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.
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”
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.
