.
.
.
Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar: from Mogadishu to Minneapolis to Congress
As I’ve been otherwise occupied for a while, this won’t count as a “hot take” on the fracas over Minnesotan Congressional Rep. Ilhan Omar’s comment about money playing a major role in quieting Congressional criticism of Israel. So I’ll offer a room-temperature take, following some review.
What Rep. Omar said:
The following is based largely on this account in Jewish Currents, which generally matches others:
First, on Feb. 10, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Californian Kevin McCarthy, Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, intended to punish Omar and a fellow Democratic female Muslim frosh member of Congress of Michigan for criticisms of Israeli policy.
Second, leftist activist journalist and attorney and Glenn Greenwald tweeted the following (links disabled):
GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy threatens punishment for IlhanMN and RashidaTlaib over their criticisms of Israel. It’s stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans
Third, Omar retweeted Greenwald’s post with a comment taken from vintage Puff Daddy:
“It’s all about the Benjamins baby.”
(As an aside, I thought that the pun, citing not only money but the name of truculent conservative Israeli Prime Minister Betanyahu, was pretty witty.) Now mixing in opinion, Jewish Currents continues:
The most straightforward interpretation of her tweet is that “Benjamins” refers to the vast sums of money that pro-Israel lobbyists have spent to ensure that critics of Israel like Omar and Tlaib have as little influence as possible. Omar’s point may have been incomplete or imprecise, but it’s a big leap to call it antisemitism. Unfortunately, it’s a leap many critics were eager to take, including the House Democratic leadership, which yesterday afternoon put out a statement condemning Omar and calling on her to apologize; she quickly did.
The controversy blew up after Batya Ungar-Sargon, the opinion editor of the Forward, called out Omar for using an antisemitic “trope” and questioned who the Minnesota representative thinks is paying members of Congress “to be pro-Israel.” In response, Omar tweeted “AIPAC!,” referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, widely seen as the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group. To this, Ungar-Sargon issued a reply that has since been retweeted over two thousand times: “Please learn how to talk about Jews in a non-anti-Semitic way. Sincerely, American Jews.”
This is a facile accusation. The Israel lobby, especially AIPAC, has long greased the wheels of American politics by bundling millions of dollars for campaign contributions and spending further millions on sending politicians and journalists on junkets to Israel, where they meet with government officials and absorb pro-Israel talking points under the thin pretense of a fact-finding mission. However earnest these groups may be about their support for Israel, they are explicitly in the business of trading influence for money. This isn’t limited to AIPAC; for instance, casino magnate and right-wing Israel supporter Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam spent $55 million in the 2018 election cycle to maintain Republican control of Congress. In recent years, the interests of these groups have dovetailed with those of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies, defense contractors, millenarian evangelical Christian Zionists, and other assorted war hawks. The Israel lobby is indeed a big tent, and it has welcomed in a wide range of right-wing interests that extend beyond the American Jewish community.
Omar’s apology specifically read:
The Broader Reaction
This portion largely follows this piece from Think Progress. I want to start out by highlighting how that publication characterizes the controversy, because I’ll take issue with it below.
Omar, who represents Minnesota’s 5th district, has been at the center of controversy since she insinuated Sunday that American support for Israel was governed by the financial contributions of pro-Israeli groups like AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee).
(You can probably figure out which word I’m going to challenge.)
As TP notes, President Trump said that Omar “should be ashamed of herself.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized as “deeply offensive” the “use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters,” which elicited the above apology.
The Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas (JCRC), which serves as a voice for a variety of smaller Jewish organizations in the congresswoman’s home district, warned against her use of anti-Semitic tropes, even if unintentional.
“Claims that American Jews manipulate our government with money invoke age-old anti-Semitism,” said JCRC executive director Steve Hunegs. “When combined with her previous tweet that Israel ‘hypnotizes the world’ to carry out ‘evil,’ such rhetoric puts our community in danger [and] should have no place in our politics.”
Hunegs added that any insinuation elected officials were supporting Israel “[only] because they are paid to do so” was “insulting.”
