[Peace] JJ Goldberg: No, the Keith Ellison Tape Isn’t Anti-Israel — and Shouldn’t Torpedo His Democratic Run

Sun Dec 4 17:56:25 UTC 2016

http://forward.com/opinion/355950/no-the-keith-ellison-
tape-isnt-anti-israel-and-shouldnt-torpedo-his-democra/

No, the Keith Ellison Tape Isn’t Anti-Israel — and Shouldn’t Torpedo His
Democratic Run
J.J. Goldberg
Forward
December 2, 2016

It looks as though opposition is mounting, perhaps approaching a critical
mass, against the bid by Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison to become chair of
the Democratic National Committee. A small flood of messages and articles
is circulating through the Jewish community and precincts of the Republican
right, supposedly documenting his hostility to Israel and support for Louis
Farrakhan, the notoriously anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam.

It’s a little bit reminiscent of the whisper-and-email campaign that ran
through the Jewish community in early 2008, claiming that then-presidential
contender Barack Obama was secretly a non-citizen and a Muslim. The big
difference being that this time, the target, Ellison, really is a Muslim.

It would be unfortunate at this moment if the opposition campaign were to
succeed and Ellison be denied the chairmanship. Not that he’s necessarily
the best candidate for the job; I’m decidedly agnostic on that. But there’s
been a furious effort by Jewish activists in the past week or two to block
him on the grounds that he’s anti-Israel, anti-Semitic or both.
If the campaign were to succeed at this point, it would be easy to make the
case that “the Jews” had blocked the advance of an African American and a
Muslim to a deserved leadership post. That would likely stir resentment and
reinforce those old rumors about Jews controlling American politics by
bullying and strong-arming whomever we don’t like.

The right couldn’t have done a better job to fan the flames of
anti-Semitism among America’s rising minorities if they’d planned it that
way.

Of course, if the image of Ellison that’s been laid out for us in the past
few days were remotely true, any effort to stop him would be justified. But
it isn’t.

If you stand back, it’s been fascinating to watch the anti-Ellison campaign
as it’s snowballed over the past few days. It consists almost entirely of
some things he said years ago, defending Farrakhan from the charge of
anti-Semitism (which is now somehow described in some accounts as
“defending Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism”). Also an association of
indeterminate length and depth with Farrakhan’s organization. Also a
handful of recorded snippets that could be interpreted — if you’re inclined
that way — as hostile to Israel.

To make the case work, though, you have to ignore the considerably larger
body of evidence showing him to be supportive of Israel and its right to
defend itself, and of U.S. support for Israel. To find them, simply go to
YouTube and plug in the search words “Keith,” “Ellison” and “Israel.”

Some of the evidence against him is downright hilarious. One video clip
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7VJejG7FuM> from 2007 was posted to my
Facebook page by an irate reader, as evidence that Ellison blames “Jews”
for the 9/11 attacks. It’s circulating around the web with explanations
that you can hear audience member saying, “Jews benefited from 9/11,” and
Ellison replying, “Well, I mean, you and I both know.”

Except that’s not what’s on the video. For context, Ellison is likening the
9/11 attacks to the Reichstag fire, the 1933 burning of the German
Parliament that was used by the Nazis as an excuse to crack down on
leftists and consolidate their power. In post-9/11 America, Ellison says,
bigots used the attacks to justify a crackdown on “religious minorities.”

At this point, someone off-camera can be heard saying, “But who benefited
from 9/11?” Ellison replies, “Well, I mean, you and I both know.” The
questioner then answers his own question: “Yeah, Bush.” “Who,” not “Jew.”
(Cue the Woody Allen routine <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaPBhxXhprg>.)

The latest bit of supposed evidence for the prosecution is a 36-second audio
clip
<http://www.investigativeproject.org/5708/ipt-exclusive-in-private-fundraiser-ellison>
of
the congressman addressing a 2010 fundraiser, organized on his behalf by a
Muslim-American businessman. The clip has been described as a slur on
American Jews, implying that they control American foreign policy. In some
versions he’s described as saying Jews control America. The Anti-Defamation
League, which had spoken in Ellison’s favor just days earlier, now says
<http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/israel-middle-east/speech-raises-new-doubts-about-Rep-Ellisons-ability.html?_ga=1.154498680.1954985550.1480670132?referrer=http://adl.org/#.WEE72E_QdmA>
the
remarks are “disqualifying” in his quest for the Democratic National
Convention chairmanship, because they “raise the specter of age-old
stereotypes about Jewish control of our government.”

Well, that’s one way of looking at it, though it takes a bit of
imagination, since what he actually says is that Israel’s welfare is
central to America’s Middle East policy, something we Jews have insisted on
for decades. Speaking to a group of fellow Muslims, he’s plainly describing
how American Muslims could have greater influence on American policy if
they learned to organize. He seems to cite the successful mainstreaming of
Israel as an example of how it works — not something to denigrate, but to
emulate. Here’s what he says to his listeners:

“United States policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad
through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on
a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When
the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved,
everything changes. Can I say that again?”

Can I be sure that his intentions were as benign as I’m suggesting? No. You
could read them either way, depending on what you’re looking for. My
reading seems to me to be the most obvious understanding of his words, but
we can’t be certain, because all we have is a 36-second excerpt from an
evening’s worth of discussions. It would have been helpful to hear some of
the context, but the group that released the clip, Steven Emerson’s
Investigative Project on Terrorism, chose to cut out the rest of it.

