BY DEVON SWEATT | STAFF WRITER
The Democratic freshmen members of the 116th Congress, have brought new platforms and positions to the spotlight of American politics and have wasted no time making headlines based on them. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of these new congressional “fresh faces”, finds herself in the news so often that many have taken to simply abbreviating her long name a la FDR, with hers being AOC. But while the attention on her comes from her radical socialist policies, another new Democratic Congresswoman has found herself in hot water for advocating an ideology that is much more disgusting and destructive. I am referring to, of course, Ilhan Omar, a representative from Minnesota who has been condemned on all sides recently for openly anti-Semitic remarks she has made on Twitter.
On Monday, she replied to a tweet from Glenn Greenwald, who was actually coming to her defense over their controversial views about Israel. He was criticizing those who disagreed with Omar’s opposition to Israel saying:
“It’s stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans.”
In agreement, she wrote:
“It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” which quotes a 1997 song by Puff Daddy.
The response invokes an old and offensive stereotype about “Jewish money” secretly pulling strings. It implies that anybody who supports Israel is somehow paid off to do so, and that anybody who is skeptical of objections to the state of Israel, no matter how extreme or inflammatory, is influenced by this “Jewish money”.
While this statement alone is enough to raise eyebrows, Omar was not done with Twitter for the night. She then tweeted at Batya Ungar-Sargon, who wrote:
"Would love to know who @IlhanMN thinks is paying American politicians to be pro-Israel, though I think I can guess. Bad form, Congresswoman. That's the second anti-Semitic trope you've tweeted."
Omar replied to this by simply saying, “AIPAC!” Referencing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a target for many anti-Israel sympathizers.
In a surprising move, several Democrats have joined Republicans in condemning the statements made by Omar on Monday night. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leadership have all come out to denounce the anti-Semitic language. Even Chelsea Clinton, former first daughter, came out in opposition to the comments. Faced with overwhelming negative reception, Omar had little choice but to apologize on Tuesday night.
While Omar was somewhat strong in her apology, one might wonder if she will change her views or, at least the way she refers to Jews and the Israeli state to be less anti-Semitic. When taking her past into consideration however, this seems highly unlikely.
Omar has been open about her opposition to the state of Israel for several years and has used her new position as a Congresswoman to spread this message and rally supporters for this cause. She has been supportive of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, and has actively opposed legislation that would limit state governments from signing contracts with the group. She also has a history of using openly anti-Semitic language in reference to the state of Israel. Take for example in 2012, when she tweeted:
“Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. #Gaza #Palestine #Israel.”
In addition to being factually incorrect, the statement serves as a wink and nod to those who believe the conspiracy that Jews are involved in a cabal that secretly controls the world. The fact that she has not only refrained from apologizing for the statement, but has even defended it, speaks for itself. Or take a quote from her interview with Yahoo! News just last month, where she proudly proclaims that when she hears of politicians that uphold Israel as a democracy in the Middle East, “I almost chuckle.” Another comment that Omar has not shown remorse for.
Given her storied past with anti-Semitic actions and statements, as well as her most recent comments, it is fair to say that Ilhan Omar is much more than a staunch critic of Israel. At her worst, she has shown a deep seated (and sometimes not so well hidden) hatred for Jews and their desire to have a nation of their own which she disguises as opposition to Israel. She has invoked old, disgusting stereotypes about Jews “hypnotizing” the world and paying off politicians en masse to support Israel. Given how confidently she has put forth these stereotypes in the past, I have every reason to think that she actually believes them.
Israel continues to be a bastion of democracy and freedom in a place where many other countries oppose these values. A Muslim woman, such as Congresswoman Omar, actually has more opportunities and freedoms in Israel than any Muslim majority country in the Middle East. Israel also serves as a strategic ally in the region, helping to curb the violent tendencies of unpredictable and capricious governments and terrorist groups. We have these reasons, and many more, to be strong supporters of Israel. We also have a duty to denounce hateful, stereotypical comments about groups like Jews who have been historically mistreated. No matter where someone might fall on the political spectrum, these comments like these are unacceptable.
I was grateful to see political leaders on both sides of the aisle come out against this type of hateful rhetoric put forward by Omar. However, I think her Democratic colleagues should have addressed her previous comments much earlier on. With members like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, it seems to me that the Democratic caucus is fine with its own members dog whistling to anti-Semitic groups, as long as it is not abundantly clear that the comments are hateful. Only when they are clearly prejudicial, like Omar’s comments on Monday, do Democratic leadership reign them in to save face for the party as a whole.
Make no mistake: the Democratic party has a serious anti-Semitism problem, which they only address if it is politically expedient to do so.
The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of Liberty Den University or its members.
Sources: