(This is the third in a series of posts discussing the popular confusion of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. You can find the previous two posts here and here.)
I was unfamiliar with the word “trope” until I began following the recent attacks on Rep. Ilhan Omar for her criticisms of the powerful Israel lobby in Washington D.C. (See my previous posts on this controversy here, here, here, here and here. )
Rep. Omar objected to two well-attested lobbying dynamics in Washington politics.
First, she pointed out the powerful influence on policy decisions exerted by campaign contributions and similar “gifts” offered to our elected officials by pro-Israel lobbyists. This gold-plated pipeline of pro-Israel political influence is well documented by such groups as The Center for Responsive Politics. Check their page providing a break-down of the nearly $15 million contributed to US politicians by the various instruments and individuals working with/for the pro-Israel lobby in 2018. This page has a graphic showing which politicians received the most pro-Israel money.
The old adage “follow the money” remains as true today as ever when it comes to deciphering the voting records of our elected officials.
Second, Rep. Omar objected to the very real problem of American politicians developing “dual loyalties” as a result of the pro-Israel influence-peddling that makes our elected officials extremely pliable to the pressure of pro-Israel political PACs (i.e. political action committees). Again, we all know that if we want to understand why our members of Congress vote as they do, you follow the money. It’s that simple.
Furthermore, at no point did Rep. Omar offer any generalizations, derogatory or otherwise, about Jews as a group or of Judaism as a religion.
However, this did not prevent a host of people, both Jews and Gentiles, from jumping onto the “call out” bandwagon.
Omar was immediately called out, as they say nowadays, for using “well-known anti-Semitic tropes” in her speeches and Twitter statements. (I observe that this is a particularly popular way of making accusations against Omar on Twitter.)
Her fellow legislators repeatedly reminded us that accusing Jews of (1) controlling the government, banking system, etc. with their wealth and (2) being untrustworthy citizens because of their “dual loyalties” are both long-standing, anti-Semitic tropes.
Of course, both of those statements are true. I have heard these tropes myself recently and have bluntly condemned them in a heart-to-heart talk with a bigoted friend.
But the problem in this current debate becomes evident as soon as you try to follow the logic from (a) the purported evidence of these two offensive “tropes” to (b) the conclusion that, because Omar referred to the problems created by a well-financed Israel lobby and the dual-loyalties fostered in those politicians who receive its money, that Omar must be speaking in anti-Semitic code.
The problem, however, is that the logic is fallacious and the conclusion is bogus.
But, then, nobody ever accused US politicians or the American public of possessing an excess of probity or clear-headed, logical thinking ability.
So, let’s dissect the numerous, illogical problems in these anti-Omar attacks.
We’ll start with the easiest one first, which I have already touched on in multiple posts. Omar is an anti-Zionist. (So am I.) So are a good number of Jews in this country and around the world.
Anti-Zionism is not synonymous with anti-Semitism. Many pro-Zionists are Christians and Gentiles. Rep. Omar (and I) includes them in her criticisms. Many anti-Zionists are Jewish. Omar (and I) ally ourselves with them.
There is an intersection between Jews and Zionism, but they are not identical!
The consistent refusal of pro-Zionist/pro-Israel advocates to admit this obvious distinction is evidence of the continuing legacy of political Zionism’s deliberate confusion of the two terms for their own ideological, propaganda purposes. (See my previous post on this subject.)
Second, not only did Omar never refer collectively to “Jews” in her statements; she never generalized about Jews or Judaism in any way at all. But stereotypical generalizations are an essential ingredient in any racist, bigoted trope.
Omar, however, has only spoken specifically about the lobbying performed on behalf of Zionist, Israeli policies that create suffering for Palestinians. The only generalizations appearing in the current debate are those being assumed and then imported into the conversation by Omar’s critics. These people are seeing what they want to see, not what is actually there.
Third, we need to answer the question of what is a trope, and why has it become the favored term in this debate?
Trope has several definitions, but the most relevant sense for this conversation is its denotation of a commonly understood plot device or character used in story-telling.
So, the popular romantic-comedy story-line of boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy reunites with girl is an example of a popular movie trope. Everyone has seen this plot-line many times before, but it helps the viewer/reader enter into the story and, if well done, its popularity does not detract from the enjoyment of seeing it dressed up in new clothes.
Tropes also appear in certain well-know characters that show up again and again: the gruff but gentle giant, the hero who chooses suffering over compromise, the anonymous stranger who delivers a town from a band of marauding outlaws. These are common tropes in Western narratives. We easily recognize these “tropeic” characters and immediately know something about how to fit them into the rest of the story.
This second sense of “character tropes” is the meaning of the word most relevant to the current debate over Omar’s words.
There is no doubt that images of “the rich, manipulative Jew” and “the secret, Jewish conspiracy to control the world” are age-old, hateful, paranoid, anti-Semitic character tropes. Such mindless bigotry helped to fuel the Holocaust, and it deserves to be expunged once and for all from human history.
BUT, I will say it again. Similarity is not identity.
For example, my dog and I both have two eyes, a nose and a mouth. But those similarities do not make me a dog (though, perhaps I should defer to my wife here). Nor does it mean that my dog is really a human being. We both have certain similarities, but those similarities do not prove we are of the same species.
Those traits are characteristic of both people and dogs, but they are not distinctive of either. In other words, they are descriptively ambiguous.
For anyone to conclude otherwise would be an example of a logical fallacy called the Fallacy of Ambiguity.
Here is another example of the logical fallacy of ambiguity:
Premise – all dogs have four legs.
Premise – my cat has four legs.
Conclusion – therefore, my cat must be a dog.
Here the ambiguity appears in both of the premises. Walking on four legs is characteristic of both dogs and cats, but it is not distinctive of either. So it is descriptively ambiguous.
We are now in a position to see how this brand of illogical argument is being applied to Rep. Omar:
Premise – anti-Semitic tropes sometimes refer to rich Jews with dual-loyalties controlling government
Premise – Omar referred to the Israel lobby’s money creating dual-loyalty and influencing government
Conclusion – therefore, Omar must be using anti-Semitic tropes
It’s not hard to spot the ambiguity and, thus, the illogic. Here the ambiguity appears in the first premise. There are other ways to talk about Jews without reference to these tropes. Such generalizations may be characteristic of all anti-Semites, but they are not distinguishing characteristics of all conversations about Jews or Judaism.
Isn’t it possible to talk about specific instances of Jewish (and Gentile) lobbying, money, national loyalties and influencing government without deploying anti-Semitic tropes? Of course, it is.
Can’t we speak with historical specificity (rather than generalities) without being accused of using bigoted generalizations and stereotypes? The answer to these questions is obvious.
Perhaps you noticed that the effectiveness of this particular fallacy of ambiguity presupposes a related logical ambiguity that works similarly:
Premise – Israel declares itself to be the Jewish state that speaks for all Jews
Premise – Omar has criticized the state of Israel
Conclusion – therefore, Omar has criticized all Jews and Judaism (by using anti-Semitic tropes)
There is no need for repetition here. The conclusion is obviously false. The first premise hides the ambiguity of Israel’s claims to universally represent all Jews. Many Jewish people reject that claim outright.
Thus, not only is this argument illogical on its face, but it is refuted by the evidence when you read and listen to Omar’s statements as well as the many statements offered by anti-Zionist Jews in her defense.
Finally, I want to close by mentioning one of the more trivial but nonetheless significant elements of the accusations brought against Rep. Omar.
Many of the posts calling her out for her anti-Semitic tropes include some reference to how “painful,” “hurtful,” or “damaging” her language has been, insinuating that hearing or reading Omar’s words have caused some sort of psychic trauma in the lives of her critics.
Unfortunately, this particular way of confusing the spoken/written word with acts of personal violence has become deeply rooted in modern American discourse. But I don’t believe that means we should allow it to stand or to go unchallenged. Instead, we all need to stand up and say,
“I’m sorry, but that’s rubbish. Grow up, and stop with the emotional manipulation already!”
I strongly suggest that you read the recent book by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting up a Generation for Failure (Penguin, 2018).
For our current purposes, focus on chapters 1, 2, 4, 5 and 10. Of particular interest here is the authors’ description of America’s growing “victimhood culture,” a culture having three distinct attributes:
First, individuals and groups display high sensitivity to slight; second, they have a tendency to handle conflicts through complaints to third parties; and third, they seek to cultivate an image of being victims who deserve assistance. (page 210)
Sadly, the US Congress is occupied by a large collection of these “coddled minds,” some of whom are happy to facilitate another person’s faux victim-hood.
This post is already too long. But if you want to read an excellent exploration of the ways in which political Zionism and the state of Israel have sought to ingrain perpetual psychic trauma and victim-hood into Zionist identity, see Norman Finkelstein’s provocative book, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (Verso, 2015, second edition).
Also check out the brilliant book by Avraham Burg (a former member of the Israeli Knesset), The Holocaust is Over; We Must Rise from Its Ashes (St. Martins Griffin, 2016, second edition).
I hope that this post will help my readers to think through the inaccuracies, the illogic, and the injustice now being inflicted upon Rep. Ilhan Omar as the defenders of political Zionism pile onto this woman of great character.