Another key piece of evidence for the prosecution involves several columns
Ellison wrote
<http://www.mndaily.com/article/2016/11/ellisons-push-for-dnc-chair-brings-to-light-old-columns>
for
the University of Minnesota daily student paper in 1989 and 1990, when he
was a third-year law student. He wrote them under the name Keith Hakim,
which is supposed to scare us. At other times, his critics remind us, he’s
called himself Keith Ellison-Muhammad and Keith X Ellison. (Did I mention
that he’s Muslim?)

You can read his defense of Farrakhan from the charge of anti-Semitism.
They’re written by a fairly recent black convert to Islam who’s quick to
defend a black Muslim leader from white attacks, without (by his own public
admission
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3Ds-8NoJgE1TkhUOVpKbE1lam9hbjJYdm8xb0pEcmZrSnN3/preview>)
really understanding what anti-Semitism is about.

I wrote about the Ellison brouhaha
<http://forward.com/opinion/355514/keith-ellison-vows-to-give-democrats-their-groove-back-will-louis-farrakhan/?attribution=author-article-listing-1-headline>
a
few days ago, after interviewing Ellison himself by phone. I didn’t go into
detail about each individual allegation against him, focusing only on the
claim that he had a long association with Farrakhan and continues to
sympathize with him. (An article in The Weekly Standard in 2006, just
before Ellison’s first election to Congress, was written by a
conservative Minnesota
blogger
<https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/09/the-secret-history-of-keith-ellison.php>
who’s
been energetically trolling Ellison for years. It was titled “Louis
Farrakhan’s First Congressman
<http://www.weeklystandard.com/louis-farrakhans-brfirst-congressman/article/13892>
.”)

As for the other allegations — that he supports Hamas; that he favors
boycott, divestment and sanctions; that he supports terrorism — I didn’t go
into them at length. That’s partly because after looking into them, I found
the evidence to be either frivolous, distorted or simply false. Instead, I
summed up that stuff as follows:

“Ellison’s detractors, most but not all Republican partisans or pro-Likud
activists, cite a series of actions and statements over nearly a decade.
Ellison himself portrays the allegations as exaggerated, sometimes simply
fabricated.”

In the interest of full disclosure, there’s another reason that I didn’t go
through the whole list of allegations in my last column: I never intended
to be Ellison’s defense attorney. I still don’t. I don’t particularly care
who ends up heading the DNC. There are other fine candidates in the mix.

It must be acknowledged that Ellison’s first loyalty in the Middle East is
not to Israel. He is a Muslim, and he makes no secret of his sympathy for
the Palestinians. That said, he is a Muslim peacenik. Since entering
politics, he has consistently spoken out in favor of the two-state
solution, by which he means Israel and a Palestinian state living side by
side in peace and security. He’s been active on that front, frequently
partnering with J Street and other liberal Zionist groups on efforts to
promote peace and security.

One could, I suppose, target him in an attempt to combat the visible
presence of Muslims at all levels of American society, on the assumption
that what’s good for Muslims must be bad for Israel. The trouble with that
approach is that Muslims are going to grow as a proportion of American
society, as are various other minorities that don’t share European
Christendom’s feelings of shame and guilt toward Jews. As those demographic
groups grow, it doesn’t make sense to turn them into enemies. On the
contrary, the smart thing to do is to recognize leaders among them who are
willing to express friendship and understanding, as Ellison does, and
reciprocate.

That said, here are a few examples of Ellison’s support for Israel, drawn
from a quick search of YouTube:

Speech to Congress, March 2008
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8QIxb4S1sc&t=95s>, explaining why he
voted for a resolution condemning Hamas rocket attacks against Israel,
despite regret that it doesn’t also mention Gaza Palestinian deprivation.

Speech to Congress, January 2009
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8eWDKIC924>: “I believe every country has
a right to defend itself” (but he can’t vote either for or against a
congressional resolution supporting Israel’s Gaza incursion should also
mention Palestinian civilian deaths).

Attempt to address a January 2009 rally
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjagbIZzNcw> for Palestinians under
Israeli bombardment: Ellison is drowned out by hostile Hamas supporters
after he says he “hopes to bring a greater level of understanding between
people” and is “not here to condemn anyone.”

Speech to Congress, May 2010 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiJcWx8EnhI>,
congratulating Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu on resuming talks: “The
world needs a secure Israel. And it needs an independent and viable
Palestinian state.”

Speech to Congress, January 2012
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYnanfvDSig>, urging funding be restored
to the Palestinian “Sesame Street,” and warning of the danger of Hamas hate
and extremism filling the vacuum in Palestinian children’s TV.

Interview in House office, March 2013
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5vr4DYFZ5E>, explaining why he believes
Israelis and Palestinians have much in common and should learn each other’s
languages: “Hebrew-speaking Israelis are there. They ain’t going nowhere.
Everybody’s got to get used to the fact that everybody’s there and ain’t
leaving.”

Interviewed on “Meet the Press” August 2014
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNk4AJgk_gI>: Ellison explains why he
voted against emergency funding for Israel’s Iron Dome anti-rocket defense
despite having consistently supported Iron Dome in the past: “Because a
cease-fire is what we should prioritize now.”
===

Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
(202) 448-2898 x1 <(202)%20448-2898>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/attachments/20161204/9ab70cc1/attachment.html>