March 18, 2019: Ilhan Omar repeatedly crossed the line

By Michael Regenstreif

On March 7, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 407-23 to approve a resolution condemning racism, hatred and intolerance – specifically including antisemitism and Islamophobia – that was sparked after recently-elected Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, one of the first two Muslim women ever elected to the U.S. Congress, repeatedly used antisemitic tropes while criticizing Israel.

For example, Omar suggested that AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the largest of the pro-Israel lobby groups in the U.S., uses money to control the U.S. government via campaign contributions that make senators and congressmen beholden to Jewish money. “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby,” Omar tweeted, a reference to the U.S. hundred-dollar bill which features a portrait of Benjamin Franklin.

In fact, AIPAC does not make campaign contributions.

Another antisemitic trope Omar used was to imply that American Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the U.S. or that they have divided loyalties.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism has become the standard in recent years. Reflecting how anti-Zionism has often become a cover for antisemitism, the IHRA definition does specify that anti-Zionism can be a form of antisemitism.

Some critics of Israel, particularly on the far left, reject any conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism because, they suggest, it stifles debate and legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies and leaders. That’s nonsense, of course. Virtually every Israeli I know is not shy about offering such criticism.

To offer criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or his policies or actions is not antisemitic. Just as criticizing Donald Trump, Justin Trudeau or Theresa May and/or their policies and actions does not make someone anti-American, anti-Canadian or anti-British. Open criticism and dissent are essential components of democratic societies. It is part of what distinguishes us from authoritarian dictatorships.

But there are antisemitic lines that must not be crossed. A couple of them that the IHRA definition notes are, “Making… stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective – such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions”; and, “Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.” Omar crossed both of those lines and that’s why she was called on the carpet by many of her colleagues.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was one of those who criticized Omar. Pelosi said she didn’t think Omar was antisemitic but that she just didn’t understand the inherent antisemitism in the tropes she used.

Hopefully, Omar has come to understand the antisemitism in her rhetoric. She joined all of the other House Democrats and voted in favour of the resolution. All 23 nay votes were by Republicans.

March 4, 2019: Campaign wheeling and dealing in Israel

By Michael Regenstreif

With Israel’s system of proportional representation and its many political parties – many of which are focused on a single issue or represent a specific cultural or religious community, and many of which come and go – it’s virtually impossible for any party to form a majority government without bringing together a coalition.

For example, Benjamin Netanyahu put together a governing coalition with the support of other parties in 2015 – mostly by promising control of certain cabinet ministries to other parties – after his Likud Party received 23.4 per cent of the vote to win 30 of the Knesset’s 120 seats.

Two deals between parties announced late last month could have major effects on the outcome of the April 9 Israeli election, and on the wheeling and dealing between parties that will take place after the votes are counted in order to assemble a governing coalition.

The first deal merges three centrist parties – two of them newly-formed – under prominent military and political figures to create the new Blue and White Party (named for the colours of the Israeli flag). Combining to form what could be the most significant new political force in Israel in many years were Benny Gantz’s Israel Resilience Party (a former general, Gantz was chief of the Israel Defense Forces’ general staff from 2011 to 2015); Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid Party (a former journalist, Lapid served as Israel’s finance minister from 2013 to 2014); and Moshe Ya’alon’s Telem Party (Ya’alon is also a former general and chief of the Israel Defense Forces’ general staff who served as Netanyahu’s minister of defence from 2013 to 2016).

Gabi Ashkenazi, another former general and chief of the Israel Defense Forces’ general staff, is also part of the Blue and White Party’s leadership team.

Under terms of the merger Gantz and Lapid would rotate the prime-minister-ship after two-and-a-half years.

The Jerusalem Post reported that polling immediately after the merger was announced suggested that the Blue and White Party could overtake Netanyahu’s Likud and perhaps win 36 seats to become the leading party in the race to form a governing coalition.

The other deal brings together two parties on the right and extreme right: Jewish Home and Otzma Yehudit. Jewish Home was part of Netanyahu’s 2015 coalition but its two most prominent members – Education Minister Naftali Bennett and Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked – recently split off to form the New Right Party.

Otzma Yehudit (Jewish power) is an extremist party which advocates the relocation of West Bank Palestinians and Israeli Arabs to Arab countries – in other words, ethnic cleansing. The party is the successor to Meir Kahane’s Kach Party – a party that has been banned from running for the Knesset due to its racist ideology since 1988 and banned outright since 1994.

The electoral threshold for a party to obtain seats in the Knesset is 3.25 per cent of the popular vote – which would mean four seats. Polling has suggested that neither the current version of Jewish Home or Otzma Yehudit would crack the threshold on its own – but jointly they may win four or five seats.

And as the leading parties scramble to assemble a governing coalition after the election, those four or five seats would be crucial for Netanyahu’s chances. Knowing this, it was Netanyahu himself who reportedly brokered the deal by apparently promising two seats at his cabinet table to the joint ticket.

While it’s highly unlikely that a cabinet position would go to one of the Otzma Yehudit candidates, it’s frankly appalling that Netanyahu would broker a deal that would lend political legitimacy to a group that should never have moved beyond the fringe.

And there is still another wild card which could affect the outcome of the election as Israeli Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit is widely expected to announce this month whether he will accept police recommendations that Netanyahu be indicted on several corruption charges. Although the prime minister denies the validity of the allegations against him and has said he will not stand down if indicted, it remains to be seen if his support will weaken significantly enough if he is indicted to change the outcome of the election. Some Israeli analysts suggest that it would.