|
Steven Emerson,
Executive Director
|
March 22, 2019
|
|
The
Campaign to Make Omar's Anti-Semitism Unassailable
IPT News
March 22, 2019
|
|
|
Share:
|
Be the
first of your friends to like this.
Two prominent American-Islamist political activists, both avowed
opponents of Israel's existence, renewed complaints Monday that the recent
controversy involving U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar's series of anti-Semitic
statements was unjust.
At a news conference at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in northern Virginia,
Osama Abuirshaid, who previously worked for a Hamas-support network in
America and leads one of the country's most prominent organizations pushing for an economic,
social, academic and political boycott of Israel, called it "an
orchestrated controversy." Nihad Awad, who also was part of a Hamas-support network in the United States
and has been the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)'s only
executive director, echoed Omar when he repeated a demonstrably false trope
that "the debate [about Israel] that has been prohibited. The
influence of the pro-Israel forces on our government officials' decisions,
vis-à-vis aid to the State of Israel."
It's part of broader effort to dismiss any criticism of Omar's
statements as its own form of bigotry. Omar, D-Minn., first drew attention regarding anti-Semitism during last
summer's congressional primary campaign. A 2012 Twitter post she wrote
during a conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza said that Israel had
"hypnotized the world," and she prayed that "Allah awaken
the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel."
She apologized in January for trying to rationalize her
invocation centuries-old smears alleging Jews' ability to control the world,
saying "It's now apparent to me that I spent lots of energy putting my
2012 tweet in context and little energy is disavowing the anti-semitic
trope I unknowingly used, which is unfortunate and offensive."
Just two weeks later, after she again took to Twitter to invoke an
anti-Semitic stereotype – this time about Jewish money and power.
"It's all about the Benjamins baby," she wrote to explain why she and fellow Democrat and
Israel-basher Rashida Tlaib draw attention for their "criticisms of Israel." Asked who she was referring
to, Omar wrote, "AIPAC!", referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Under pressure from House Democrats, Omar again apologized, again saying she was "listening and learning" and
never meant "to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a
whole." She stayed silent, however, as Islamist supporters used the
controversy to raise
money for Omar's re-election.
Omar then struck again, claiming that, as a member of Congress, she is pressured
"to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country," which
invoked another centuries-old smear of Jews – that their faith or support
for Israel constitutes a dual loyalty. It is a common refrain among Israel bashers.
Despite this troubling pattern of behavior, a House resolution pushed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi never mentioned Omar and
was weakened dramatically when it was broadened to condemn many forms of
bigotry, not just anti-Semitism.
That didn't stop people from claiming Omar was treated unfairly.
"Because she was a hijab-wearing Muslim, who was critical of
Israel, the GOP sought to exploit her in their continuing effort to drive a
wedge between the Jewish community and Democrats," American Arab
Institute President James Zogby wrote. "For their part, some Democrats reacted
with hyperventilated outrage. Extreme language was used to denounce Omar.
Her words were described as 'bigoted', 'vile', and, of course, 'antisemitic
slurs.'"
To Zogby, Omar never said anything that stereotyped Jews.
"What she did do was challenge official American, and in
particular, congressional silence on the suffering of the Palestinians, the
efforts by pro-Israel groups to silence debate on this issue, and the
virtual identity that pro-Israel groups have established between being
pro-Israel with American interests." he wrote.
In calling her the victim of an "orchestrated controversy,"
Abuirshaid falsely described Omar's comments as daring "to speak
against the Zionist lobby in the U.S. and the policies of the Israeli
government." He then bemoaned the U.S. State Department's definition of anti-Semitism, which specifically
acknowledges that "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled
against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic," but
dual loyalty smears and denying Israel's right to exist can. [Emphasis
original]
"So now this could be again used as another accusation against our
community of being anti-Semitic just because we dared to speak against the
Israeli policies," Abuirshaid said. "This has nothing to do with
Jews."
Remi Kanazi, a poet and member of the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and
Cultural Boycott of Israel's organizing committee, insisted "Omar said
nothing wrong," and claimed a critic was a racist triggered by "a
Black Muslim woman speaking up."
