About Alma's Guide to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Part of: Alma's Guide to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
The goal of this guide is to provide an entryway into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for those who want to be more informed on the topic. Our aim was to make these articles as unbiased and factually-based as possible; our only agenda is to make a complicated issue easier to understand.

That being said, we are a Jewish website, and certain inherent biases may be at play. If you find something you believe to be factually incorrect in this guide or have any other comments (or compliments, we'll take those too), we encourage you to reach out to us at [email protected].

This guide was a group effort in every sense of the word, created by Team Alma and the larger 70 Faces Media staff. All header illustrations are by Hane Grace Yagel. A special thanks to Emily Burack for her work on this project.

ZIONISM
What is Zionism?

Part of: Alma's Guide to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Most likely any conversation around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will include the words Zionism or Zionist. But what do these words actually mean, and how have they changed over time? Let's break it down.

What is Zionism?

The definition of Zionism has evolved over time: There's pre-1948 Zionism and post-1948 Zionism (not to be confused with post-Zionism, another idea altogether).

Post-1948 Zionism — arguably what most people consider the definition of Zionism today — can be simply defined as the belief that the State of Israel has a right to exist, that Jews have the right to self-determination. (This definition is up for debate, though.)

Pre-1948 Zionism is a little bit more complex. To sum, it was the general movement to establish a Jewish state. The modern state of Israel is therefore the culmination of Zionism, the Jewish effort to establish an autonomous state and end the diaspora of the Jewish people. Political Zionism was a product of many trends: the persecution of Jews in Europe and Arab lands; the rise of nationalism around the world; idealistic visions for building a new kind of society; and the conclusion that Jews would only be safe if they controlled their own destinies, to name a few.

Back up: What's the diaspora?

The Jewish diaspora, also called the galut (exile), is the dispersion of Israelites/Jews out of their ancestral homeland. Jews typically trace their status as a nation to the Kingdom of Israel — you know, the land ruled by King Saul, King David, and King Solomon from the Bible — around 900 BCE.

The historical record shows Jewish kingdoms in various forms in what is present-day Israel from then through the era of Roman rule that began in about 60 BCE.

The Jewish exile is commonly dated from the Roman destruction of the second Temple in 70 C.E. Since the exile, there has been a Jewish longing to return to the "promised" land as God gave to Abraham and his descendants in Genesis 15:18 and Genesis 17:8, and where the Jewish Temples marked the center of Jewish religious and political life.

The Arch of Titus, constructed in 82 CE to commemorate the Siege of Jerusalem (and the destruction of the Temple) in 70 CE, became a symbol of the Jewish diaspora. (Wikimedia Commons)
During the exile, a significant part of Jewish prayer and scripture focused on the Jewish desire to return. For example, Psalm 137:1, 4-5 is super famous (you may recognize the reggae song): "By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion... How shall we sing the song of the Lord on foreign soil? If I forget you, O Jerusalem, may my right hand wither!"

Ok, so is Zionism a religious thing?

Short answer: Not really. Zionism, as we think of it today, was a largely secular, nationalist movement that used Jewish religious symbols. Zion is essentially a synonym for Jerusalem.

Long answer: There are a lot of different types of Zionism and Zionists. Zionism wasn't just one movement. Some of these were religious, and some weren't.

Buchenwald released
Jewish children on their way to Palestine after having been released from the Buchenwald Concentration Camp in June 1945. (National Archives and Records Administration)
Let's break down the different types of Zionism. It's important to note that these aren't mutually exclusive — people can belong to multiple Zionist camps at the same time.

The different types of Zionism

POLITICAL ZIONISM

This is probably what you think of when you think of Zionism. This was a largely secular movement that grew out of 19th century European nationalism and basically said Jews are like any other national group and — especially given the persistence of anti-Semitism — deserve and need a state of their own.

CULTURAL ZIONISM

A movement associated with the writer Ahad Ha'am (Hebrew for "one of the people") and Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, the most important figure behind the revival of modern Hebrew, cultural Zionists wanted to ensure the Jewish state was not just a state that happened to be populated by Jews, but one with a vibrant Jewish culture.

LABOR ZIONISM

This was the movement behind the establishment of the kibbutzim, the collectivist farms instrumental in Israel's early history. Labor Zionism emphasized the transformative power of the land and shaped the early leaders of the Jewish state. David Ben-Gurion , Israel's first prime minister, was a Labor Zionist.

REVISIONIST ZIONISM

This was a militant splinter movement led by Ze'ev Jabotinsky which split from the larger Zionism movement in the 1920s and wanted to achieve a Jewish state more quickly and aggressively than the Labor Zionists.

Ze'ev Jabotinsky (front, center) with members of the Revisionist Zionist movement, Betar (Wikimedia Commons)
RELIGIOUS ZIONISM

Religious Zionists believe that the establishment of the state of Israel is part of the divine plan for redemption. Unlike some religious Jews, who think that restoring Jewish sovereignty in Israel has to wait until the coming of the messiah, religious Zionists consider settlements in Israel and army service to be holy acts.

CHRISTIAN ZIONISM

This is basically what it sounds like. Christians who support Jewish sovereignty in Israel do so mainly because they believe the Jewish return to the holy land is a precursor to the second coming of Jesus, and because they take seriously the biblical verse, "Whoever blesses Israel will be blessed, And whoever curses Israel will be cursed." (Numbers 24:9)

Whew! Still with us?

Yep.

Let's (briefly) talk about anti-Zionism

As Zionists began to settle what was then part of the Ottoman Empire in the 1880s — and picked up the pace in waves before and after World War I — what was at first scattered resistance from the Arabs who then made up the majority of the region's inhabitants became more and more intense.

After the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, a move sanctioned by the United Nations, many countries (such as Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc.) refused to acknowledge the Jewish state and instead called Israel the "Zionist entity" or "illegal Zionist entity." Critics call Zionism a colonial-imperialist movement, a racist movement, and more, which Zionists categorically deny. But this is a really messy subject and can veer into rancor and anti-Semitism, so we're going to save this for another article... (See: is anti-Zionism always anti-Semitism?)

Israel's already a state, so is Zionism still a thing?

Good question. What does Zionism look like after the establishment of Israel? Weren't the goals of the Zionist movement just, like, met?

Zionism remains as a philosophy that views Israel as a homeland for all the Jews, one that was proven necessary by Israel's role in taking in Holocaust survivors, Jews who fled persecution in the Soviet Union, Jews expelled from Arab countries, and Ethiopian Jews.

Ethiopian Jewish immigrants, 1991 (Israel Tskvika/National Photo Collection of Israel)
And while the state is a reality, contrasting visions of what Zionism means leads Israelis to hold vastly different ideas on how Israel should be governed, what role religion should play, how it treats its non-Jewish citizens, its relationship with Palestinians (and with Arab nations), and so forth... (See: how do Israeli politics work?)

What is Post-Zionism?

Post-Zionism is, broadly, a critique of Zionism and the state of Israel that tends to come from within. In its least controversial form, it says that Israel is now a reality, and it should focus on the practical aspects of being a "normal" nation for all of its citizens. A more radical form of post-Zionism calls into question the very foundations of Zionism. The moderates and radicals usually come back to the same set of questions: Is it possible to have a state that is both Jewish and democratic? Is Israel really the safest place for the Jews? Do Jews have to be in Israel?

Post-Zionism, as My Jewish Learning explains, is "indicative of an increasing sense among many Israelis that the maps of meaning provided by Zionism are simply no longer adequate."

What does it mean to be a Zionist today?

It means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

For many, it means they believe in the right of the Jews to self-determination. Nothing more, nothing less. It means they believe Israel should exist.

