In a couple of tweets last week, newly-elected (Muslim) Congresswoman Ilhan Omar suggested, not very subtly, that AIPAC and “Jewish money” were buying the pro-Israel votes of congress members. Surely there were elements of both sanctimony and snark (“all about the Benjamins”) in her remarks. But was her condemnation intended for Jews and Jewishness in general (which would indeed constitute anti-Semitism) or was she merely decrying the political action of an organization funded by some Jews? The distinction matters. It is neither unreasonable nor unjust to disparage policies advocated by a PAC, any PAC, and AIPAC is certainly a very rich and powerful PAC. But it IS unreasonable and unjust to denounce those policies if you are doing so because of WHO advanced them (Jews) rather than because of WHAT outcome was being sought (unqualified support for Israel).
Omar's blunder was twofold. On the one hand (actually the more superficial mistake), her imprecise Twitterspeak inadvertently conjured up a particularly vile anti-Semitic trope--the notion that the Jewish "race" in general is somehow engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to use money (unfairly acquired, it is assumed) to buy political power and thus impose their dominion. Almost certainly, that is not what Omar
meant, but it is what many wary students of history
heard. And it is undoubtedly what Omar's adversaries gleefully
chose to hear and to immediately weaponize against her. She "sounded'' anti-Semitic, and for many, that was enough.
To Omar’s credit, though, as soon as she realized the misunderstandings her careless language had occasioned, she unequivocally apologized and endeavored to clarify her comments (have you noticed how frequently Twitter users must do this?). While it is pretty difficult to know whether the congresswoman, personally and deep-down, harbors any anti-Jewish prejudice, she has credibly insisted that her Twitter comments were intended to denounce, not Jews in general, but only the policies and monetary machinations of a pro-Israel PAC—AIPAC. Omar surely knows, as should all rational people, that American Jews are not a monolithic bloc of true believers who vote automatically, with ballots and money, for any and all policies approved by AIPAC and the Israeli government. That is nonsense, and Omar, lest she be labeled both anti-Semitic
and stupid--was pretty much obligated to acknowledge her embarrassing lapse in judgment.
As I implied earlier, however, Omar's poor judgment about “Jewish money” was only PART of her blunder. To my mind, her bigger mistake was erroneously assuming that the uncritical pro-Israel stance of so many congress members is DUE TO or CAUSED BY the “Jewish money” from AIPAC (and that, in consequence, stopping the flow of AIPAC contributions could somehow stop “bought”
congress members from uncritically supporting Israeli policies). Such fallacious post-hoc reasoning— mere coincidence does not prove causation—can only lead to untrustworthy conclusions. Yes, of course, campaign war chests cheerfully welcome big infusions of AIPAC cash, but in truth, all those lovely “benjamins” are probably more superfluous than decisive—mere frosting for an already-baked cake. That’s because the so-called “bought” politician has most likely already committed himself,
a priori and for reasons having little to do with lobby money, to pro-Israel positions.
In short, Congresswoman Omar seems to entertain a simplistic, even naive, understanding of American attitudes toward Israel. Is she not aware that a clear majority of Americans, regardless of their political or religious affiliations, view the state of Israel as a kind of otherworldly, spiritual “child,” conceived and birthed by America in a fit of geopolitical love-making? And doesn’t she see that, like most parents, Americans are predisposed—viscerally and unconditionally— to protecting and supporting their “kid,” even if that means turning an occasional blind eye to the offspring’s misdoings? And, finally, isn’t she aware of the belief held by many Evangelical Christians (a formidable bloc of voters) that a “restored” and secure Israel must be established as a necessary precondition for their much-desired Second Coming of Christ?
Yes, all this seems a bit rich—And yet, and yet...I think it rings true. No, Congresswoman Omar: despite what I consider your admirable intention of denouncing knee-jerk American support for
very dubious Israeli policies, your underlying assumptions are wrong: the prevailing pro-Israel attitude has not been "bought'' by Jewish money and it cannot be magically “'unbought'' by regulating or discrediting the AIPAC lobbyists. That is a simplistic Twitteresque explanation for a complex, deep-seated, and largely irrational tangle of emotions, prejudices, beliefs, fears. AIPAC does indeed
possess enormous power to do harm—mostly, I think, to politicians whom it judges “insufficiently” pro-Israel. But even if AIPAC’s monetary temple were to be miraculously destroyed by some latter-day Samson, I doubt that America’s profound, almost religious, loyalty to Israel (identified by many as the divinely ordained New Jerusalem) would be much shaken.
Sadly, therefore, I remain one of those who think it almost impossible to “talk sense” about Israel. And certainly, I would advise against trying to do so in a 280-character tweet.
* As a fellow Minnesotan, I have been following Congresswoman Omar’s career with interest, and I find her fascinating. She’s not easily pigeonholed: a Somali refugee with an odd marital history, a devotion to hijab (and, I suppose, to Islam), and a very progressive, left-wing social agenda. Not smooth but edgy. A bit cocky, a bit self-righteous, a bit introspective. Really, a work in progress.
