Why Is It So Hard for Linda Sarsour to Understand Anti-Semitism? [UPDATED with Sarsour's new statement]

The Women’s March seems to be slowly self-destructing due to the leadership’s refusal to disavow their past associations with Louis Farrakhan. To an outside observer, this obduracy is inexplicable. It should be the easiest thing in the world for a progressive movement to repudiate Farrakhan’s outbursts of anti-Semitism, homophobia, and misogyny. And yet, the Women’s March leaders repeatedly temporize and rationalize, at the expense of the coherence of their movement. The reasons for their reluctance are obscure and perhaps unknowable. If I had to guess, however, I would say that they simply do not understand, or do not want to understand, the role of anti-Semitism as a malign force in the world that corrupts everything it touches.

To recap: Linda Sarsour and other leaders of the Women’s March have been embroiled in an anti-Semitism controversy since last March, when it was revealed that co-president Tamika Mallory had been seated on the dais at the Nation of Islam’s Saviour’s Day as Minister Louis Farrakhan inveighed against “Satanic Jews.” It turned out that Mallory had been a long-time attendee at these events, which often featured rabid anti-Jewish screeds. She had tweeted a photograph of herself with Farrakhan, calling him the GOAT (greatest of all time). Carmen Perez, another Women’s March leader, has also posted a photograph of herself with Farrakhan, saying that he “speaks truth,” to which Sarsour approvingly added “the brother does not age.”

The official response of the Women’s March was tepid, to say the least, allowing only that Farrakhan’s views “do not align” with the organization’s Principles of Unity.  Mallory’s initial response was far worse, tweeting “If your leader does not have the same enemies as Jesus, they may not be THE leader! Study the Bible and u will find the similarities.” (She later tried to walk back her obvious foray into classic religious anti-Semitism by claiming she had only generic enemies in mind, while maintaining the comparison of Farrakhan to Christ.)

Sarsour, who is by far the most well-known of the Women’s March leaders, has consistently defended Mallory’s involvement with Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, referring to the “complexities and nuance” of the relationship. Other activists have not been so timid. In recent weeks, actresses Alyssa Milano and Debra Messing have announced that they will no longer support the Women’s March.  Teresa Shook, a founder of the Women’s March, has called on all four leaders to resign, due to their refusal to vigorously disassociate from Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, misogyny, and homophobia.

I am more than willing to stipulate that Sarsour has no personal animus against Jews, and that she finds some expressions of anti-Semitism distasteful. Ultimately, however, she consistently dismisses anti-Semitism as an actual problem, regarding it more as an inconvenience for her and her movement, and dismissing objections to anti-Semitism as a right-wing distraction. This is more than evident in a long letter that she recently distributed to friends and supporters, and which was posted, with her permission, on Rabbi Arthur Waskow’s website.

Sarsour’s letter begins by blaming the messengers, and making sure everyone knows they are Jewish: “Jake Tapper and Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL ‘exposed/ promoted’ a video of the Minister Farrakhan at an annual gathering for the Nation of Islam called Saviour's Day.” What difference does it make that the ADL exposed the video of Farrakhan defaming Jews? Isn’t that the job of the Anti-Defamation League? Or are we just supposed to keep quiet about it? Moreover, the scare quotes around “exposed/promoted” suggest that there was something illegitimate, or perhaps self-serving, about publicizing Farrakhan’s screed, or drawing attention to Mallory’s seeming approval. This already demonstrates ingenuousness, if not bad faith, complaining more about the exposure than about Farrakhan himself, and we are still in the “Background” section.

Next, we get “A white supremacist walked into a synagogue and killed 11 innocent people and the focus became the Minister Farrakhan and the NOI.” Uh, no. The overwhelming focus was on the white supremacist background of the shooter, although some people (me included) pointed out that anti-Semitism crosses political lines and exists in other communities. Someone who actually understood anti-Semitism would grasp the connection, as Sarsour evidently does not. Neither Farrakhan nor Robert Bowers (the Pittsburgh murderer) invented anti-Semitism; their anti-Jewish comments are almost identical and they share ancient sources.  The commonality of the hatred deserves and requires attention.