For many Jews living outside of Israel, Zionism describes their commitment to supporting Israel — politically, economically, and spiritually.

For many of Israel's critics, Zionism is a flawed and even illegitimate notion, which means Israel is itself considered illegitimate. Many of them equate Zionism to "the ideological, ultra-nationalist settlers and their supporters in the Likud-led government." (See: UN Resolution 3379.)

Others believe Zionism ended on May 14, 1948, when the State of Israel was established. As writer Anshel Pfeffer opines in Haaretz, "Despite the -ism in its name, Zionism was never an ideology, it was a program. For the 66 years of its existence there were heated debates over Zionism's justification, objectives and the best means for achieving them. They ended on May 14, 1948, when an independent Jewish state was established on part of the ancient homeland." Basically: Arguing over Israeli policies today does nothing to change how Israel came into existence, nor the Zionist movement that brought it there.

So, you know, no simple answers here.

ANTI-ZIONISM
Is anti-Zionism always anti-Semitic?

Part of: Alma's Guide to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Can you criticize Israel without hating Jews? Yes! Can you be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic? Well, it's complicated, and even anti-Semitism experts don't always agree on the answer.

Let's get into it.

First, what's anti-Semitism?

In the words of Deborah Lipstadt, a top expert on the subject, from her 2019 book Anti-Semitism: Here and Now: "It is hard, if not impossible, to explain something that is essentially irrational, delusional, and absurd."

We hear you, Deborah, but let's try.

Anti-Semitism is much more than just hating the Jews or holding prejudice against Jews (though it's definitely that!). At its core, anti-Semitism is a conspiracy theory that Jews wield disproportionate power and influence over the world, and therefore, they are evil. Anti-Semitism sometimes takes the shape of reducing Jews to harmful stereotypes or thinking they are part of an evil cabal. It sometimes looks like people chanting "Jews will not replace us" in the streets. And it is sometimes is used to justify the murder of elderly Jews in a congregation on Shabbat.

Makeshift memorial after the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting in October 2018 (Hane Grace Yagel)
But in its more subtle forms, it's not always so easy to spot.

Okay, so what's anti-Zionism?

If we define Zionism as the movement for the return of the Jewish people to — and their sovereignty in portions of — what they consider the historic and religious Land of Israel, anti-Zionism is opposition to the existence of a Jewish state in that territory.

Palestine solidarity protest in Berlin, Germany in 2017 (Hossam el-Hamalawy/Flickr)
People who espouse anti-Zionist views often consider Israel to be the product of an imperialist and/or racist movement that is illegitimately occupying land that rightfully should either be a secular state or under Arab Muslim sovereignty.

Sound simple enough? Ha!!!

Is anti-Zionism anti-Semitic?

It's not inherently anti-Semitic to criticize Israel, nor is it an issue to dislike the way the country was founded. It's also not a problem to dislike the policies of the Israeli government or its past or current leadership — you can open any Israeli (or Jewish!) newspaper and find many examples of these things. Jews themselves have debated whether Zionism was fair and just to the Arab inhabitants of historic Palestine since the beginning of the movement, right along with whether Zionism would resolve the problem of global Jewish persecution.

So, we repeat: Not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic! 

But, anti-Zionism can sometimes veer into anti-Semitism.

Okay, like when?

In short, it's super complicated and there are no definitive answers because nobody quite agrees. But generally speaking, if you're using tropes that suggest the Jews of Israel are bloodthirsty or murderous, that's anti-Semitic. If you're criticizing the mere existence of the state rather than its current policies, some will say that's veering on anti-Semitism.

If you'd like to criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic, ask yourself:

Am I utilizing any anti-Semitic tropes, like that Jews are greedy and power hungry, that Jews are conspiring to eliminate non-Jewish peoples, or that Jews have hypnotized the media?
Am I criticizing a specific policy or demonizing the existence of any Jewish state in principle?
Am I conflating the actions and character of individual Jews or Israelis with the actions of the Israeli government?
If the answer to any of the above questions are yes, some people might call you anti-Semitic.

So how can I express criticism of Israel without being anti-Semitic?

Stick to critiquing Israel's leadership or policies. That's your safest bet.

THE AMERICAN LEFT & ISRAEL
Everything you need to know about the American left and Israel

Part of: Alma's Guide to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
What is the relationship between liberal Americans and Israel? What do the Democratic frontrunners for the 2020 presidential election think? What does AOC think?! Let's dive in.

Jewish voters and the Democratic party

The majority of American Jews vote Democrat, voting disproportionately liberal since the late 1920s.

As Professor Samuel Shorstein explained to the Washington Post, "We expect most affluent people to favor the party of the right. As a group, even allowing for individual differences, American Jews rank at or near the top on most measures of social class — education, income, occupational prestige and such. That makes their commitment to the Democratic party and liberal values puzzling."

But it's not puzzling when you break it down.

Break it down!

Actually, we'll let Jewish pollster Harry Enten do that for us, thanks to his article "Why Jewish Americans vote Democratic":

First, Enten explains, the most important determining factor of voting pattern is partisan affiliation. If you identify as a Democrat, you are likely to vote Democratic. And 70% of American Jews self-identify as members of the Democratic party — compared with just 49% of the general American public.

Two, they identify as liberal (though they identify less as liberal as you move along the religious spectrum, from Reform to Orthodox). Why liberal? Enten writes, "The reason American Jews are liberal is because they tend to sympathize with the less fortunate and with minorities." Indeed, "Jews sound a lot more like a minority when it comes to discrimination than one might expect from a group of people who are mostly white." The roots of these liberal values? Most likely the Jews' history of persecution, Enten argues.

"When you put it all together, Jewish voters are Democratic for a reason. They believe in the party's liberal ideology, and identify with its core values. They will not be swayed by Republican attempts to switch allegiances, because on the key issue on which the GOP (partly under Evangelical influence) highlights — diehard support for Israel — just doesn't impress Jews much. They don't view Israel as essential to their political allegiances in the United States, and even if they did, they think Democratic policy is just fine."

Thanks, Harry Enten!

Okay. Back up. So liberal Jews don't care about Israel?

No, we didn't say that — many just don't prioritize it when they're voting. Many may not, say, vote for a candidate who called for the destruction of Israel — but Israel issues don't rank at the top of the list of what matters most to them.

But still: What is the liberal position on Israel?

Great question. Let's first talk mainstream Democratic views on Israel — then the new progressive left, headed by politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Alright. What is the mainstream liberal position on Israel?

Generally, strong support for Israel, especially among Democratic members of Congress. It is true that Congressional Democrats are increasingly willing to criticize Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli policies regarding the Palestinians, and supported the Obama administration's Iran deal (despite Netanyahu's dire warnings). But most Democrats in Congress overwhelmingly support the existence of a Jewish state and continued U.S. military assistance to Israel, and oppose terrorist attacks against Israel and attempts to delegitimize the Jewish state through BDS and other efforts.

Similarly, there is widespread support in the Democratic 2020 presidential field for basic pro-Israel pillars such as U.S. military assistance and increasingly harsh criticisms of Netanyahu.

Anyhoo, as our favorite Harry Enten points out, "For the better part of the past two decades, the establishment wings of both the Republican and Democratic Party have largely been pro-Israel. Both parties have, at least in their party platforms, maintained pro-Israel positions, including calls to recognize Jerusalem as the Jewish nation's capital."

Yet, Democrats are less pro-Israel than they've been in decades.

What changed?

As JTA explains, "Polls show that younger Democrats are more likely to be critical of Israel's current government, and even Zionism in general, than the Democratic establishment. Centrist Democrats insist that the party is still solidly pro-Israel, but both Republicans and Israel's harshest critics insist that [Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan] Omar represents the 'new normal' for Democratic voters and politicians. Many Democrats assert that you can still be pro-Israel and criticize the Israeli government, but they increasingly feel caught in the middle."

Essentially, Democrats are becoming gradually more critical of Israel. Basically, that's because Israel has been led for a decade and counting by Benjamin Netanyahu, an increasingly right-wing prime minister who shows no intention of ending Israel's occupation of the West Bank and control over millions of Palestinians — and frequently clashed with President Barack Obama. Meanwhile, pro-Palestinian activists have ramped up efforts to expand their influence on the left.

Via Pew Research Center
There's lots more fun graphs here.

Which brings us to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez...

...and the rest of the wave of young progressive Democrats elected in the 2018 midterm elections.

"A cluster of activist Democrats — most of them young, most of them cruising toward House seats this fall — has dared to breach what has been an almost inviolable orthodoxy in both political parties, strong support for Israel, raising the specter of a crack in the Democratic Party that Republicans could use to attract Jewish supporters," reported the New York Times in October.

It's important to note, in the 2018 midterm elections, 75% of Jews still voted Democrat, which is to say, despite any changes in Democratic support for Israel, the Jewish American voting record has mostly stayed the same. As JTA reported, "Jewish voters' strong preference for Democrats was driven by their disapproval of President Trump, and their blaming him, specifically, for helping influence the shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue two weeks ago, said Jim Gerstein, GBA's pollster. Seventy-five percent of Jewish voters disapprove of Trump, versus 25 percent who approve, and 72 percent of Jewish voters hold Trump very or somewhat responsible for the Pittsburgh shooting, in which 11 people died."

Via Pew Research Center
Okay, but you promised to tell me what AOC thinks about Israel.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is more known for her domestic policy positions than foreign policy ones. However, she's been an outspoken critic of the occupation and advocates for the two-state solution. In May 2018, she critiqued the Israel Defense Forces for their use of deadly force at the Gaza border (see our explainer on those protests here). One of her new progressive colleagues, Rashida Tlaib, endorsed a one-state solution and BDS. ("It has to be one state," she said. "Separate but equal does not work.")

While we're here, what went down with Ilhan Omar?

That's a whole can of worms. See here.

Does the left have an anti-Semitism problem?

Great question! See intersectionality and the Israeli-Palestinian debate.

INTERSECTIONALITY
Intersectionality and the Israeli-Palestinian debate

Part of: Alma's Guide to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Intersectionality, which leaped from academia to the mainstream in the past decade or so, is the theory that no form of discrimination (such as racism, sexism, and classism) can be separated from any other, and that all marginalized individuals or groups must be allies in each other's struggles.

Intersectionality has also become a sticking point in the debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially in spaces where some activists insist that support for Zionism, or just support for Israel's current government, cannot coexist with the struggle for social justice, and particularly, feminism.

That's a lot. Let's unpack it.

What exactly is intersectional feminism again?

Intersectional feminism, coined by scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989, posits that each layer of an individual's identity can help us better understand how and when they experience power and oppression.

American activist Ai-jen Poo explains it this way: "When you are a black woman or a queer, immigrant woman, your experience of violence isn't 'gender inequality plus racial inequality,' but it's all of those things at once."

According to Crenshaw, "Feminism investigates and challenges the forces that cause injustice or inequality. However, those forces are not the same for all women, because forces of oppression (sexism, racism, classism etc.) intersect."

In other words, if you're a black woman, or a queer woman, you'll experience blackness, queerness, and womanhood — as well as racism, homophobia, and sexism — differently than someone who doesn't share your multiple identities.

So where does the Israeli-Palestinian conflict come in?

To some intersectional feminists tuned into the Middle East conflict, they see a serious power imbalance between the Israelis — who have a state, a functional democracy, an active military, and abundant social services — and Palestinians, who live under occupation.

As long as Israel continues this occupation, some argue you cannot be a feminist and a Zionist: To do so would be to actively oppress Palestinian women, which cannot be a feminist cause.

Wait, so can you support Israel and still be an intersectional feminist?

It depends on who you ask.

Linda Sarsour, a prominent Palestinian-American activist and co-chair of the Women's March, has stated, "Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement? There can't be in feminism. You either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none. There's just no way around it." Note: While some took this to mean that Sarsour believes you can't be a feminist and a Zionist (which is how the Nation phrased it in their headline), others argued that she is differentiating between unflinching Zionism and critical Zionism, meaning you can be a Zionist but still critical of the occupation and other Israeli policies, and therefore a feminist as well.

After that statement from Sarsour, many self-proclaimed Zionists and feminists wrote op-eds explaining why they believe the two identities are not incompatible. In the Forward, Brad Lander wrote an article titled "I'm a Zionist and a Feminist. I Stand With Linda Sarsour." The Anti-Defamation League ran a letter by Carol Nuriel, concluding with, "As an Israeli committed to fostering a more equal and tolerant society — one in which Arab, Druze, Bedouin, LGBT, secular and religious, and Jewish and Palestinian women have an equal place — I am proud to say that I am both a Zionist and a feminist." Even actress Mayim Bialik chimed in.

Let's switch gears.

Okay!

What's the deal with Israel and white supremacy?

Because many of the Jews they encounter are from Western and Eastern European backgrounds — and many early Zionist leaders were themselves European — some activists characterize Israel as an imperialist white supremacist state, and therefore, say that resistance to white supremacy must include resistance to Israel. Many black power leaders, like Stokely Carmichael (later known as Kwame Ture), emphasized anti-Zionism in solidarity with the anti-colonial struggles of the world.

Israel's supporters tend to refute this categorically, noting that the majority of Israelis have roots in North Africa, Ethiopia, the Caucasus, and nearly every Middle Eastern country that surrounds Israel. Israel is itself a haven, they note, for Jews expelled from countries for racial and religious reasons.

Iranian-born American academic Sharon Nazarian explains why she thinks this de-contextualization of the conflict is not great, arguing it presents the conflict as "unilateral aggression on the part of Zionism, when in fact the Palestinian narrative includes a deep-rooted delegitimization of Israel and Zionism... It's false and unfair to cast Israel as the sole aggressor."

In this view, both sides are at fault — and so simply equating Israel with white supremacy doesn't quite add up.

What about Black Lives Matter and "From Gaza to Ferguson"?

The 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict occurred around the same time as the eruption of the protests against police brutality in Ferguson, Missouri after the death of unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown.

Brown's death added fuel to the Black Lives Matter movement, which had begun in July 2013 after the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

In one article from 2014, "From Gaza to Ferguson: Exposing the Toolbox of Racist Repression," two pro-Palestinian activists linked the movement against police brutality with the Palestinian cause. "As in Palestine, resistance in the streets of Ferguson has been met with violence, leading several shocked Ferguson protesters to compare the local police to Israeli occupation forces."

"From Ferguson to Palestine" (Carlos Latuff/Middle East Monitor)
In 2016, the Movement for Black Lives (which is affiliated with Black Lives Matter) published their 40,000+ word platform, which supported boycotts against Israel, called Israel an apartheid state, and included the incendiary line, "The US justifies and advances the global war on terror via its alliance with Israel and is complicit in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people."

For many, calling Israel's military occupation "genocide" was one step too far.

T'ruah, the rabbinic human rights organization, issued a statement that said, in part, "While we agree that the occupation violates the human rights of Palestinians... the Israeli government is not carrying out a plan intended to wipe out the Palestinians. There is no basis for comparing this situation to the genocides of the 20th century."

Read more here on Black Lives Matter and BDS.

What about that whole Women's March and anti-Semitism thing?

Ah yes, that.

Many Jews believe the Women's March leadership has an anti-Semitism problem, saying they have consistently refused to denounce anti-Semitic remarks and, in doing so, have failed to include Jews in their movement. As Tablet reported, some Jewish women involved in the organization's early days said they were told that intersectionality meant their experiences as white, empowered women made them suspect as allies.

Back in March of 2018, we chronicled the rising criticisms of the Women's March, which included the fact that their "Unity Principles" mentioned protecting other marginalized groups but not Jews (after public outcry, they've since added Jews to this list), their failure to condemn anti-Semitism after the events of Charlottesville in August 2017 — you know, when Nazis marched the streets chanting "Jews will not replace us" and a white supremacist killed a protester named Heather Heyer — and the leaders' connections to Louis Farrakhan.

Who?

Louis Farrakhan is the super anti-Semitic and anti-LGBTQ leader of the Nation of Islam.

And what does he have to do with the Women's March?

Some leaders of the Women's March seem to be quite cozy with Farrakhan, like Tamika Mallory, who posted a picture of herself with him, calling him the GOAT ("Greatest of All Time"), and Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour, who have offered similar praise.

After public outcry, the Women's March leadership refused to denounce him or break ties, until they (kinda) did, not long after actress Alyssa Milano spoke out:

Women's March statement (Women's March facebook)
But many Jews thought that was too little, too late.

It's a really messy issue — surprise surprise — one that has no easy answers. Hey, kind of like this entire conflict!

Ilhan Omar's anti-Semitism controversy, explained

BY EMILY BURACK
FEBRUARY 14, 2019 5:39 PM

Rep. Ilhan Omar at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing in the Rayburn Building in Washington, D.C., Feb. 13, 2019. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)
ADVERTISEMENT

(JTA) — An anti-Semitism scandal surrounding Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., erupted this week. There are seemingly 10,000 hot takes and think pieces on the matter (we at the Jewish Telegraphic Agency have published our fair share), but let's break down the "scandal" in simple terms.

What actually happened? Is Omar anti-Semitic? Why does it seem like everyone — from Donald Trump to your grandma — is freaking out over this? Why is Israel involved?

Who is Ilhan Omar?

Omar, a refugee from Somalia, is the newly elected representative for Minnesota's 5th Congressional District. Her election in November represented a lot of firsts: She was the first Somali-American elected to Congress, one of the first two Muslim women elected, and the first woman of color to represent Minnesota. She's part of a wave of progressive women legislators elected in the midterms.

Her views on Israel are relevant to the anti-Semitism debate: Omar, more than most of her other freshman congresswoman peers, has come under scrutiny for her positions on Israel, which include support of the boycott Israel movement, or BDS.

In 2012, she tweeted that Israel had "hypnotized" the world, which many thought bought into age-old anti-Semitic motifs. Omar disavowed the tweet last month, writing on Twitter, "It's now apparent to me that I spent lots of energy putting my 2012 tweet in context and little energy in disavowing the anti-semitic trope I unknowingly used, which is unfortunate and offensive."

It seems like she's disavowed her anti-Semitic statements. What's the big deal?

ADVERTISEMENT

Less than a month after that apology, controversy reignited on Twitter. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., called for "action" against her and her fellow Muslim congresswoman, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., while being vague on what "action" he wants to take.

Omar then retweeted journalist Glenn Greenwald, a frequent critic of Israel who shared an article about McCarthy, adding the comment, "It's stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans."

Omar wrote six words that would ignite debate: "It's all about the Benjamins baby," adding a music note emoji to the end of her tweet.

It's all about the Benjamins baby 🎶 https://t.co/KatcXJnZLV

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) February 10, 2019
OK, this just could've been a reference to the Puff Daddy song "It's All About The Benjamins." Why is it so problematic?

Well, we are so glad you asked! Because that wasn't the end of the Twitter drama.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Forward's opinion editor, Batya Ungar-Sargon, then quote-tweeted Omar's "Benjamins" tweet, writing, "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 then quote tweeted Ungar-Sargon's tweet (you still with us?), simply writing "AIPAC!"

And so the controversy began.

Wait. Why?!

AIPAC is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group.

Many people began to call out Omar for repeating the anti-Semitic trope that Jews influence governments through money.

Dan Shapiro, former U.S. ambassador to Israel, tweeted: "@IlhanMN's outrageous comments equating politicians' support for Israel with being bought off by American Jewish money are a vile anti-Semitic trope. They need to be condemned by all in our party."

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on Omar to apologize, as did the whole Democratic caucus. Even Chelsea Clinton chimed in.

However, on the other side of the argument, many started arguing that Omar was just pointing out the influence of lobbyists. It has nothing to do with the Jews! Omar notably retweeted Jewish journalist Ashley Feinberg, who wrote, "accurately describing how the Israel lobby works is not anti-semitism."

I'm confused. Is calling out AIPAC anti-Semitic?

Not in theory, no. You can criticize AIPAC without being anti-Semitic.

However, when you focus on AIPAC as the example of money in politics, or link Jewish influence to deep pockets, that's when it becomes a problem. As JTA Editor-in-Chief Andrew Silow-Carroll pointed out, "Invoking 'AIPAC!' as a metonym for the influence of money in politics was a minefield, and the idea that she doesn't know that by now — coming only a week after she apologized for her 7-year-old 'hypnotized' tweet — is implausible."

The tweet was also technically incorrect: AIPAC is not a political action committee and does not endorse or give money directly to politicians or campaigns. It does signal to supporters who might be worthy of a donation, but its self-described role is to "engage lawmakers directly on the merits and substance of policy."

As Brent Sasley pointed out in The Washington Post, "Interest groups have always been an important part of the policymaking process in the United States. It is normal, not nefarious, that interest groups lobby Congress, the executive and the bureaucracy to get their priorities on the agenda. Interest groups play such a role on almost every issue, and many of them are highly effective at shaping agendas and votes."

So, perhaps it was an issue that Omar singled out AIPAC — and for what it's worth, she apologized, tweeting, "Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes."

Listening and learning, but standing strong 💪🏽
Image

Cool. She apologized. What's the problem now?

There are many, many issues, but let's break it down into three main ones:

1. Anti-Semitism only seems to be a problem when the other side does it.

That's become a frequent complaint about people on both sides of the political divide. The left says the right only cares about anti-Semitism if a liberal or Israel critic is involved. The right says the left loves to beat up on right-wing anti-Semites but ignores the Jew haters in their midst.

In this case, the left is calling Republicans hypocritical for focusing on Omar. Who is Kevin McCarthy to call out Omar on anti-Semitism, say his critics, when he once accused Jewish billionaires George Soros and Michael Bloomberg of trying to "BUY" the midterm elections? And don't get them started on Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who got away with racially charged anti-immigrant rhetoric for years.

ADVERTISEMENT

As David Schraub wrote in JTA, "Republicans seem similarly inclined to cast stones at liberals while ignoring the literal Nazi apologists in their midst."

2. The Democrats may, or may not, have an Israel problem.

Many of the #hottakes coming out of this whole thing have focused on the Democratic Party and the 2020 elections.

As Max Fisher and Amanda Taub wrote in The Interpreter newsletter for The New York Times, "A serious debate over whether the party should recalibrate its position on Israel is all but inevitable. The infighting over Ms. Omar's tweets, while less about Israel per se than tangential issues of lobbying and anti-Semitism, showed how much anger and distrust this issue can bring out."

Polls show that younger Democrats are more likely to be critical of Israel's current government, and even Zionism in general, than the Democratic establishment. Centrist Democrats insist that the party is still solidly pro-Israel, but both Republicans and Israel's harshest critics insist that Omar represents the "new normal" for Democratic voters and politicians. Many Democrats assert that you can still be pro-Israel and criticize the Israeli government, but they increasingly feel caught in the middle.