The moment a Black, hijabi, Muslim woman was elected to the U.S. Congress, it was safe to assume that a fierce racist backlash would follow.
Then that congresswoman declared her support for the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement to challenge Israeli apartheid.
The attacks on Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota have been nonstop in nearly every corner of social media and traditional media. Among the less mainstream critiques have been blatantly Islamophobic accusations that Omar supports sharia law and marrying her own brother.
As is sure to follow when a Black or Brown activist refuses to jump through hoops to earn their pro-Israel, anti-Farrakhan credentials, accusations of antisemitism quickly followed — and caught on like wildfire.
The most recent controversy surrounds an off-the-cuff criticism by Omar of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the largest pro-Israel advocacy organization in the U.S.
It began with a tweet by the Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald criticizing U.S. politicians for pursuing the standing of a foreign nation state more fiercely than the right to free speech of people in the U.S. critical of that state. In response, Omar quoted a song by hip-hop artist Puff Daddy, saying, “It’s all about the Benjamins baby.”
By the response, you would think that she had been photographed for a yearbook posing in blackface.
For pointing out the simple fact that AIPAC, as its own staff boasts, exists to use money to exert control over politicians — you know, like a lobbying organization — she has been condemned by every major Jewish press outlet, dozens of members of Congress from both parties, and, in a quixotic Twitter episode, Chelsea Clinton.
Donald Trump has called for her resignation. House Minority Leader Mike McCarthy has threatened to “take action” against her, comparing her to white nationalist Republican Rep. Steve King. And Nancy Pelosi succeeded in forcing an apology out Omar.
All of this is sadly to be expected — it’s what happens when Black and Brown activists talk about Palestine.
What is perhaps more surprising — and disappointing — is the failure of some on the left to recognize this attack on Omar for what it is: a cynical, racist weaponization of antisemitism to discredit a progressive politician.
After Omar’s apology, the Jewish anti-occupation group If Not Now “[welcomed] Omar’s apology for her unfortunate word choice.” Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez celebrated her “capacity to acknowledge pain & apologize,” and thanking “Jewish leadership who brought her in, [rather than pushing] her out, to heal.”
Perhaps even more worse, Bernie Sanders hasn’t said a word about the entire controversy, even though his strong defense of Omar could have a big impact.
***
Examples abound around progressive media: “Two things can be true,” they suggest. “Omar’s statement can be anti-Semitic, and she can still be a champion of social justice that we should defend. After all, she apologized.”
There’s only one problem with this line of reasoning: the tweet simply wasn’t anti-Semitic, and the resounding concession that Omar did something wrong — and had something to apologize for — has done substantial harm to the credibility of anti-racist, anti-imperialist politics on the nation’s highest political stage.
Writing in the Forward, Peter Feld put it this way:
The problem is, all lobbies, by definition, are designed to exert secret control over policy, using money. That’s what they do…And so, unless you want to deny that there even is an Israel lobby, it can’t be off limits to point out that it works in secret and uses money to bring about policy outcomes.
AIPAC spends somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 million per year on official lobbying expenses. It has an annual budget in the tens of millions, an endowment in the hundreds of millions, and a network of supporters that contributes hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars per election cycle to both political parties.
AIPAC lobbyists aren’t uniquely powerful, and they do not control the government, but they do have substantial influence, and the suggestion that this simple fact cannot be named without warranting criticism is laughable.
“It’s all about the Benjamins” — there is no poor word choice at play, no “flirtation with anti-Semitic tropes.” Omar’s words are simply ammunition for the next weapon in the white supremacist arsenal, aimed and fired at Omar by the people actually perpetuating the historic rise in antisemitism in the United States and abroad.
***
As the left has responded to this latest case of right-wing gaslighting, important conversations have resurfaced about the underlying causes of U.S. support for the Israeli state. After all, even the National Rifle Association, with its tremendous war chest and membership base, can only buy the votes of a little more than half of federal legislators.
It’s true, as many Jewish activists have been quick to point out, that antisemitic, Christian Evangelical Zionism is a much more powerful ideological force than right wingers’ concern for the wellbeing of Jews.
It’s also true that white supremacy, imperialism and the usefulness of an apartheid ethno-state loyal to the U.S. contribute more to politicians’ near-unanimous support for Zionism than whatever campaign contributions may be linked to support for Israel.
There are certainly people on the left who perpetuate harmful, idealist conceptions of the relationship between wealthy, powerful Jews and the pro-Israel policy stances of politicians, and those ideas must be challenged: the belief that the Jewish lobby is chiefly responsible for the U.S.’s continuing aid to Israel persists and should be challenged.
For this reason, left-wing activists have been right to raise the fact that it’s not just about the Benjamins. It’s about imperialism, Christian hegemony and politicians’ own honest-to-goodness racism, too.
But those conversations cannot happen responsibly unless and until we have actually cemented our solidarity with a Black and Muslim public figure being attacked for no reason other than the challenge she poses to white supremacy.
Antisemitism poses a real threat to Jews today, and when we “welcome” an apology that amounts to a concession to white supremacists and anti-Palestinian bigots, we foreclose on the possibility of an actual refinement of our movement’s analysis that might combat it.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.