Then it gets worse, as Sarsour shifts into victim blaming, as she continues that the alleged focus on Farrkhan “is a feature of white supremacy.” So the critics of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism are now lumped in with white supremacists.

We can be reassured, however, because, “This is not an email in defense of Minister Farrakhan. He can do that for himself.” Really? What defense does Farrakhan have to charges of anti-Semitism? Wouldn’t it be more comforting for Sarsour to say that there is no defense?

But of course, she continues, “We have been CRYSTAL CLEAR in BOTH of our statements that we REJECT antisemitism and all forms of racism. (boldface and capitalization original) We have been CLEAR that Minister Farrakhan has said hateful and hurtful things and that he does not align with our Unity Principles of the Women's March that were created by Women of Color.”

It’s easy to say that you reject anti-Semitism, but she cannot let it rest at that; it has to be surrounded by a vapid generality about racism. And once again, the strongest thing she can say about Farrakhan is that he does “not align” with the Women’s March unity principles, as though he is merely marching to the beat of a different drum. Note that Sarsour never directly addresses the content of Farrakhan’s speech, in which he inveighed against “Satanic Jews,” or his later tweet in which he compared Jews to termites.

In the next paragraph, she invokes “the ideology of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” to justify working with Farrakhan, comparing that to working with the formerly incarcerated. “We have been slandered for working with criminals,” she says, but we are committed to a movement that leaves no one behind.” First, I am not aware of anyone objecting to ex-offenders in the Women’s March. More important, the use of “slandered” implies that Farrakhan-based criticism is also defamatory and therefore illegitimate. Finally, it is Sarsour herself who says that Zionists have no place in her movement, so she is evidently quite willing to make exclusions, though not on the basis of anti-Semitism.

Sarsour has been active, as she explains in the next paragraph, in raising money for Jewish cemeteries and funerals, including "$206K to pay for ALL the funerals of the 11 innocent Jews that were killed” at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life Synagogue (capitalization original).  I do not question her sincerity, but sympathy for dead Jews is the very definition of cold comfort. Even if it was not a publicity stunt, the funerals would have happened with or without Sarsour’s fund raising, which does not keep her from complaining that she has not gotten sufficient credit:

This was all erased.  Oped after oped after oped after quotes from people who want to see their names in print and barely any mention of our contributions when they decided to tear us down. 

(Putting aside the irony of accusing others of wanting to "see their names in print" while complaining that you haven't gotten enough acknowledgement for yourself, it isn't really generosity if you are doing it for recognition.)

So who is the real victim? Why it is Sarsour herself, of course:

It's very clear to me what the underlying issue is - I am a bold, outspoken BDS -supporting Palestinian Muslim American woman and the opposition's worst nightmare. They have tried every tactic at their disposal to undermine me, discredit me, vilify me but my roots are too deep and my work is too clear and they have not succeeded so by proxy they began attacking my sister Tamika Mallory - knowing all too well that in this country the most discardable woman is a Black woman.

In other words, complaints about Farrakhan, and Tamika Mallory’s very public association with him, are just illegitimate tactics in an anti-Sarsour conspiracy. After all, this was all started by the ADL.

And so it continues:

Who benefits when a powerful, effective and proven organization is attacked? Who benefits when the movement is divided? Who benefits from the confusion and the fractures?

Let us not fall for the longstanding tactics of white supremacy of divide and conquer.

And lest there be any doubt about the racist illegitimacy of any criticism:

I pray that none of you have to experience what we have. A litany of death threats, unsolicited hate mail some with threats of violence. . . . I say this to say that these public toxic conversations invite these things to happen to us and we all have a responsibility to want us to be safe and out of harm's way.

What is the takeaway? Apparently, the struggle against anti-Semitism is limited to cemeteries and funerals. The concerns of live Jews must be muted in the name of unity (which excludes no one; well, no one other than Zionists).

Sarsour could have sent a very straightforward message in which she condemned anti-Semitism, disassociated the Women’s March from anti-Semitic organizations, and stopped there. Instead, she had demonstrated that she simply doesn’t understand anti-Semitism, and therefore does not truly care about it.

