T
he ultimate in doublespeak: Speaker of the House Pelosi on Rep. Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic remarks: “Those remarks are questionable, but they weren’t intentionally anti-Semitic.” As if an unintentional anti-Semite is somehow less destructive than a deliberate anti-Semite.

Which is worse, deliberate, carefully planned anti-Semitism, or instinctive, unplanned anti- Semitism? Does anti-Semitism require kavanah, and therefore, when Rep. Omar blurted about dual loyalty and paying off congressmen, she really did not mean to be anti-Semitic?

It seems to me that, on the contrary, if one instinctively gives voice to time-worn anti-Semitic tropes automatically and without aforethought, that is a clear indication of what one has been thinking and what is on the mind. When one instinctively repeats anti-Jewish poison, when that is the first thing that comes into the mind, that is even worse than planned hate speech.

Politicians everywhere are masters of verbal gymnastics, mumbo-jumbo, and double-talk. But even these low standards were eclipsed by Sen. Charles Schumer of NY, a Jew who could not bring himself to condemn blatant anti-Jewishness but had to dilute it with his timorous opposition-to-hate speech in general, thus shamelessly joining the circus of the other apologists who tried to condemn anti-Semitism without offending anti-Semites. After all, anti-Semites also vote.

Woe is to us. These are the leaders of what is known as the greatest legislative body in the world. This body could not bring itself to pass a resolution condemning anti- Semitism, much less to condemn one of its members for her blatant and unrepentant anti- Semitism. Think about it: A governor who wore blackface at a party 30 years ago was recently condemned, but the repeated spewing of anti-Jewish venom is soft-pedaled. We know what kind of damnation would have befallen a congressman if he had hinted anything mildly negative about LGTBQ. Pelosi and Schumer and the other apologists would hardly qualify for what John Kennedy once called profiles in courage.

Woe is to us. But the Speaker of the House takes first prize in the contest for the most spineless, equivocating, mealy-mouthed statement. Scant comfort is it to be told that even though Rep. Omar yammered out all the classic anti-Jewish clichés, she really did not intend to be anti-Semitic. I call you every vile name in the book, but I do not intend to insult you. I vilify you using the tired canards of Jew-haters of history, but I do not intend to be a Jew-hater.

In Jewish law, there is the concept of kavanah: one should perform every mitzvah with intent. It should not be rote, or automatic, or simply habitual. It should stem from deep conviction and belief in G-d, for Whose sake you perform this mitzvah. But one does not need kavanah in order to be guilty of insulting someone. If you call someone a thief or slanderer or a chronic liar, it does little good to say that you had no intention to hurt his feelings.

Rep. Omar has succeeded in placing anti-Semitism within the mainstream of discussion and debate: Hey, maybe she does have a point there; maybe Jews do have dual loyalty; maybe they do have too much influence in Congress. In this regard, she has already won. And her mealy-mouthed cohorts in Congress — and all of us — are the losers. They had a chance to demonstrate that words can wound as much as bullets. They could have struck a blow against Amalek and the forces of darkness, and they dropped the ball — not accidentally, but intentionally.

Closing question: How long will the overwhelming number of America’s Jews — other than the Orthodox — remain, like lemmings, loyal to the Democratic Party which is increasingly anti-Israel and anti-Jewish?

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 754)