Ilhan Omar claims she didn’t realize her comments about Israel could be construed as anti-Semitic. Maybe we should take the Minnesota congresswoman at her word — except she clearly refuses to extend the same courtesy to people who disagree with her.
Omar’s comments, which last week resulted in a sweeping, subdued House resolution against bigotry that pleased no one, triggered three anti-Jewish stereotypes. But they also embodied a bipartisan tendency to question people’s motives rather than dismiss their arguments, a tactic that is poisonous to civil and rational debate.
“Israel has hypnotized the world. May Allah awaken the people and assist them see the evil deeds of Israel,” Omar, who was elected to Congress last fall, said on Twitter in 2012.
Last month, in response to journalist Glenn Greenwald’s tweet about Congress’ support for Israel, Omar said, “It’s about the Benjamins baby,” referring to the financial influence of Jewish donors. After she deleted and “unequivocally” apologized for the tweet, Omar sparked new controversy by saying she wanted to talk about “political influences in this country that say it’s OK to insist on allegiance to a foreign country.”
Many people representing a wide range of views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict heard echoes in these comments of accusations that Jews employ occult forces to manipulate world events, employ their wealth to buy political influence, and cannot be trusted because they put tribal loyalties above the interests of their family. country. These interpretations aside, Omar’s statements clearly portrayed Israel’s supporters as either hypnotized fools or paid mockers – and in both cases, unworthy of engagement.
Such ad hominem attacks are logically irrelevant because a person’s motives tell us nothing about the validity of his or her opinions. They encourage the demonization of political opponents, reinforcing a reflexive mutual hostility that prevents the productive exchange of ideas.
That’s what Donald Trump was doing when on March 2, during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference, he claimed that “we have people in Congress who hate our country.” That’s what Republican Jim Jordan of Ohio did when the next day he suggested that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., give credence to the allegation that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice simply because billionaire Tom Steyer, who advocates pro-impeachment, is a major supporter of Democratic candidates.
Nadler called Jordan’s tweet “stupid AND anti-Semitic” – the latter because Jordan replaced the “S” in Steyer’s last name with a dollar sign and Steyer’s father was Jewish. I’m not sure about the anti-Semitic part, but Jordan’s impeachment was certainly nonsense, both because Democrats need almost no financial incentive to address claims of the Republican president’s wrongdoing and because Jordan substituted a false argument against those claims.
Last week, in defense of Omar, Glenn Greenwald suggested that there is nothing wrong with attacking the “Israel lobby” because “everyone feels comfortable saying that members of Congress are putting guns over Americans out of fear of the NRA.” In this way, he illustrated the pitfalls of attacking motives rather than arguments.
Greenwald’s “everyone” excludes all people who sincerely disagree with him on gun control. His formulation assumes that such people do not exist, that the debate pits reasonable, well-meaning guardians of public safety against cowards who shrink from doing the right thing so as not to antagonize the National Rifle Association.
Unlike Greenwald, New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg wrote that Omar “deserves criticism” for his “mild anti-Semitism,” but Goldberg was more furious with the Republican criticism of the legislator. Noting that 23 Republicans voted against the anti-bigotry resolution, she said, “Republicans do not appear to recognize” the “ideals of multi-ethnic democracy.”
This is not entirely a charitable interpretation, as opponents of the resolution alleged that it was so watered down that it lost its meaning. When you believe that you are fighting for everything that is good and right against the forces of darkness, you cannot agree with your opponents, even if you agree with them.
