Listen 5 min

       Share

       Comment on this story Comment 152

       Add to your saved stories

       Save

       In the abstract, a congressional resolution opposing global antisemitism is a no-brainer. Antisemitism is, in respectable circles, not acceptable, and legislators tend to like to align with popular, or at least not unacceptable, public positions.

       Keeping up with politics is easy with The 5-Minute Fix Newsletter, in your inbox weekdays. ArrowRight

       The resolution brought forward in the House this week, however, did a little bit more than condemn antisemitism. Instead, the resolution from members of the Republican majority was a vehicle for putting Democratic legislators in a bind. Would they decline to support a resolution centered on antisemitism if it also included arguments specifically useful to Republicans?

       Republicans got their answer: yes, to an extent. Much of the text of the House resolution focuses on acts of violence or aggression against Jewish Americans or Jewish businesses in the wake of the Hamas attacks on Israel in early October. “Acts of hate, intimidation, discrimination, and violence based on ethnicity or religion have no place in our country nor in the global community,” the resolution says at the outset, and most of the provided examples reinforce the sort of activity that should be condemned.

       Advertisement

       Story continues below advertisement

       But the resolution also did something else: It offered tacit equivalences between those protesting the Israeli response in Gaza and the rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. When Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) introduced a resolution to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (R-Mich.) this year, she included an accusation that Tlaib had been involved in an attempted insurrection because she was part of a protest that included a brief performative occupation of an office building in Congress.

       That overreach helped doom the measure. The resolution against antisemitism included most subtle language with a similar insinuation. For example, it decried how, during a Nov. 4 protest in Washington, “rioters stormed and tried to scale the White House fence.”

       Sign up for How To Read This Chart newsletter from Philip Bump

       The suggestion that there was an effort to break into the White House, from “rioters” rather than protesters, aligns with a widely shared social-media post by a right-wing commentator. Even coverage from the New York Post, however, indicated the protest concluded peacefully. Video showed one protester climbing halfway up the fence outside the White House, where he waved a flag to the crowd.

       Advertisement

       Story continues below advertisement

       At another point, the resolution suggested that protesters on Nov. 15 “violently attacked the Democratic National Committee headquarters,” ultimately “injuring 6 Capitol Police Officers.” Injuries to law enforcement, of course, were a central element of criticism of the Capitol riot. Semafor journalist David Weigel was at the protest and reported at the time that claims of a violent attack by protesters were untrue.

       Share this article Share

       These claims could have been excluded from the resolution, with the criticisms of other explicitly antisemitic actions retained. By including them, however, those drafting the resolution force Democrats to choose between approving a document that will serve as the official view of the House on antisemitism or rejecting exaggerations about largely leftist protests.

       More controversial was the conflation of anti-Zionism, opposition to Israel as a Jewish state, with antisemitism. The resolution is explicit: With its passage, the House is stating it “clearly and firmly states that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.” That conflation spurred disagreement, including from prominent Jewish lawmakers like Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.).

       Regardless, the pattern is clear. Republicans aimed to push the antisemitism resolution just far enough into contested partisan territory to force Democrats either to indicate support for things they did not want to support or to oppose a resolution condemning antisemitism. Many Democrats, predictably, demurred. Thirteen voted against a motion to approve the resolution, while 95 voted in support of it. Another 92 voted “present” to not take a position.

       As might be expected, those Democrats tended to be from districts that voted for Joe Biden by a wider margin in 2020 or who have more liberal ideologies. On average, the districts of those voting “yes” to approve the resolution backed Biden by 23 points. Those voting “present” represent districts that backed Biden by 38 points on average, and those voting “no” are from districts with an average margin that favored Biden by 49 points.

       Advertisement

       Story continues below advertisement

       You can see that in the chart above: The orange area defines those Democrats who voted “present” and sits further down (more liberal) and further to the left (more supportive of Biden) than most of the green dots from their fellow Democrats (those below the central horizontal line).

       There was one Republican who voted against the measure: Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.), who used a social media meme to suggest that his opposition was to criticism of anti-Zionism. The post spurred enormous backlash, including from some on the right.

       But otherwise the resolution accomplished what House Republicans would have wanted. It split the Democratic caucus and put many on the record in opposition to a resolution ostensibly about opposing antisemitism. It also got the chamber to approve a document that includes specific framing about left-wing protests and Israel.

       And here some people say Congress can’t accomplish anything.

       Share

       152 Comments

       Loading...

       Subscribe to comment and get the full experience. Choose your plan →