“For decades, members of both parties have stood with America’s closest ally in the Middle East because the American people support a strong and secure Israel,” he said.
Another home-district rabbi, Marcia A. Zimmerman, was also sharply critical:
“The anti-Semitic trope used yesterday, when combined with her previous tweets, makes our community feel vulnerable. With the rise of anti-Semitism in recent years, we feel that this type of rhetoric only adds fuel to the fire.”
She added a call Omar to meet her congregation face-to-face, later telling a local paper that “The community is upset…. We can have disagreements about a lot of sensitive issues. Discourse shouldn’t descend into stereotyping.”
Minnesota-based Jewish Community Action took a less harsh tone:
“It’s not anti-Semitic to point out that money influences our politics — that’s just a fact,” the group said in a statement. “It’s also true the myth of ‘Jewish Money’ has been used for centuries as a weapon against Jewish communities. It’s incumbent that we, as progressives, are aware of this history.”
My Comments
The assertion that “Claims that American Jews manipulate our government with money invoke age-old anti-Semitism” gets to the crux of the call for self-censorship.
Let’s presume for a moment that the statement is true. By the same token, we could say that claims regarding how Blacks or Mexicans may be lazy, lawless, stupid, and violent — or Asians untrustworthy and disloyal, or that women less intelligent or emotionally stable, and so on — also “invoke” their own corresponding and spurious “age-old bigotries.” And yet we consistently hear insinuations, from the city and state governments up to the halls of Congress and the White House, often doing more than “invoking” such prejudices — but stating them frankly. And even though such statements generally clear a higher bar, how often to we see such a tumultuous reaction, leading to a representatives own leader demanding and receiving an apology within a day? Relatively rarely.
Generally, the standard for self-censorship is higher than “invoking” (which seems like less than even “implying”) some prejudice, such as baldly stating something to be true. (Saying “they’re rapists” as part of one’s Mexican bashing, is one example.) Here, though, the supposed allegation (we’ll get to the “supposed” below) is not that supporters of Israel are doing anything illegal or immoral, like rape and murder, but that they are … contributing money to politicians. What sort of standard do we set when one can’t state something like that out loud?
However: it’s probably also correct to say that, right now, even if all donations &c. made to support any position on the Israeli-Palestinian issue on the issue suddenly vanished, Democratic candidates (at a minimum) would probably still lose votes overall these days due U.S. citizens’ longstanding attitudes towards Israel (though that trend is diminishing.) Right? Right!
If so, then if Rep. Omar were to say “it’s all about catering to voters,” than “the Bemjamins,” we should agree that that’s OK, right? OK, some readers might not be nodding their heads, but it’s right.
THAT is the crux over the argument over the propriety of Rep. Omar’s statements. If you’re not willing to have *that* discussion, I find that suspect.
But there’s another point, too. Note that I highlighted the notion, stated by a pro-Israel party, that Rep. Omar said that people were being “paid” to support Israel and its (frankly, often anti-Democratic Party) policies. But that’s not what she said.
It’s true that saying “the Benjamins” would generally refer to the money one has coming in. But really, it’s talking about wealth in general. And what she said is that politicians are concerned about was “AIPAC.” That’s really telling.
Some people have noted that AIPAC doesn’t give contributions to politicians, suggesting that Omar’s criticism was misplaced. Other’s have defended her by noting that AIPAC does pay for politicians to go on free junkets to Israel where they’ll be steeped in the pro-Israel worldview — but let’s get real, that’s not why politicians care about AIPAC.
Politicians care about AIPAC not because they want its support, but because they don’t want its opposition. Essentially, as with the NRA, politicians are scared that AIPAC will seek them out and spend inordinate amounts of money to destroy them — not solely by funding opponents and formal independent expenditure campaigns, but also with poison-pen PR campaigns reaching out to friends within government, media, think-tanks, corporate leadership, and other opinion-movers. They worry about targeted messages to their donors — indeed, implicit or explicit threats to their donors.
AIPAC has access to a great deal of money — which in politics translates to “influence” — and is willing to use it. For now, that has been able to keep most critics of Israeli policy in both major parties at bay. (Look at how responsive they were this past week!) But in fact, public opinion is shifting on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, just as it is on gun control.
The votes may not always be where the money within our political system is. (Outside of our system, the Saudis are indeed wealthy, but they seem to care more about fighting Shi’ite Iran, with U.S. help, than fighting Israel.) The argument against Rep. Omar is that she’s wrong to talk about money affecting how politicians think about the Middle East because those politicians are actually just catering to the voters. But as attitudes on Israel continue to shift, this argument will hold less and less water. It will become clear that what politicians fear, in continued lockstep support of Israeli policy, is not the improvement Palestinian rights, but retaliation against their own political fortunes.
Are Democrats allowed to talk about this — or not? I say, with Rep. Omar, that we can and we must.
*So this all goes to prove that Donald J. Trump is right. “What’s up with all this politically correct stuff?” “Call broads what they are HO’s!” Talk about “Little Marko!” “thre were some nice people on both sides!”……Hmmm.
Between the Governor of Virginia wearing Blackface or checking out the sexual abuse allegations of the Virginia Attorney General…it is interesting to note that someone our good pal Al Franken (a jew) was unceremoniously dumped because on a photo when he was working for Saturday Night live…..but The Trumpster can call anyone anything!
So, are there issues with the way the Israeli’s treat their Palestinian population? We would say. Does every Israeli or Jew in the world feel the same way about “The Settlements”? Not really! Whatever happened to Third Party Conflict Resolution? Where is The Trumpster making Peace in the Middle East?
Heck, we still have Rednecks saying: “You look like you belong on a beach Somwhar!”
So, we suppose there are bigots wherever you go! They can be dressed up just like regular people…..wearing one of those Trump 2020 hats! Or they can be just plain bullying nincompoops – regardless of party affiliation or ethnicity!
As our great hero Mel Brooks said to Interviewer Mike Wallace when he was interviewed on 60 minutes: “What kind of jacket are you wearing, what is that Hopsack? Did you get that at a second hand store? God I hate a cheap Jew!”
What she said is 100% correct. AIPAC has a strangle hold on the Legislative and Executive branches – just watch the shameless slavering going on at their conventions where politicians of both parties try to outdo themselves in servility to Israel. Try youtube.
To claim this as accurate is not an “anti-Semitic trope.” It’s just a truth, one of many open secrets nobody in Washington wants to discuss, including the fact that some members of Congress hold dual citizenship with Israel.
Our Middle Eastern policy (in so far as we have any) is essentially dictated by two foreign governments – Israel and Saudi Arabia. And what has been the cost to Americans for this servitude? Trillions?
*Sepharitic Jews and Sunni Muslims then?
*Guess we really need to watch “Life of Brian” again…to find out who is who in the zoo!
An abbreviated discussion on aspects of fascism, by Madeleine Albright. Pressed by the interviewer on whether Trump is a fascist or not, she replies:
” You’re right, I don’t call him a fascist. He’s certainly anti-democratic, and I say so in the book, but I don’t call him a fascist because he isn’t violent. If he ends up declaring an emergency at the border over immigration, then I might change my position. There’s a long history of fascists using “emergencies” to create fear and conflict, so that’s a potential red line. If Trump does that, then he really is a bully with an army.”
https://www.vox.com/world/2019/2/14/18221913/fascism-warning-madeleine-albright-book-trump
Not “funny” but bizzare and absurd, how yesterday’s war criminal is reinvented as todays oracle, or foreign policy advisor if convenient.
How, in the dog-whistle furor over anti-semitism accusations, did the more salient context of Rep. Omars callout of Elliot Abrahms past, get left in the rear view mirror? Progressive Comedian Jimmy Dore provides an excellent restoration-
I may not like the messenger, but the message is relevant to our times.
Regarding your point ( it is nice to have a conversation here once in a while) I had read the criticism you point out, and her excuse :
” Deaths by sanctions against Iraq
On May 12, 1996, Albright defended UN sanctions against Iraq on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” and Albright replied, “We think the price is worth it.”[104] Albright later criticized Stahl’s segment as “amount[ing] to Iraqi propaganda”; said that her question was a loaded question;[105][106] wrote “I had fallen into a trap and said something I did not mean”;[107] and regretted coming “across as cold-blooded and cruel”.[104] Sanctions critics took Albright’s failure to reframe the question as confirmation of the statistic.[107][108][109] The segment won an Emmy Award.[110][111]
In the context of the 1998 Iraq campaign, Albright expressed another justification: “But if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us.”[112] ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright
The whole “sanctions killed half a million or more Iraqi children” was based on projections of possible reductions in infant mortality ASSUMING Iraq (1) spent it’s entire oil revenue on medical care, and (2) realized the same magnitude of health improvements in the ’90s it had experienced in the ’70s.
Both assumptions were silly. Yet the number circulated widely among left-leaning groups largely as part of a concerted right wing ploy to attack and condemn the ‘Democratic establishment’ using left wing critics.
The Clintons were the primary targets of that effort, but Albright, Gore, Lieberman, and anyone else associated with the ‘Establishment wing’ was fair game. The parties behind the ploy had expected Clinton to beat Obama in 2008, and that his disgruntled supporters would stay home, helping bring about a Republican presidency – the plan failed in ’08 (because other Democratic insiders overrode Team Hillary’s tricks to win the primaries), but in their view, it ‘almost worked’ – and justified yet another attempt in ’16. [It’s really not a ‘new’ plan: Republicans have been playing it this way since at least Richard Nixon’s era…]
Regardless of Albright’s characterization, her views on fascism and how it applies to today’s context is worthwhile to consider. Conservative friends co-opted by the dynamics of the Trump’s presidency may pay attention.
” You’re right, I don’t call him a fascist.”
Well, you wouldn’t call Mussolini a fascist either if he hadn’t had the opportunity to institutionalize his philosophy. Trump is a fascist at heart.
“Trump is a fascist at heart.”
Who cares what Trump is at heart? The man has a weather vane for a heart – one day a Hollywood player, the next day Hollywood’s arch enemy, one day a playboy grabbing ’em by the …, the next, a baby Christian. If Republicans reward fascism, then he’ll play a fascist as well – for 5 minutes or so, and then on to the next role.
The better question is what Republicans actually believe. I don’t think they endorse fascism.
“Who cares what Trump is at heart?”
Well, maybe to you it’s a distinction without a difference. Not to me.
If his vane gets stuck in the fascist direction, as many of his stands indicate (ie: Charlottestville, demeaning people, trying to be above the law), we are in a seriously risky situation.
I do care. I invite you Donovan to read this piece I wrote about my fear of fascism.
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2016/12/is-todd-spitzer-really-a-little-fidel-or-a-prince-among-us/
Ricardo – I did read your piece early last year when trying to decide about Spitzer v. Murdock v. Rackauckas; your reasoning was actually among the reasons I preferred Racky despite his failings over Spitzer.
[Aside: Personally, I think ‘The Prince’ was Machiavelli’s resume/job appeal – a statement of his beliefs about ‘what is likely to get me a job’ rather than ‘how things ought to be.’ The Discourses better reflect where he hoped politics might lead – to representative government – but first, one must deal with what actually exists as best one can…]
As you said then:
“These imperfect local politicians with their authoritarian tendencies, self-serving goals, prone to corrupt practices, are the product of a democratic process. We elect them.”
Exactly. Don’t fear Trump: he’s not worth the time of trying to puzzle out.
The populace that elected him though? There are too many good people in that group, some of whom regret their choices in 2016, but many of whom have calcified and grown worse, their character tarnished by Trump’s influence. I can never change or affect Trump’s heart. But maybe some of those people can be reached, and they’re surely more worthy of the effort.
“Don’t fear Trump: he’s not worth the time of trying to puzzle out.”
That’s got to be the strangest thing I’ve read in quite a while. You can fear a dictator without trying to psychoanalyze him – or any part of his chuckleheaded gang of admirers.
