
    #2. She’s Black.
    #3. She’s Pretty.

    She confuses racist Republikkkans emotionally. Just like AOC! 💋They hate on both of these super hot progressive women constantly and vociferously

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “There’s so much love ❤️ in this room!” — Deranged Donald Trump

    QUESTION:
    Do you know what the definition of “presidential harassment” is?

    ANSWER:
    The president dry-humping an American flag 🇺🇸 🍌 in full view of network television cameras 🎥📡📺 without first asking for consent from the molested American flag before grabbing its pussy. 👈🏼😻

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s