Democrats fail to take stance against antisemitism
After the massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh last year, it really shouldn’t be a struggle to condemn antisemitism. In fact, after the Holocaust, there shouldn’t be any heavy moral lifting at all. It’s a self-evident principle that hatred of Jews is anathema and strikes at the heart of everything civilized.
But last week, Nancy Pelosi had a problem getting her caucus to vote on a resolution condemning antisemitism. The problem is that the trigger for this resolution was Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, a freshman congresswoman whose comments about Israel have some Americans of all faiths crying foul.
Omar has repeatedly made controversial statements about the United States’ relationship with Israel. She is an avowed foe of AIPAC, the influential lobby that encourages politicians to support policies that favor Israel. Omar opposes Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and tweeted in 2012 that “Israel has hypnotized the world” and criticized its “evil doings.”
Omar made some feeble apologies that in tone and substance lacked sincerity in the ears of those used to hearing “it’s not about Jews, it’s about Israel.” To this writer, and to many others, the apologies were worthless, and the implications of her comments unambiguous. For example, she invoked the old antisemitism trope about Jews and money when in response to a question about the relationship between Israel and the United States she tweeted that it was “all about the Benjamins, baby.” And she has implied that Jewish Americans have a “dual allegiance” to a foreign country. As a Catholic whose grandparents had a picture of JFK in their living room, I remember how my people had to prove that our religion didn’t dilute our patriotism.
Allies have rallied to the defense of Rep. Omar, who is a rock star in some circles. They argue that criticizing Israel is different from being antisemitism and that attempts to paint her as such were signs of Islamaphobia.
So back went the Democrats to the drawing board and eventually reframed the initial resolution against antisemitism to include a condemnation of racism in general and Islamophobia.
There is nothing wrong with specifically condemning Islamophobia. In a post-9/11 climate, it is necessary because of the insidious ways some people on the right have mistakenly conflated Islam with extremist violence. I’m a conservative who works in the immigration field, so perhaps my “bias” antenna is a bit more highly tuned to the confusion, but a number of my philosophical fellow travelers are tone deaf to rhetoric that presumes “Muslim” means “terrorist.”
I ran into this the other day when I told someone about my Muslim client from Pakistan who was filing for asylum because he ran a Western-style school that was targeted by the Taliban. Her response was, “I’m surprised Muslims even go to school.” That’s bigotry and ignorance, and it angered me, considering that my client almost lost his life trying to educate girls in Pakistan like Malala Yousafzai, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was shot in the head for doing the same thing.
But while it is always good to recognize bigotry whenever it assaults our eyes and ears, this refusal to issue a clear and stand-alone condemnation of antisemitism is extremely troubling. The fact that congressional Democrats felt it necessary to include a condemnation of Islamophobia is a perfect example of “whataboutism” — getting distracted by another form of prejudice that, while real, is not relevant in this case to the substance of Omar’s offending comments.
Omar is a refugee from Somalia who spent years in a Kenyan refugee camp, so you can understand her sympathy for other refugees, including Palestinians. But her language is not the language of a human rights advocate. It’s peppered with the dog whistles of bigotry, recalling old “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” stereotypes that expressed in this climate are dangerous.
We should not be in the business of placating a freshman congresswoman and her allies by refusing to call antisemitism by its true name. Criticizing Israeli policy is fine. Resorting to ancient slurs with a wink and a tweet is not.
The congressional Democrats should condemn that prejudice with full-throated, righteous force.
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
Articles related to “Democrats fail to take stance against antisemitism”
Laws suppressing boycotts of Israel don’t prevent discrimination, they violate civil liberties
If you want to know what the Democratic Party in America is going to look like in 10 years just take a look at the Labour Party in England.
If a racist/anti semitic slur came from a Republican there would have been a major backlash and the Republican party would have also brutally censored their own. The Democrats let this go, and really tried to deflect focus from the individual as well as the issue. Why is this happening? The mainstream media is a propaganda maxhine, and the majority of voices are left leaning. Only one Conservative soapbox for Republicans which Democrats dont watch. So no problem. Just spin it your way. In doing so the bar is slowly rising for this type of behavior. The media is no longer a watchdog, but an attack dog.