Tablet columnist James Kirchick noticed the trend and succinctly defined it:
"Reading the many progressive identity-based defenses of Omar,
which repeatedly and pointlessly invoke the fact that she is a
hijabi-wearing black refugee being criticized by a white native-born
American woman, one gets the impression that this particular legislator can
pretty much say whatever she wants and expect to be absolved for it: Her
canonization as a left-wing hero is necessary, and irrevocable."
Tlaib, D-Mich., appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday
to discuss the terrorist attack that killed 50 Muslims inside two New
Zealand mosques last week. Anchor Jake Tapper asked why she recently said that
"I think Islamophobia is very much among the Democratic Party, as well
as the Republican Party."
Anti-Muslim bias is "part of" the reaction, even among
Democrats, to Omar's repeated controversies, she told
Tapper.
"Is it because she's a black Muslimah? Is it because it's around
the issue of human rights violations from the country of Israel? I don't
know," Tlaib said.
Other people say bad things but don't generate the same attention, she
said.
It's no coincidence that many of the people making these arguments
oppose not only Israeli policies, but the nation's very existence.
Abuirshaid, for instance, blamed Israel for the Syrian civil war and for
the Egyptian military's 2013 ouster of a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated
government. "Israel, he told the 2016 Muslim American Society/Islamic Circle
of North America convention, "is a direct challenge to the entire
region. Israel is risking the entire region ... remember that Israel was
not created just to take and to swallow Palestine. It was created to divide
and to weaken that part of the world."
Linda Sarsour, who has never apologized for blaming Jews for police shootings of unarmed black
people in America and who blamed "Jewish media" for giving her a bad
reputation, says Omar is just one of a series of activists being
shut down over nothing.
Sarsour is open about her support for a "one state
solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It means the elimination
of Israel.
One state advocates cling to a fantasy that an existing nation of 8.5
million people will voluntarily dissolve itself to accept minority status
in a greater, Muslim-majority Palestine. Or, they want a global pressure
campaign that can break its will.
It's what Marc Lamont Hill means when he speaks of a Palestine
"from the river to the sea." As we recently pointed out, CNN did not fire Hill for criticizing
Israeli policies during a United Nations speech. He did that for 20 minutes
in comments that drew almost no attention. It was only his conclusion,
wishing for a "free Palestine from the river to the sea," that
controversy ensued.
But Hill, speaking to the Islamophobia Studies Center dinner Sunday in
California, said there needs to be "a coalition [put] together to
protect people who are willing to speak the truth like Ilhan Omar. It
cannot be a crime to say that there is a lobby that defends the interests
of Israel."
He would have a point if that's what Omar said. But "all about the
Benjamins, baby" is a clear statement about money and power, in the
hands of Jews, which in Omar's mind exerts control over American policy.
It's anti-Semitic when said by a black, Somali Muslim woman, or when said
by a white American male conspiracy nut who makes no effort to hide his Jew hatred.
In a damage-control exercise, Omar wrote
an op-ed for the Washington Post insisting she supports a two-state
solution. Yet in that same op-ed, she singularly blamed Israel for the
violent repression of the Palestinians as the root cause of the conflict.
There was no mention of Hamas terrorism or previous initiatives that Israel
accepted, but Palestinians rejected, which would have created a
Palestinian state.
Omar also told voters during her primary campaign that she opposed the anti-Semitic boycott BDS movement targeting Israel
because it was an obstacle to a two-state solution, only to reverse course after the election, and support it.
It's clear that people will continue to protect her no matter what Omar
says. There are ways to criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic. Omar, an elected member of
Congress, hasn't figured that out yet. Acknowledging that has nothing to do
with how she practices her faith, the color of her skin, her gender or
where she comes from.
Related Topics: anti-Semitism,
Ilhan
Omar, Osama
Abuirshaid, American
Muslims for Palestine, Nihad
Awad, CAIR,
Palestine
Committee, James
Zogby, Remi
Kanazi, BDS,
James
Kirchick, Rashida
Tlaib, Linda
Sarsour, one
state solution, Marc
Lamont Hill
|
The IPT accepts no funding from
outside the United States, or from any governmental agency or political or
religious institutions. Your support of The Investigative Project on
Terrorism is critical in winning a battle we cannot afford to lose. All
donations are tax-deductible. Click here to donate online. The
Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation is a recognized 501(c)3
organization.
202-363-8602
- main
202-966-5191
- fax
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment