I don’t think I’ve ever seen a political statement triggering evidence (mixed) about its own truth as dramatically as Ilhan Omar’s quip that pro-Israeli bias in congress is “about the Benjamins, baby”. It’s as if you wrote a letter criticizing the Post Office and had it returned to you with a USPS message stamped on it.
But let’s dig down one level. The criticism, partly fair, of Omar is that she bought into (so to speak) the anti-semitic slur that Jewish money constitutes a secret conspiracy against “the people”. This is the old socialism-of-fools stuff, endlessly recycled by bigots right up until this morning; see the demonization of George Soros, for instance. Because it exists, people who want to combat bigotry—and this includes progressive politicians—should build a giant moat around it and not go there. By suggesting that hidden Jewish money had bribed Congress into blind support for Israel, Omar crossed a line. It’s the same line that George Bush senior crossed with the Willie Horton ad, and that Trump crosses a dozen times every Twitter-soaked evening. Invoking a bigoted stereotype is a bad thing to do, especially for politicians with giant megaphones.
Yet the very response to Omar’s tweet demonstrated the truth she was stumbling for. A chorus of political and media honchos of every denomination, religious and political, rose up to denounce her. They didn’t make fine distinctions and they didn’t welcome a correction; their goal was to punish and silence. Sweeping accusations were made against Omar’s character, leaving the impression that any criticism of AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby, was proof of antisemitism. And this attempt to isolate and politically crush Omar was itself the embodiment of her protest. This is the power of AIPAC in action, the lobby that can’t be named, the doctrine—the transcendental importance of Israel and the rightness of its religious self-definition—that can’t be questioned.
So the truth content of the original Omar tweet depends on how we explain this onslaught. If it’s really just about the Benjamins (the hundred dollar bills with Ben Franklin looking back at us), that means she was being trashed, directly or indirectly, for pay. Politicians joined the mob either to protect their campaign revenue or shield themselves from other politicians defending their own campaign revenue. How likely is that? The answer depends on two prior questions: how important is campaign finance in setting the basic contours of US policy, and what proportion of this finance is controlled or strongly influenced by AIPAC?
These are questions for specialists in these areas, not me. I will go out on a limb, however, and say that the truth lies between the endpoints: some but not all of the bias in the US political system is attributable to the influence of big donors, and AIPAC has a substantial but far less than a complete lock on the flow of political money. You could compare it to other lobbies, like the NRA (National Rifle Association) and AARP (American Association of Retired Persons), both of which are feared for their ability to alter the balance of funding in competitive political contests. But neither of these two outfits is immune from attack, while AIPAC is. Gun control advocates go after the NRA all the time, and, while AARP is not exactly a political lightening rod, the complaint that greedy seniors are stealing money from our children is a popular meme on the Right. So AIPAC is different. This difference does not seem to be about money, at least not solely, as important as money is to the system and the groups that try to dominate it. AIPAC appears to possess a complementary form of power, perhaps rooted in the infrastructure of synagogues and other religious organizations as well as the allegiance of many socially prominent Jews active in secular organizations. When it marshals this network, you get the sort of response we saw to Omar.
This was a ferocious rebuke of a politician, clearly intended to be career-ending. It will be interesting to see if she can recover without abandoning her advocacy of Palestinians; I certainly hope so. The attack on Omar, however, is itself the embodiment of the fear all of her colleagues have to feel, that if they step out of line on Israel they will be crushed. Catering, intentionally or otherwise, to antisemitic tropes is completely unnecessary: the proof of the pudding is in the attack on it.
The kerfuffle over Omar and AIPAC denies issues that mean something.
Money, and the two party duopoly, have ruined the US constitutional framework. Buys flawed arguments from crooked politicians and media.
Attacking the morals (anti-Semite for calling out war crimes perpetrated upon Palestinians!) of a critic is an egregiously flawed argument and itself a moral fault.
AIPAC and the idea that crossing them is somehow evil is an attack on free thought and freedom of speech.
That is sending war criminal, civilian massacring, funneling Iran profits to CIA organized death squads Elliot Abrams down to oversee the US’ imposition of oil oligarchy disguised as “democracy” in Venezuela.
That said AIPAC is more dangerous to the US than Russian hackers.
I will not vote for any incumbent in 2020.
ilsm:
I had to read this a couple of times before I got your drift.
Here is a link:
https://www.wrmea.org/1999-march/senator-simon-recalls-aipac-request-that-he-run-against-charles-percy.html
dilbert:
I am from Chicago and I do remember the players well. This is sixties stuff. Nice Link.
Peter:
Thank you for the detailed post. The first link about Soros, George Birnbaum, Arthur Finkelstein, and Viktor Orbán filled in quite a few gaps for me. I did receive what I wanted from Barkley, a well deserved history and biblical lesson which I knew he was capable of doing. From you, you brought me up to date on the politics.
Having said this, I am in Omar’s court. Some have said she is dumb, have attacked her on this count, and claiming she is moronic lacking the ability to rise to a Congressional Representative. What level might this be, I am not sure having read some of the garbage coming from our elected officials. I believe this last go-around for her is learning lesson for Omar on how to frame your points.
“Yet the very response to Omar’s tweet demonstrated the truth she was stumbling for. A chorus of political and media honchos of every denomination, religious and political, rose up to denounce her. They didn’t make fine distinctions and they didn’t welcome a correction; their goal was to punish and silence. Sweeping accusations were made against Omar’s character, leaving the impression that any criticism of AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby, was proof of antisemitism. And this attempt to isolate and politically crush Omar was itself the embodiment of her protest. This is the power of AIPAC in action, the lobby that can’t be named, the doctrine—the transcendental importance of Israel and the rightness of its religious self-definition—that can’t be questioned.
So the truth content of the original Omar tweet depends on how we explain this onslaught. If it’s really just about the Benjamins (the hundred dollar bills with Ben Franklin looking back at us), that means she was being trashed, directly or indirectly, for pay. Politicians joined the mob either to protect their campaign revenue or shield themselves from other politicians defending their own campaign revenue. How likely is that? The answer depends on two prior questions: how important is campaign finance in setting the basic contours of US policy, and what proportion of this finance is controlled or strongly influenced by AIPAC?”
No doubt she was being trashed by those who intended to skew the argument towards her comments which she left enough room for them to do. It is about the money, it is about party politics and using every rung on the ladder to promote yourself at any expense to others, and it is also about the fear of being trashed in a similar manner. Republican Fred Upton took $millions from the healthcare industry as a Committee Chairman guiding the 21st Century Cure Act through Congress. Just before the election, Joe Biden came to town and praised Upton for promoting the 21st Century Cure Act. A Democrat praising a Republican Congressional Representative before an election and in their tightest race ever? Michigan lost a good Democratic candidate for Congressional Representative due to party politics for a future Presidential election. Maybe the $3 trillion healthcare industry will back Biden?
Democrats will trash their own, regardless of the truth, for party politics and strategy. I hope she does not shut up; but, maybe she will learn to frame her points better and evade the politics.
Great post and thank you for it.
I would go further defending rep Omar. The AARP doesn’t endorse candidates. Their immense power is based on their immense membership, in spite of this.
The NRA doesn’t have as many members as the AARP, but it has millions and they look to the NRA when deciding how to vote.
AIPAC’s committed supporters are not anywhere near as numerous as the AARP’s or even the NRA’s members. But they pay attention. Their willingness to donate to candidates even out of state, makes AIPAC powerful.
In US politics, it is about the Benjamins or the votes. AIPAC power is based more on the Benjamins. I had thought this was uncontroversial. I have certainly read it many times.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/09/aipac-still-chosen-one/
Omar’s assertion is absolutely conventional. Her religion isn’t. That’s why it became an issue.
Yes