Great River Energy generously supports MinnPost's D.C. Memo. Learn why.
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers on Capitol Hill focused much of their energy this week feuding about Israeli President Issac Herzog’s speech to a joint session of Congress, a controversy that split the Minnesota congressional delegation.
The controversy led to about a dozen Democratic lawmakers skipping Herzog’s speech on Wednesday, including Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-5th District and Betty McCollum, D-4th District, and to GOP accusations that these lawmakers are “antisemitic.”
Herzog noted the conflict in his 40-minute speech.
“Mr. Speaker, I am not oblivious to criticism among friends, including some expressed by respected members of this House. I respect criticism, especially from friends, although one does not always have to accept it,” Herzog said. “But criticism of Israel must not cross the line into negation of the state of Israel’s right to exist. Questioning the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, is not legitimate diplomacy, it is antisemitism.”
The conflict began after Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-5th District, said last week that “no way in hell” would she attend Herzog’s speech, aimed at commemorating Israel’s 75th anniversary.
Omar gave several reasons for wanting to boycott the speech, but her main objection centered on the policies of the right-wing government and Herzog’s role as a “faithful policy ambassador” for that government.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies, which include a planned sweeping overhaul of Israel’s judicial system and expanded Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank, have provoked protests in the streets in Israel and caused unease at the White House and among a number of Democratic lawmakers.
Rep. Angie Craig, D-2nd District, reacted to Omar’s remarks by tweeting “Hell YES I will attend President Herzog’s address to Congress… I will continue to work with Democrats and Republicans to strengthen our relationship with Israel.”
The controversy escalated after Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., called Israel a “racist state,” provoking an uproar, especially among Republican members of Congress.
Several Democrats, including Rep. Dean Phillips, D-3rd District, also criticized Jayapal for her remarks. In an apology, Jayapal said her remarks were aimed at Netanyahu, not Israel.
The evening before Herzog’s speech, the U.S. House passed a Republican-led resolution reaffirming U.S. support for Israel. It was approved on an overwhelming 412-9 bipartisan vote, with Omar casting one of the nine “no” votes and McCollum the only member to vote “present.”
McCollum voted “present” because she was “deeply troubled” by Netanyahu’s actions and a lack of accountability for the $3.8 billion the United States gives each year to Israel for security assistance.
“As a member of Congress, I have often criticized the policies of my own government. That does not make me anti-American. And criticizing the policies of the Israeli government does not make one antisemitic,” McCollum said.
McCollum said she skipped Herzog’s speech because she had a previous engagement.
“Due to a longstanding commitment with tribal leaders which had to be rescheduled because of an added Interior Appropriations markup this week, I am unable to attend the joint address in person. I will be reading the transcript of the speech in its entirety to stay apprised of the issues raised,” she said in a statement.
In a press conference after Herzog’s speech Rep. Tom Emmer, R-6th District, called Democrats “the anti-Israel party.”
“Any anti-Israel rhetoric or action will not … be tolerated so long as House Republicans are in the majority,” he said.
[image_credit]Photo by Michael Brochstein/Sipa USA[/image_credit][image_caption]In a press conference after Herzog’s speech Rep. Tom Emmer, R-6th District, called Democrats “the anti-Israel party.”[/image_caption]
“Despite recent comments made by some in our delegation, we Minnesota Republicans are united in standing with Israel and committed to doing everything possible to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship,” the GOP lawmakers said.
Legacy no more at U of M
The University of Minnesota Twin Cities campus is shaking up the way it will accept future applications.
It will no longer consider race in its “holistic” approach to weighing applicants because of a recent Supreme Court ruling that determined that considering an applicant’s race is unconstitutional.
That Supreme Court ruling touched off public discussion about giving the relatives of alumni special consideration in the admissions process. The University of Minnesota is among several schools in the state that did so.
But no longer. The university this week said it would scrap those “legacy” admissions, as well as stop giving special consideration to relatives of university employees.
“The University of Minnesota Twin Cities has an updated undergraduate admissions holistic review practice,” the school said in a statement. “As part of the recent Supreme Court decision on race-conscious admissions and along with our standard annual review of undergraduate admission practice, we no longer consider race and ethnicity, family attendance or employment at the university as context factors.”
The university said questions about race and whether a relative attended or works at the university would be asked in an application “for recruitment and communication purposes.” But the school said this information will not be provided to those who review the application and “will not be provided to application reviewers and will not be considered at any point during the University of Minnesota admissions decision process.”
St. Paul’s Macalester College, St. Olaf in Northfield and Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter all consider legacies in one way or another.
But, after the Supreme Court’s decision on race, legacy admissions are becoming less popular.
This week Connecticut’s Wesleyan University joined other elite schools who have ended the practice, including Johns Hopkins, Carnegie Mellon, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Critics of legacy admissions argue that it tends to favor wealthier, whiter applicants at the detriment of low-income and minority applicants who are potentially first-generation college students.
“McCollum voted “present” because she was “deeply troubled” by Netanyahu’s actions and a lack of accountability for the $3.8 billion the United States gives each year to Israel for security assistance.”
Would love to see some “fiscally responsible” Republicans get behind this idea. Isreal is a relatively wealthy country; why do we spend money on their security?
“Isreal is a relatively wealthy country; why do we spend money on their security?”……Because politicians like Betty McCullum and Ilhar Omar repeatedly vote to fund the export of American made weapons to Israel year after year that they rely on to prop up their violent apartheid regime.
“Present”
Now that’s taking a stand.
As far as I am concerned, the Israeli government has forfeited any responsibility that the US government has to support them militarily. Not only is Netanyahu attempting a coup over the judicial branch – which has been trying to convict him of corruption for a while now – but the Israeli government has also been provoking Palestine on a regular basis and is essentially engaging in genocide. The Biden administration should not be supporting any of this. The people of Israel themselves definitely don’t support the attempt at the judicial coup, but unfortunately the dynamic between Israelis and Palestinians is a bit more complicated at the individual level.
Love seeing the U of M getting rid of legacy admissions, as well as other schools, but let’s be honest – it is not school’s like the U of M that are going to have a huge impact by making these changes.
It’s not a surprise that today’s “conservatives” pledge solidarity with an ethno-nationalist state currently engaged in an illegal half-century military occupation and ongoing “settler” land grab, while looking to abandon a democratic nation currently fighting for its actual existence against an invading fascist state. I can see not a single reservation being voiced towards Israel’s current illegal and authoritarian policies by any of these Liberty-Lovin’ Repubs.
And of course any criticism of such policies is immediately imputed as opposition to the “existence of Israel”, the uncontested military superpower of the region, whose existence is not remotely threatened, however much Netanyahu (and Herzog) wish to claim it is. Of course the most important job of today’s Repubs (and Netanyahu, for that matter) is fomenting division in America. Which should be a foolish diplomatic position, given the dependence of Israel on (endless) American aid.
The current policies of the state of Israel, which only get worse and worse, do not merit such fealty by American politicians.
“I can see not a single reservation being voiced towards Israel’s current illegal and authoritarian policies by any of these Liberty-Lovin’ Repubs.”
It’s interesting that the conservative support for Israel was always tepid, at best, until the country started its rightward trajectory and, more importantly, started to become more religious in character. The founding generation of Israeli leaders was more secular, and was also socialist, if not Utopian.
This all changed with the rise of the Likud Party. Likud’s religious and economic conservatism, as well as the growing popularity of eschatological hallucinations among American evangelicals, made Israel more attractive to the right wing in the US. American conservatives found their love for “liberty” had to be recalibrated.
Doing away with “legacy” admissions will cause endowments to shrink and tuitions to then eventually rise. But that’s ok. I’m sure their student debt will be forgiven by some future president.
The University of Minnesota is supposed to provide higher education for the benefit of all Minnesotans, not just those who won some kind of genetic lottery.
Back in my day (yours too, probably), the U was basically open admission. Of course, the tuition in those days was also affordable for working-class families.
The endowment is already $5.4 billion, more than their entire operating budget for a year.
Rep. Omar’s comment (“Hell no”) was an authentic utterance, whether you agree or disagree. Rep. Craig’s “Hell Yes” was predictable, considering the vulnerability of her seat. Rep. McCullum’s spoken-out-loud admission of Netanyahu’s rogue behavior was refreshing. Rep. Phillips chastisement of Rep. Jayapal’s reference to Israel being a “racist state” was authentic, if simplistic.
