By
21 November 2024
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez voted for a resolution on Wednesday which endorses a bogus Israel lobby definition of anti-Semitism.
In backing the measure, she broke with several other members of the so-called Squad, the dwindling group of progressive Democrats in Congress, and sided with the Anti-Defamation League, a powerful Israel lobby group that welcomed the resolution’s passage.
ADL applauds the passage of H.Res 1449, welcoming the Global Guidelines for Countering Antisemitism and urging countries and international bodies to join the U.S. in adopting them.
Thank you, @RepKManning and Rep. Chris Smith, for your bipartisan leadership on this resolution https://t.co/mSm4UjAib8
— ADL (@ADL) November 20, 2024
Representatives Cori Bush of Missouri, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan were the only Democrats to vote no on the resolution.
“I opposed this resolution because it embraces the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, which dangerously conflates criticism of the state of Israel with anti-Semitism,” Tlaib said.
Tlaib expressed concern that the resolution “will be used to stifle dissent and chill free speech, especially Palestinian human rights advocacy.”
Omar said that “this resolution does nothing to combat anti-Semitism.”
She vowed to “continue to stand against any attempt to silence genuine concerns [about] the Israeli government as anti-Semitism.”
I condemn antisemitism and all forms of hatred & bigotry. Period.
H.Res. 1449 relies on the flawed IHRA definition, conflating valid criticism of the Israeli gov with antisemitism. Standing against hate must never come at the cost of silencing valid & necessary critiques.
— Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) November 20, 2024
By contrast, Ocasio-Cortez’s vote for the Israel lobby-backed resolution sent her staff into damage control mode amid fierce criticism.
Ocasio-Cortez voted for House Resolution 1449, which calls for “endorsing and embracing” the so-called Global Guidelines for Countering Anti-Semitism.
However, these guidelines are anything but “global.”
They are an initiative of the United States government and Katharina von Schnurbein, the EU’s anti-Semitism coordinator who has a history of lying about nonexistent anti-Semitic incidents to push her pro-Israel agenda.
The guidelines were launched at a US-led conference in Buenos Aires in July with the enthusiastic backing of Israel lobby groups.
But nearly all of the 33 countries signing on to the guidelines are Israel’s closest European and North American allies or arms suppliers. They can now boast of Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement too.
The guidelines urge states, international bodies and civil society to adopt a set of so-called best practices to combat anti-Semitism.
They endorse the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism as “an important internationally recognized instrument used by over 40 UN member states since its adoption in 2016.”
But despite this effort to market the IHRA definition as universally accepted and uncontroversial, there has been growing and successful pushback to efforts to institutionalize it.
The IHRA, an organization made up of Israel and several dozen of its closest allies, uses the cover of Holocaust remembrance to legitimize and institutionalize its definition of anti-Semitism which has primarily been weaponized to smear and censor supporters of Palestinian rights.
The definition comes with 11 illustrative “examples” of anti-Semitism, the majority of which actually concern criticism of Israel and its official state ideology, Zionism.
Damage control
The House resolution passed with an overwhelming majority, with 388 representatives voting for it, including Ocasio-Cortez, and only 21 voting against.
Even as a symbolic gesture, Ocasio-Cortez did not join her three fellow Squad members who opposed it.
Mike Casca, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, took to X, also known as Twitter, on Wednesday evening to do some damage control after her vote sparked criticism from supporters of Palestinian rights.
“She opposes codification of IHRA. This non-binding resolution didn’t do that,” Casca wrote in response to this writer’s criticism of Ocasio-Cortez’s vote.
But this is dishonest and disingenuous spin.
Although it is true that the bill does not codify the IHRA definition in law, it gives a stamp of approval from Congress to a McCarthyite, anti-Palestinian tool that is being widely used to stifle criticism of Israel as it carries out a genocidal slaughter of Palestinians.
The IHRA definition is often marketed as “non-legally binding,” perhaps to allay fears about its use for repression.
In the United States, where the First Amendment protects free speech, criticism of Israel cannot be outlawed outright.
But the EU has called for the IHRA definition to be used by law enforcement agencies as a tool to “better recognize anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic crimes” and to “assess security threats.”
Israel and its lobby have also pushed for the IHRA definition to be adopted by private institutions, including schools and universities in the United States, where it has become increasingly common to use the pretext of combating anti-Semitism to crush student protest against institutional complicity in Israel’s genocide.
A number of college campuses across the US have already adopted the IHRA definition. Its further normalization and embrace by public officials, especially self-identified progressives such as Ocasio-Cortez, lends it further credence.
Even without it being codified as the law of the land, the IHRA definition is already a danger to free speech and advocacy for Palestinian rights, which is why Casca’s assurance that Ocasio-Cortez opposes its “codification” is a deflection.
If Ocasio-Cortez indeed opposes the IHRA definition’s codification, why would she vote for a resolution that promotes it as a best practice, or offer support for it in any way?
Earlier this week, Ocasio-Cortez complained about powerful Israel lobby group AIPAC’s influence on her colleagues in Congress.
“If people want to talk about members of Congress being overly influenced by a special interest group pushing a wildly unpopular agenda that pushes voters away from Democrats then they should be discussing AIPAC,” she wrote on X.
If people want to talk about members of Congress being overly influenced by a special interest group pushing a wildly unpopular agenda that pushes voters away from Democrats then they should be discussing AIPAC https://t.co/2o22CMMtqw
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 17, 2024
Amy Spitalnick, who Ocasio-Cortez invited on a livestream earlier this year to speak about anti-Semitism, accused the congresswoman of playing “into dangerous tropes,” a not so subtle accusation of anti-Semitism.
There is a critical conversation to be had about AIPAC. But so singularly focusing on them here – when there are a number of special interest groups that operate the same way – plays into dangerous tropes. https://t.co/IiB7xvEprg
— Amy Spitalnick (@amyspitalnick) November 18, 2024
Spitalnick heads the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, a pro-Israel advocacy group. Ocasio-Cortez had described Spitalnick as one of “the foremost experts in the country in fighting anti-Semitism in America.”
Clearly, Ocasio-Cortez got back in line with her Wednesday vote.
Ocasio-Cortez fervently endorsed Joe Biden in his abortive re-election bid, despite her acknowledging his administration’s participation in Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
After the ailing and deeply unpopular Democratic president dropped out, the congresswoman then immediately endorsed Kamala Harris for president as well, claiming on the stage of the Democratic National Convention that the vice president was “working tirelessly to secure a ceasefire in Gaza.”
On Wednesday, the Democratic Party-run US administration vetoed for the fourth time over the course of Israel’s genocide in Gaza a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire.
Ocasio-Cortez is correct that many of her colleagues in Congress do the bidding of the Israel lobby, but perhaps she should take a look in the mirror.
We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.