“You can fear a dictator without trying to psychoanalyze him – or any part of his chuckleheaded gang of admirers.”
You can, but worrying about ‘the dictator’s heart’ won’t help resist a dictator.
Looking after the people you can influence – doing the sort of thing Ricardo wrote about in his January piece – that helps. Perhaps he didn’t perceive himself to be committing an act of defiance, merely helping a friend find housing – but that’s straight out of the broad formula that actually worked to bring down European, Arab, and African dictators without replacing bad leaders with worse leaders.
Fighting dictators once they’ve taken power is simple: find the resistance, join it, help it. Trickier to prevent the emergence of dictators in the first place: one needs to join a good community, contribute to it despite obvious problems and disagreements, try to keep it ‘good.’
I interpreted the meaning of “It’s all about the Benjamins” as “all about Benjamin (Netanyahu)” – too much wit to stick. That particular “Benjamin” built his power in Israel by using AIPAC in America to secure his personal ambitions to the harm of America, Israel, and Palestinians.
AIPAC will attack any non-Jew who criticizes Benjamin Netanyahu as anti-Semitic; any Jewish person who criticizes Netanyahu will be deemed ‘misguided’ and attacked by various measures. Netanyahu in turn rewards the AIPAC insiders with special access, creating the closed circle that is his remarkably persistent power base.
Judging by the timing of her apology, Ilhan wanted to talk about money and lobbying – issues like the ‘For the People Act’ (HR 1, the first major legislative act of the new Democratic House, which McConnell plans to ignore to death in the Senate). Her tweet made that harder rather than easier.
She unequivocally apologized, and her apology covered the issues.
Ricardo – She did, and her apology may have contained the damage to her personally and politically, but done is done. Ilhan will have a tough time raising HR1 now, which was always likely to languish in the Senate.
And if course, AIPAC has demonstrated yet again how they can beat down anyone who even makes a pun about the Benjamin. If Trump ever gets really frustrated by SNL, he knows where to look for strategy…
*OK, let’s be clear …please! Hllary would not listen and lost the election of 2016! Maddy Albright was always bad. Like Janet Reno, they were “equivacators”, doing whatever was politically expedite at the time. We are still greatly pissed by the action of the Clinton’s when they bombed Yugoslavia, because they were leaping ahead of the European Union Economically. Albania literally was given “Carte Blanche” by Albright and company to invade lower Yugoslavia. Terrible! Then the Clinton’s did nothing to squash Osama Bin Laden when he was in the Tora Bora caves! Terrible! In the meantime, Bennie and Jets,
continue to work the system and invade the West Bank with terrible, terrible “Settlements” on land that does not belong to them. They hold the Palestinians in captivity, much as Andy Jackson did to the Cherokee Indians in their “Trail of Tears”. Iran and Parts of Syria and Iraq are Shiite’s. The Saudi’s and the Arab Emirates are Sunni. This greatly reminds us of the Catholics vs the Protestant deal. The Catholics had all the money, had to employ the Knights Templar (the Masons)…and the they borrowed cash until the point they couldn’t pay it and simply wiped out the Knights Templar….which eventually meant the Protestants had to move to the New World, especially after the King of Spain wiped out all the Muslims and Jews during the Inquisition. Ah, but DZ knows all this stuff…he can probably tell you better! Meanwhile, congratulations to our New Member of Congress (a Muslim) Yeah….you go girl and keep on truckin on!
Ron & Anna: Albright is best contrasted with Warren Christopher – who was a consummate diplomat (aka, ‘equivocator’) – an institutionalist. For him, ‘process’ was everything – NATO, the Israel/Palestinian ‘peace process‘ etc. Christopher was replaced and perhaps tarnished in part because process don’t fix genocide (Rwanda) – that demands action.
Albright’s signature effort was Kosovo, and in terms of achievements, helping to bring down Slobodan Milosevic without any Americans getting killed in battle (well, I believe two died in a car crash) remains impressive. Process as a tool, rather than an ends in itself (as with Hillary Clinton, who wanted to see ‘bad governments’ fall – but preferably without Americans getting shot to make it happen). Process is useful, but if the other side is disingenuous (e.g., Arafat), one must use other measures (e.g., pressure the Palestinians to make concessions, ignore Netanyahu and hope that Israelis will send someone better at the table).
“Then the Clinton’s did nothing to squash Osama Bin Laden when he was in the Tora Bora caves!”
Actually, they did a fair bit – nearly succeeded – it’s just that the US tools designed in the ’70s and ’80s were intended to take out nuclear weapons and tank columns, not individuals. It’s hard to kill OBL with a steal bomber and an aircraft carrier battle group, and space-lasers were never a thing.
*First off, thanks Donovan for your thoughtful response. We love it when someone attempts to grasp the subject at hand after some research. Bill Clinton unceremoniously
bombed an Aspirin Factory in Afghanistan in response to what? The truth of the Yugoslavia issue is as we stated. Yugoslavia was able to trade between both the West and the East and was the leading economy in Europe prior to us giving the Albanians (the most severe Communist in the world) to illegally cross the southern border of Yugoslavia, invade various villages and towns – kill all the residents and occupy those towns. It would be akin to having thousands of Mexicans cross the border from San Diego and takeover El Cajon, wiping out the current residents! Milosevic and his people tried to end this practice militarily and it turned into a Southern Civil War. The Croates had been waiting for 40 years to find a way to Independence and out from under the Serbian rule. Yugoslavia made the best Washers-Dryers, computers and inexpensive
auto in Europe. They were all very well educated, had strong family values and great sense of humor. They were Americans for all purposes. Anyway, we were there in the late 1960’s – 1969 to be exact for six weeks, Croatia, along the Dalmatian Coast, and on to Skope and then to Thessoloniki Greece and onto Athens. Driving the entire country.
What the Clinton Administration did you Yugoslavia is the war crime. Maddy Albright and others in the Clinton Administration are culpable for the destruction of a great country.The Albanians are Sunni Muslims in large part and we supported their demise of the Yugoslavian Government. Clinton also failed to call out the 82nd Airborne and deploy them to Tora Bora,….because he was afraid of the Pakistani Sunni Pashtoons
and their elements that moved daily across from Pakistan to Kandahar. We could have implemented the Durand Line of 1890…..which was supposed to become effective in 2010. We didn’t!
“What the Clinton Administration did you Yugoslavia is the war crime.”
The Chinese Embassy certainly had grounds for a complaint, but again, bad things happen when systems designed to take out tank columns in war are used on cities.
I prefer how Milosevic was brought down to the alternatives – ignore the thugs (Rwanda), eradicate them (Iraq), or ‘coopt-reward’ them (much of Latin America, the Middle East, Asia, and occasionally, Africa). As Bill (the Quill) put it, ‘It is excellent to have a giant’s strength, but tyrannous to use it like a giant.’
That said, the same elements most disaffected by that other Bill’s foreign policy congealed into one piece of the Nader bloc…helping to bring about Bush Jr. Talking about Albright now is a continuation of that old friction, raised anew in the shadow of Bernie’s star. Hopefully one may do so without rousing a circular firing squad (ultimately for Trump’s benefit).
*Donovan, more good points by you. However, Yugoslavia was a great deal like the old dysfunctional Libya….several Arab Tribes vying for power. If you find time to watch “Lawrence of Arabia” you see how tribalism kills democracy and freedoms around the world. Nazi Germany was tribal. Catholics vs. Lutherans! Spain during the Inquisition; Catholics vs Muslims and Jews. What divides peoples usually has to do with Real Estate values and Executive Power. If you do have time to Google the life of Marshall Tito…..you will find someone with tremendous strength of character who could not be intimidated by Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt or Churchill. It was an amazing run after WWII until the Clinton 90’s!
The Trumpster is not as stupid as he appears. He knows that all these small disjointed countries require a Magabe type strongman to keep them in check. The larger countries and impact players of Japan, Korea, China, France, Germany and Great Britain……are just worried about the divvied up Real Estate they can occupy. Why do you think our military is in 123 countries of the world?