But Repubs Emmer, Finstad and Stauber simply issued canned outrage. They are just acting, and playing their parts. There was nothing authentic or genuine or honest about any of it. With the possible exceptions of Omar and perhaps Jayapal, no one is an enemy of Israel, and certainly no one is “antisemitic.” Every politician who voted to pledge their allegiance to Israel in this 400+ vote is a coward. That’s like demanding that everyone votes on whether or not they support the sun rising.
Why is this nonsense covered as “news”? Why does no curious and inquisitive reporter who is looking for the truth require that the 3 stooges clarify their positions beyond rote “support for Israel”? What is Finstad’s understanding of the plight of the average Palestinian in the occupied territory? Put a microphone in his face and ask for details. Ask Stauber what he proposes to both protect our allies in Israel and find a solution to the hell the Palestinians live in. Ask for details. Ask Emmer to speak to the crash course Netanyahu is on with his power plays to strip their Supreme Court of any remote sense of balance and what that might do to American interests in the Middle East, not to mention the cause of democracy in the world.
Ask all three if such superficial non-responses as “We stand in support of Israel” is all the explanation their base needs. Are their supporters content with this?
Well said!
In the Minnesotan mind, “settler colonialism” is bad when Jews do it in the Middle East, but when Norwegians and Germans did it here, it was good.
“But criticism of Israel must not cross the line into negation of the state of Israel’s right to exist. Questioning the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, is not legitimate diplomacy, it is antisemitism.”
This is the go to line whenever anyone has the audacity to question Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people and is meant to shutdown any discussion of their tactics and expansion into Palestinian territory. As for Emmer and his ilk, they’re all in on the end times and return of Jesus Christ where all the Jews will convert to Christianity. Personally I think its kind of a weird thing to be rooting for, but I’m just some LibTard.
Hank I disagree with you on “all Jews will convert to Christianity ” regarding the end times. It will be a remnant of Jews, most will remain hard hearted toward God & His Messiah.
I would like to think the president of Israel is not a faithful policy advocate for the government’s policies, but maybe Rep. Omar is right.
Conservatives love of Israel only extends to thinking that’s where Jesus is going to come back to take them to heaven and leave all of those icky, heathen liberals behind.
Yes, you are correct. I will choose Jesus any day, any time, over the ignorance of this world. Israel is God’s gift to His chosen people, the Jewish, and Jerusalem belongs to Israel & the Jewish people. Jesus is not a fallacy & I truly hope you come to realize this.
Hard pass, thanks.
It’s curious how God seems to have given up on that “Promised Land” covenant from the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD until 1949, isn’t it? Almost 2,000 years! Not to mention the Babylonian Captivity.
Mysterious ways indeed…
Herzog’s assertions are absurd, conflating criticism of the rise of totalitarianism in Israel by playing the all-too-convenient “anti-semitism” card.
“…criticism of Israel must not cross the line into negation of the state of Israel’s right to exist.”
This is a canard. No one in the American body politic is questioning Israel’s right to exist.
“Questioning the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, is not legitimate diplomacy, it is antisemitism.”
It is ridiculous, for Herzog, or anyone else, to claim that their nation can do as it pleases without criticism or consequence. Especially the corrupt regime currently in place in Tel Aviv. Putin also is claiming “self-determination” for Russia in his attacks on Ukraine. Is criticism of his criminality not legitimate? Are his critics “anti-Russian?” Are the hundreds of thousands of Israeli protestors against Netanyahu “anti-semitic?”
And in both cases, Israel and Putin’s “right to self-determination” appears to mean freedom to operate in blatant violation of international law. Indeed, it means freedom to be a rogue nation, operating under “might makes right’. Which is actually the sort of “liberty” our conservatives crave!
Have you asked Rep. Omar if she questins the right of Israel to exist?
Wow, pretty severe level of moderation today.
As the uncontested superpower of the region, Israel’s existence is assured. Talking as though Israel faces actual “existential” crises is a red herring.