Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Why Won’t Dems Condemn Ihlan Omar In Resolution On Antisemitism?

Why Won’t Dems Condemn Ihlan Omar In Resolution On Antisemitism?

Omar keeps equating support for Israel with disloyalty to U.S. and motivated by money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrcaCrkuofg

The House Democrats have drafted a resolution in response to Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) latest anti-Semitic comments about dual loyalty.

However, it looks like the Democrats are only doing damage control because the resolution does not mention Omar by name. This could change since it’s just a draft.

Dual Loyalty Comments

At an event last week, Omar appeared at a “Progressive town hall” with Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), who has her own history of anti-Semitic language. One audience member yelled, “It’s all about the Benjamins,” which prompted a smile from Omar.

In early February, Omar tweeted “It’s all about the Benjamins,” which suggested that Israel supporters in Congress are bought with Jewish money.

But then she said: “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” Jonathan Chait at The New Yorker explains:

This is much worse. Accusing Jews of “allegiance to a foreign country” is a historically classic way of delegitimizing their participation in the political system. Whether or not the foreign policy agenda endorsed by American supporters of Israel is wise or humane, it is a legitimate expression of their political rights as American citizens. To believe in a strong American alliance with Israel (or Canada, or the United Kingdom, or any other country) is not the same thing as giving one’s allegiance to that country. Omar is directly invoking the hoary myth of dual loyalty, in which the Americanness of Jews is inherently suspect, and their political participation must be contingent upon proving their patriotism.

Of course, she is attempting to couch her position as a defense of free speech, and against a tendency to reflexively dismiss all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. And it’s certainly true that many Israel hawks do label criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic without a good basis to do so. There should be more space in American politics to advocate criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights.

But Omar is using that cause to smuggle in ugly stereotypes. And whatever presumption of good faith she deserved last time should be gone now.

Not only that, but she tried to defend her past Israel comments. From The Washington Free Beacon:

Omar, a Somalian-born Muslim from Minnesota, has found herself apologizing for comments she made about Israel that have been deemed anti-Semitic, but on Wednesday night defended her criticism of Israel and said the criticism comes just because of her religion.

“What I am fearful of, because both Rashida and I are Muslim, is that a lot of our Jewish colleagues and constituents go to thinking that everything we say about Israel is anti-Semitic because we are Muslim,” Omar said. “It’s something designed to end the debate.”

“It’s almost as if every time we say something that is supposed to be about foreign policy, or advocacy about ending oppression, or the freeing of every human life, we get to be labeled and that ends the discussion,” she said. “We end up defending that and nobody gets to have the broader debate about what is happening with Palestine.”

“I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” Omar said. “I want to ask why it is okay for me to talk about the influence of the NRA, or fossil fuel industries, or big pharma, but not talk about the influence of a powerful lobbying group that is influencing policy.”

This is the fourth incident I believe? Omar has only served in Congress for two months.

The Resolution

Like I said, the resolution does not name Omar, but it condemns the ‘myth of dual loyalty,’ using the same language as top Democrats, like House Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey, who have condemned Omar in recent days.”

The Democrats plan on voting Wednesday on the resolution.

I bet all of the Republicans will support the resolution, but I doubt it will be enough. The party recently punished and stripped Rep. Steve King (R-IA) of his committee appointments over his latest white supremacist remarks.

The Republicans and groups want Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to do the same to Omar:

The announcement of floor action Monday came after a mounting backlash from outside groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, which wrote a letter to Pelosi calling for a House resolution to reject what the organization called Omar’s “latest slur.”

“We urge you and your colleagues to send the unambiguous message that the United States Congress is no place for hate,” the group’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, wrote in a letter. Democratic staffers had already started working on the resolution before the group’s letter, according to one senior Democratic aide.

Nearly a dozen pro-Israel groups also urged Pelosi to oust Omar from her coveted spot on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Of course it is only damage control. If they thought they could get away with it, they would completely and totally ignore the entire issue.

4th armored div | March 5, 2019 at 11:37 am

childish fart joke to misdirect blame
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatulence_humor
The trick is to pin the blame on someone else, often by means of deception, or using a back and forth rhyming game that includes phrases such as the following: He who declared it blared it. He who observed it served it. He who detected it ejected it. He who rejected it respected it. He who smelt it dealt it.

The Democrat Party, by their own actions, can not publicly touch Omar. Omar is a person of color, a woman, a Muslim and came from a family which resided in a barbarous country. She is a four star Democrat Sacred Cow.

Over the last few decades, the Democrats have been turning every member of every minority [with the exception of Asians and Jews] into a victim, a saint and, if criticized, a martyr. They have insulated Omar from any critical action, of a public nature.

On the other hand, the party NEEDS its liberal, Jewish constituency. This constituency is every bit as important to it as the African-American constituency, though for different reasons. While amounting to only a little over 2% of the population, Jewish Americans provide a significant amount of funding for the Democrat party. Muslim Americans, in the other hand, only make up about 1% of American citizens. Muslim voters and Muslim financing are insignificant, on a national scale. But, the Muslim minority has been inoculated against any criticism by the actions and policies of the Democrat Party.

4th armored div | March 5, 2019 at 11:41 am

do you notice the similarity of looks between omar and the ‘child bride of isis and her whelp’…
i cannot get over the attempt to normalize muslem infamy

I expected this, but not because of what you think: IIRC, House rules explicitly forbid disparaging House members by name. The exception is in a motion to censure. I don’t see the Speaker supporting one, so Omar cannot and will not be called out by name.

Correct me if I’m wrong.

    Belatedly, I am correcting myself. It may well be that normal debate forbids it, but the resolution regarding Rep. King certainly singled him out.. I know that, famously, the House makes up rules as it goes along. We’ll see what Pelosi allows in the end. (As I write this, it looks like a complete dumpster fire, though.)

There should be more space in American politics to advocate criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights.

That doesn’t sound like all that much space. I’d prefer the freedom to criticize Israel—or anything else—without having to earn the right by supporting anybody.

Omar needs to prove that she’s not loyal to ISIS by taking off the damn head scarf.

    Milhouse in reply to MTED. | March 6, 2019 at 2:04 pm

    No. Her religion should not be part of this discussion. It is possible to be a Moslem and a decent person (particularly if one doesn’t understand Arabic and has therefore never read the Koran and only knows its contents second-hand, as is the case for so many Moslems). She happens not to be, but speaking as if this were inevitable is exactly like accusing someone of antisemitism or homophobia just because they’re Christian.

    And questioning someone’s allegiance to America just because they’re Moslem is exactly the same as doing so because they’re Jewish or Catholic (think back to the Know-Nothing days, or to when the constitution was written, which is precisely why the Religious Test clause is there).

Because then Dems wouldn’t be able to so freely bludgeon the right with their bullsh!t claims of “RAAAACISMMM”.

“Rep. Steve King (R-IA) of his committee appointments over his latest white supremacist remarks.”

No. The spineless GOPe caved to the hysterical left that insists that any praise of Western culture or values constitutes “white supremacism.” And their idiocy is blindly parroted by stupid people who wish only to virtue signal. It is tiresome.

    Milhouse in reply to Anonamom. | March 6, 2019 at 2:06 pm

    His words, as quoted in every report, were not only about Western culture, but about the white race. And that was vile and horrible. But as I understand it he claims it was an innocent slip of the tongue, and I haven’t seen any report deal seriously with that claim. It’s plausible, if only because he has no history of such statements.

4th armored div | March 5, 2019 at 6:15 pm

a comment that i made elsewhere
—————————————–
The Muslim invasion of the heartland cannot be compared to previous waves of
immigration.

Christianity in various forms and Judaism have been here, in the New World, since
the 1600-1700s.

Our founding fathers were Theists, believing in a ‘Higher Power’.

Islam is not simply a system of theology, doctrine and laws, but more accurately,

a political ideology disguised as a religion.

It condones and encourages lying to outsiders.
Takkiyah which is a religious principle (and ibligation).

World War II Islam and Modern Islam: Know Thy Enemy
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/11/world_war_ii_islam_and_modern_islam_know_thy_enemy.html

The left will not criticize this freak, because she is espousing what they believe.

That rabid traitor Obama didn’t poke at Bibi for nothing:
https://impeachobamatoday.blogspot.com/2013/01/obama-jabs-and-pokes-netanyahu.html

All that’s is her cooking in the kitchen, drinking a beer, calling for the Final Solution.

Obama also called Netanyahu “chickensh-t” as reported by his house Jewish “reporter” Jeffrey Goldberg who referred to Obama as a “very high administration official”. What a vile creature to refer to the democratically elected leader of the only democracy in the Middle East. In reality, Netanyahu was further thing from “chickensh-t”. He is a former member of the Israeli Special forces group known as the Sayaret Mekal. He was involved in a shootout with Arab terrorists who had hijacked an airliner and landed it in Israel. To show how truly brave Netanyahu is, he was shot in the shoulder before the terrorist were all killed. The US has deteriorated if such vile, hater such as Obama could be elected US President.

Obama also called Netanyahu “chickensh-t” as reported by his house Jewish “reporter” Jeffrey Goldberg who referred to Obama as a “very high administration official”. Obama is a vile creature to refer to the democratically elected leader of the only democracy in the Middle East in such a crude, very hostile, undiplomatic manner.. In reality, Netanyahu is the further thing from “chickensh-t”. He is a former member of the Israeli Special forces group known as the Sayaret Mekal. He was involved in a shootout with Arab terrorists who had hijacked an airliner and landed it in Israel. To show how truly brave Netanyahu is, he was shot in the shoulder before the terrorists were all killed. The US has deteriorated if such a vile, hater as Obama could be elected US President.

Jonathan Chait:

it’s certainly true that many Israel hawks do label criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic without a good basis to do so. There should be more space in American politics to advocate criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights.

Criticism of Israel itself, rather than this or that government or policy, is antisemitic.

And no, there should not be space in American politics to advocate criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights, any more than there should be to advocate criticism of law enforcement itself (as opposed to this or that policy, department, or officer) and support for the rights of those who violently attack policemen and compel them to use force.

Such criticism and support would be acceptable if its premise were true; if Israel, as a matter of policy, really were suppressing the rights of Arabs, or if US policemen really were massacring innocent black people, then it would be right and proper to criticize them and to act against them, even violently if nothing else worked. For that matter, if it were true that Jews were slaughtering gentile children and making matzos with their blood then it would be right and proper to take extreme measures to put a permanent end to this practice. But the facts contradict these premises, and there should be no space in American politics for attacks on others that is not based on facts.

The party recently punished and stripped Rep. Steve King (R-IA) of his committee appointments over his latest white supremacist remarks.

“Latest” implies there were previous such statements. I am not aware of any. What he said, at least as it was quoted in all the reports, was vile; but to me it seemed out of character, and I have not been able to find a recording or a full transcript of his actual words, which might show it to be an unfortunate slip of the tongue, as he claims it was.

    I’ve read what seems to be a full transcript of the relevant part. Summary: It may have been deliverable on paper, with proper comma use, but saying it out loud invited association of his words with the wrong part. His comments were “out there” to begin with, and therefore any stumble, actual or perceived, was going to get him into a lot of trouble. He was also making an unpopular, controversial point in the process.

    So, in essence he made a risky statement worse through speaking in a way that was subject to easy misinterpretation. It is mainly a failure of politics, and he is a politician. Either way, he tried delivering a point with 1919 grammar in an era of 2019 social media realities. I think issues were.. inevitable.

      Milhouse in reply to JBourque. | March 7, 2019 at 1:38 pm

      Do you have a link to the transcript? And how big is this “relevant part”? How much context does it give?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend