|
January 15, 2023
Key Takeaways:
- It's 2023 and I'm still writing "Why did Republicans elect Kevin McCarthy Speaker of the House when he has yet to apologize for his antisemitic tweet" on my checks.
- McCarthy is fundraising off his efforts to remove Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) from their committees. He plans to put Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ) (both of whom support antisemitic conspiracy theories) back on committees. McCarthy apparently believes Rep. George Santos (R-NY) is competent to serve on committees.
- The difference between the responses of Omar and McCarthy to allegations of antisemitism illustrates the importance of teshuva in our analysis of antisemitism and the hypocrisy of McCarthy and the GOP.
- Omar supports a two-state solution and recognizes the Jewish people’s connection to their historical homeland.
- The IHRA definition of antisemitism is neither the best definition nor the only definition we should use, but for years it was the only game in town; hence its widespread (albeit misplaced and misused) acceptance.
- If you are concerned about laptops, classified documents, Israel's new government, or other news from the past two weeks, read on to see what you may have missed.
Read to the end for upcoming events and fun stuff.
You're welcome to read for free, but if you want to chip in to help defray the cost of the newsletter, click here to pay by credit card or PayPal. Just fill in the amount of your choice. Or Venmo @Steven-Sheffey (if it asks, the last four phone digits are 9479).
Hi Steve,
The concept of teshuvah (repentance) figures prominently in Judaism, yet it is absent from our definitions of antisemitism. According to Maimonides, the great Jewish sage, teshuva "includes three stages: confession, regret and a vow not to repeat the misdeed. The true penitent, Maimonides says, is the one who finds himself with the opportunity to commit the same sin again yet declines to do so."
Calling out antisemitism requires us to know what antisemitism is, but calling out antisemitism should not be an academic exercise. Isn't our goal in calling out antisemitism to reduce antisemitism? What we want is not to eternally vilify someone who engages in antisemitic rhetoric, but to persuade that person to do teshuva and no longer engage in the antisemitism we called out.
We have definitions of antisemitism because antisemitism is complicated. If it was simple, we wouldn't need definitions. The IHRA definition of antisemitism worked for its intended purpose of helping European data collectors identify possible instances of antisemitism. By its own terms, context is everything.
But using the IHRA definition for other purposes requires additional resources to put the examples in context. For years, the IHRA definition was the only game in town. That's part of the reason it gained momentum and why some people support it despite its flaws: because, like Mt. Everest, it is there. The IHRA definition is the VHS or Word of antisemitism definitions. VHS won over Beta, and Word won over Wordperfect, not because VHS and Word were better, but because they gained critical mass early on.
Now we have more sophisticated tools designed to help us identify antisemitism, such as the Nexus definition, and we should not let them fall by the wayside. Jonathan Jacoby, who directs the Nexus group, said that “the big mistake people are making about IHRA is that it’s the final word and there are many words and perspectives. You can think of IHRA as the Mishnah and [the Nexus definition] as the Gemora."
Indeed, on May 27, 2021, members of Congress wrote to Secretary of State Blinken, noting that "while the IHRA definition can be informative, in order to most effectively combat antisemitism, we should use all of the best tools at our disposal," citing the Nexus definition and Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, to which I would add T'ruah's very brief guide to antisemitism and the Nexus one-pager, neither of which existed when these members of Congress wrote their letter.
Yet none of those definitions differentiate between those who acknowledge and apologize for antisemitic rhetoric and those who don't. It's not hard to imagine someone unknowingly engaging in antisemitic rhetoric without intending ill will toward Jews. The real test occurs when we call out their rhetoric for antisemitism: Do they apologize or do they ignore us (or worse, double down)? Consider two examples:
On October 23, 2018, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) tweeted that three Jews were trying to buy the election. The tweet included a scary black-and-white image of George Soros. Maybe McCarthy did not know that Jews using money to control political outcomes is a classic antisemitic trope. Maybe McCarthy did not know that all or any of the people he mentioned were Jewish. Maybe he randomly came up with three Democratic donors who happened to be Jewish. Or maybe because he does not see people based on their religion, he did not notice that all three were Jewish, and since he had to pick someone's face to highlight, he picked George Soros. It could happen to anyone.
Maybe he did not know that, as the Anti-Defamation League has noted, "even if unintentional, politicians and pundits repeating these unsubstantiated conspiracies [about Soros] essentially validate the same hateful myths propagated by antisemites. A person who promotes a Soros conspiracy theory may not intend to promulgate antisemitism. But Soros’ Jewish identity is so well-known that in many cases it is hard not to infer that meaning...Even if no antisemitic insinuation is intended, casting a Jewish individual as a puppet master who manipulates national events for malign purposes has the effect of mainstreaming antisemitic tropes and giving support, however unwitting, to bona fide antisemites and extremists who disseminate these ideas knowingly and with malice."
In fairness to McCarthy, in that same election cycle, at least six Republicans ran ads featuring Jews clutching cash. So let's give McCarthy the benefit of every doubt. The question then becomes what McCarthy did when confronted by the reality of his tweet. Did he apologize? Did he see that his tweet was antisemitic? He did not--instead, he denied anything antisemitic about this tweet.
McCarthy could have said, "I didn't realize at the time that it was antisemitic and I apologize." He could have even added that he stood by the point he intended to make, which was (right or wrong) that Democratic donors were spending a lot of money on the election. Instead, McCarthy doubled down. Not one Republican condemned him for his tweet. Last week, his Republican colleagues elected him Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Imagine if a Democrat had done something like this.
We don't have to imagine. Less than four months after McCarthy's tweet, on February 10, 2019, journalist Glen Greenwald tweeted an article from Haaretz and summarized it on Twitter by saying “GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy threatens punishment for @IlhanMN and @RashidaTlaib over their criticisms of Israel. It's stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans.”
In that same Twitter thread, Greenwald said “Equating @IlhanMN & @RashidaTlaib's criticism of Israel to Steve King's long defense of white supremacy is obscene (McCarthy said it's worse). In the US, we're allowed to criticize our own government: certainly foreign governments. The GOP House Leader's priorities are warped.” Greenwald also said “Sorry, but you're not going to turn the two first Muslim women to serve in the US Congress into overnight Jew-haters because of their criticisms of Israel. What's actually anti-Semitic is conflating the Government of Israel with Jews, so those of you doing that should stop.”
In response, that same date, barely five weeks after she took office, Omar retweeted Greenwald and added these words: “It’s all about the Benjamins baby.” That’s it. That’s the tweet. (“Benjamins” is slang for 100-dollar bills and “It’s all about the Benjamins” is the title of a Puff Daddy song–Omar’s tweet ended with a musical note emoji.)
When Batya Ungar-Sargon asked via Twitter who Omar "thinks is paying American politicians to be pro-Israel," Omar tweeted one word: “AIPAC!” AIPAC itself did not make political contributions at the time, but it was no secret that AIPAC strongly encouraged its supporters to make political contributions and AIPAC raised money for its lobbying operation. AIPAC's materials touted its foreign policy successes. You can read whatever you want into those two tweets totaling seven words. For some, Omar was saying that Jews were influencing U.S. policy with money, a classic antisemitic trope that McCarthy himself had used less than four months earlier (so classic that Donald Trump has said so repeatedly).
Others note her tweets did not suggest anything mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective. She didn't say "Jews" or "the Jews." She didn't say the "pro-Israel lobby." She singled out one particular organization of many in the pro-Israel community and its influence on politics and policy, obtained at least in part by the fundraising and political contributions of its members (why else would AIPAC raise money and its supporters to make political contributions if not to further its stated goals) and she referred to Republicans trying to shut down speech. In that context, one could argue that her tweet was not antisemitic even under the IHRA definition.
Yet in contrast to Republican silence after McCarthy's tweet, dozens of Democratic members of Congress, including Democratic leadership, strongly and almost immediately condemned her for her tweets. They did not give her the benefit of any doubt. Unlike McCarthy, Omar unequivocally apologized.
Was her apology sincere? Since then, nearly four years later, she has not repeated those comments. Isn’t that what we want? A member of Congress was quickly condemned by her own party, she apologized, and she hasn’t repeated the rhetoric we condemned her for, even when similar situations have arisen. AIPAC backed 109 insurrectionists in the last election and spent millions of dollars opposing progressive Democrats in the primaries and general election, but even then (she must have been tempted) Omar never repeated this rhetoric. If that’s not teshuva, what is? Yet many in our community continue to vilify Omar and give McCarthy a pass.
The hardest bias to overcome is implicit/unconscious bias, but we can try if we recognize it. McCarthy looks like the classic, stereotypical white, male, middle-aged politician we are used to. To many of us, he's not threatening. How can he be? He looks and sounds like many of us. Omar is a Muslim woman of color and a Somali refugee. She dresses differently from most of us. She not only sounds different from most of us, but her accent is different from the accents (Italian, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, others) we are used to. That's why the GOP wants Omar to be the face of the Democratic Party--Republicans campaign on xenophobia, and unlike more powerful Democratic politicians (e.g., the President of the United States), her image is easier for Republicans to emotionally manipulate. None of us are immune to this bias.
Now, McCarthy wants to remove Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. McCarthy is an election denier who never apologized for a tweet employing classic antisemitic tropes. If anyone should be removed from anything, it's McCarthy. His hypocrisy is astounding.
Omar does not hesitate to criticize actions of foreign governments that she finds problematic, including Israel's. I disagree with some of her criticism of Israel, but I agree with her on this: “The founding of Israel 70 years ago was built on the Jewish people’s connection to their historical homeland, as well as the urgency of establishing a nation in the wake of the horror of the Holocaust and the centuries of anti-Semitic oppression leading up to it...I support a two-state solution, with internationally recognized borders.” If it's still not clear to you why McCarthy is wrong to remove her, read the oped Jonathan Jacoby and I wrote.
As if that weren't enough, McCarthy wants to remove Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Eric Swalwell (D-CA) from the Intelligence Committee. He's fundraising off it. McCarthy will put antisemites Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ) back on committees. And rather than call on him to resign or force his expulsion, McCarthy will give Rep. George Santos (R-NY) committee assignments. The circus has come to town, and it's not leaving for two years.
In Case You Missed It. Many of these issues deserve a full newsletter of their own, but that would take us into March, and luckily for us, others have already done the work:
- Tomorrow, January 16, is Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and our right-wing pro-Israel friends, many of whom would have opposed much of what King stood for when he was alive, will tout King's statements in support of Israel. Claire Miller points out that "Dr. King’s words mean what they say: he supports Israel’s existence. They do not mean that we should blindly support every action by the Israeli government."
- AIPAC legislative director Doug Bloomfield previews the games House Republicans will play with Israel and "why Jews will continue voting Democrat by large majorities and still love Israel."
-
Rep. Jamie Raskin's (D-MD) brilliant statement on the second anniversary of the January 6 insurrection contains key policy prescriptions to preserve and strengthen our democracy.
- If you are concerned about the ramifications of Israel's new government, read Rabbi Eric Yoffie and Hillel Halkin. Avi Gil, a former director-general of Israel's Foreign Affairs Ministry, writes that "the Jews of the world must look at Israel as it is, without illusions and without glossing over the harsh reality. They should assist those Israelis who are trying to restore liberal values to their country and unhesitatingly express their pain to Israel’s government."
-
Hunter Biden's laptop is the new Benghazi for Republicans. To the extent you care (you shouldn't), read this quick reference guide for understanding the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and meta-scandal.
-
Three experts explain that "from what we know now, Biden’s situation differs significantly both from Trump’s conduct at Mar-a-Lago and from prior prosecutions of high-level government officials for mishandling classified documents." We need answers in both cases, and improper storage of classified documents is never acceptable, but Biden's mishandling of classified documents was not nearly as egregious as Trump's. For a detailed comparison, read this fact-check.
Tweet of the Week. Bad lip reading.
Video Clip of the Week. This CNN hot mic is literally everyone in America after hearing McCarthy say “It’s not how you start it’s how you finish."
This is the newsletter even Republicans have to read and the home of the viral Top Ten Signs You Might be at a Republican Seder (yes, I wrote it).
If someone forwarded this to you, why not subscribe and get it in your inbox every Sunday? Just click here--it's free.
Donations are welcome (because this costs money to send). If you'd like to chip in, click here and fill in the amount of your choice. The link lets you use a credit card or PayPal. If you'd rather pay by check, please reply and I'll send you the mailing address (do not send checks to the P.O. Box). Or you can Venmo to @Steven-Sheffey (last four digits of phone number are 9479).
I accept advertisements. Let me know if you're interested.
| 
