Oh, Ilhan Omar, what have you done? Yes, speaking the truth in the halls of Congress has always been hazardous to your health, but when little Ilhan, newly elected representative for the fifth district of Minnesota (basically Minneapolis and environs), remarked that “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” (meaning, of course, Israel), the walls of hypocrisy in DC really began to shake and sway.
From my perspective, it’s perfectly okay to “to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” as long as you’re willing to admit that that’s what you’re doing.1 But U.S. Likudists like Bill Kristol and Jennifer Rubin—both of whom I vehemently agree with on some issues—insist that, when it comes to Israel, simply making the charge of “dual loyalty”, as it’s usually framed, is in itself anti-Semitism in its purest and most vicious form. Old-fashioned liberal Jonathan Chait, whom I very often praise, writes furiously that “Ilhan Omar’s smearing of pro-Israel activism as a form of dual loyalty” is evidence that anti-Semitism may rip the Democratic Party apart as it has done to the Labour Party in Great Britain.
But nothing is more obvious that many champions of Israel, both Jewish and non-Jewish (e.g., evangelical Christians), insist that the U.S. has a moral duty to support Israel’s interests as defined by Israel, regardless of this policy’s effects on U.S. interests. On the death of Charles Krauthammer, I wrote a piece remarking on his endless efforts to sabotage and wreck the Democratic Party, for the single sin of less than absolute fealty to Israel—for Charlie, like so many Jewish neocons, was quite “liberal” on most social issues and “really” belonged in the Democratic Party.
Chait’s attempt to make the mere charge of dual loyalty a thoughtcrime, and to argue that any criticism of “pro-Israel activism” equates to a charge of dual loyalty, thus making any criticism of U.S. policy towards Israel a thoughtcrime. reflects the larger agenda of the Israeli lobby to take any rational consideration of the relationship between U.S. and Israeli interests off the table. President Eisenhower’s first secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, that great Presbyterian, intoned that “Israel is a millstone around our necks,” a piece of realpolitik that no politician would dare utter today, but much closer to the truth than the usual proclamations regarding the indissoluble ties that bind our two nations together. We kowtow to the Saudis, who are certainly more obnoxious than the Israelis, but who still hold the power to set the world price for oil. Israel, on the other hand, can do us no such favors, “defending” us against countries who hate us solely because we are allied with Israel. Every recent secretary of state, upon retiring, writes a memoir in which she complains about what a pain in the ass the Israelis were, how they never give and always take. But such statements are never made in office—not, at least, since Secretary of State James Baker, serving under George H. W. Bush, uttered the immortal line “Fuck the Jews. They never vote for us anyway.”
The furor over Omar’s comments, nicely dissected/discussed by the Washington Post’s Paul Waldman, “The dishonest smearing of Ilhan Omar” and New York’s Eric Levitz, “Ilhan Omar Has a Less Bigoted Position on Israel Than Almost All of Her Colleagues”, coincides with another Israeli-related furor, the “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” movement, directed against Israel, and the anti-B.D.S. movement, pursued by pro-Israeli groups through state and federal legislation, as well as pressure on universities and colleges. I understand that Omar supports B.D.S., which is not an encouraging sign.
I don’t see the point of singling out Israel for punishment when the U.S. (for example) is surely just as wicked, if not more so. The B.D.S. movement, though not entirely anti-Semitic (it seems), is largely so, and appeals to (some) academic types, particularly in the, uh, “liberal” arts,2 who are discovering that, well, nobody gives a damn about what they have to say any more, so they want to start making a racket about something. What (I suspect) mostly worries pro-Israeli groups is that B.D.S. appeals to frustrated academics desperate to prove that they “care”, particularly if they can do so in a way that offends conventional opinion, but, more importantly, in the arguments that will be/are ensuing over B.D.S., publicity will be given to the many less than savory activities that Israel engages in. Under Benjamin Netanyahu and his merry band of Likudists, Israel has slid steadily towards a deeply conservative, anti-secular culture that is bound to offend any woke folk and could significantly tarnish the Israel brand. And so we see a collision between two groups who both want to significantly stifle free speech. Charming!
Afterwords
For decades, Israel’s most fervent supporters—The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), in particular—took it for granted that no one in Washington would dare defy them. Now they are attempting to claw back by force what they lost through vanity. The Washington Post’s David Von Drehle gives a rundown on the many constitutional issues raised by anti-B.D.S. legislation. The New York Times Catie Edmondson explains Republican strategy in crafting pro anti-B.D.S. legislation in Congress as a device to damage Democrats. The American Conservative’s Kelley Beaucar Vlahos provides more background. I have, on numerous occasions, accused right-wing supporters of Israel (basically, the entire Republican Party3) of trying to promote international tensions around the globe in order to convince the American people that we are in a permanent state of international crisis and need every ally we can get (i.e., Israel), while striving to suppress awareness of this fact.
UPDATE
The New York Times' Thomas Friedman, in his column today, confirms Omar's unfortunate (unfortunate and amusingly nuanced) embrace of "B.D.S." and offers copious detail on AIPAC's sins. I very largely agree with what Friedman has to say, except for his notion (Friedman is, of course, Jewish) that Israel's existence is justified on the basis of “the right of the Jewish people to build a nation-state in their ancient homeland,” a “right” that I suspect Mr. Friedman does not extend to anyone else—the Algonquins, for example.
Israel is the solution to a Western problem (anti-Semitism) imposed on a non-Western people, a very clumsy one, excusable only on the grounds that no other feasible solution was available. It would have been much better if the U.S. had just accepted all the remaining European Jews into the U.S. after World War II, but unfortunately that was politically impossible. The Zionist movement created by Theodore Herzl that led to the creation of Israel was premised on the need for safety, not a return to the “ancient homeland”—Herzl, a thoroughly secular Jew, did not propose a return to Israel and the "reclaiming" of Jerusalem. European Jews, after all, had thousands of years to go back to their “ancient homeland” and never made the trip. It was only the rampant anti-Semitism of 20th century Europe, British control of the Middle East following World War I, Jewish political influence in Great Britain (and, ultimately, the U.S.), and, finally, the early triumphs of the Zionists in creating Israel in the years following World War II that led to the creation of the myth to which Mr. Friedman now subscribes.
1. For many years, the Irish Republican Army, a blatantly terrorist group, was openly financed and covertly equipped with arms by supporters in the U.S. in order to murder the soldiers and citizens of Great Britain, our most important ally. This was dual loyalty with a vengeance. Disgracefully, Democrats and Republicans alike looked the other way while a brutal terrorist group operated openly in the U.S. This shameful episode in our history has never given the attention it deserves. We seem to do this a lot.
2. Yes, I am generalizing wildly. So sue me!
3. In a recent piece loudly not lamenting the demise of Bill Kristol’s mouthpiece the Weekly Standard, I said the following: This is not to say that the neocons' pièce de résistance, the invasion of Iraq, was a “Jewish plot” as is absurdly alleged in some places. During the Clinton Administration, the entire Republican Party had become obsessed with taking out Saddam, aka “The Great Satan”, largely because they had nothing better to do. “We need a war,” said Lynne Cheyney famously. The Bush Administration had Saddam in their sights from the get-go, and the unholy trio who made it all happen were the seriously un-Jewish George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. Bill Kristol was only the cheerleader—though he did wave his pom-poms with a passion.