UPDATE: On Nov. 20, Linda Sarsour posted a new statement on the Women's March Facebook page:

It’s become clear, amidst this media storm, that our values and our message have — too often — been lost. That loss caused a lot of harm, and a lot pain. We should have been faster and clearer in helping people understand our values and our commitment to fighting anti-semitism. We regret that.

Every member of our movement matters to us — including our incredible Jewish and LGBTQ members. We are deeply sorry for the harm we have caused, but we see you, we love you, and we are fighting with you.

It remains to be seen whether this is a sincere apology, or only another effort at damage control. Trying hard not to be cynical, it is still impossible to avoid noticing that their only regret appears to be that others did not "understand" their "commitment to fighting anti-Semitism," with no recognition that the commitment was actually missing all along. Likewise, there is still no repudiation of Farrakhan or explicit retraction of Sarsour's exclusion of Zionists from the coalition. Perhaps most significant is that the statement comes from Sarsour rather than Mallory, who, after all, is the most outspoken of the Farrakhan enthusiasts. Does she still consider him the "greatest of all time"?

The Facebook comments are running about 8-1 against the statement. Here is an example:

Time for new leadership! For the sake of the movement, you must denounce Farrakhan and replace both Sarsour and Mallory ASAP. The photos and tweets are all over social media. It's getting harder and harder to defend this all too important movement. I just wish they would put the millions of women in this above self.

[Note: this post has been slightly edited to clarify Teresa Shook's role in founding the Women's March.]

Comments

[Lynne T]

Linda Sarsour knows antisemitism is, but among other things she has a business arrangement with the NOI to provide the Women's March Inc. co-chairs with a "security detail" that she may also lend out to fellow BDS advocates. She's not an anti-racist, a feminist or pro-LGBTQ. She's an entryist who wants to hijack the Women's March for BDS / anti-Israel activities, rather like the Stop the War Coalition who used the widespread doubt about Gulf War II to get massive public turnouts, hoping to convert as many people as they could to their hard left politics.

[anymouse]

Why? Because it is what she does and it is what her ilk does.

Sadly, there is still lots of antisemitism on both the right and the left. Unfortunately, it is thriving on the left.

[Jeremy Shotts]

Intelligent and well expressed. Nevertheless I still don't understand some of this.
If someone has 'no personal animus against Jews' how can they tolerate any expressions or forms of antisemitism whatsoever?
Or give it succour and encouragement by exonerating and praising and supporting its exponents.
This is the same bizarre 'formulation' that we get from people defending Jeremy Corbyn and his cabal in the UK. Jewish people too including the ridiculous Shew person who says is is 'OK' for Palestinians to adopt and express antisemitic views and positions...
If you are against Racism you are against Racism.
All and any Racism.
If you treat antisemitism as an exception then you are a hypocrite and an antisemite.
That's all there is to it.
#GradeBRacism...?
No.
Never.

[The Law Offcies of Kavanaugh Thomas, LLC, PC, LTD, Chartered, AV Rated]

No less authority than the President of the United States of America said it best. I read it in Great Speeches of the Day. "There are good people on both sides."

[Ken]

I didn't speak about anti-isreal.

I mentioned 'pro-Israel' that is usually conflicting with Judaism. Many Jews do not approve Israel's policy and want to distant themselves from it. Other Jews don't like Zionism. It is the same thing as secular Muslims who disapprove Islamist and don't like them.

Here is an example Jews attacking Jews.

https://zoa.org/zoa-expose-j-street-sides-with-israels-enemies-works-to-destroy-support-for-israel/

[Ken]

If Steve Lubet is going to keep deleting comments because he doesn't like them, then he should close the comment section and stop with these conversations and posts he keeps writing to swing opinions.

[The Law Offcies of Kavanaugh Thomas, LLC, PC, LTD, Chartered, AV Rated]

Hello Ken^^^^above. They delete some of my posts too. Don't take it personally. I have a big mouth, a liberal version of Archie Bunker. I can't believe I am stuck in a Nation and breath the same oxygen as 60 Million gun loving mope Trump cult members. That gets me in trouble quite a bit, including my comments on this blog. I can dish it out just like our Dear Leader, only better with more incite. Professor Lubet is still civilized...so I appreciate that.

[David B]

Occam's Razor suggests that she understands anti-Semitism, and is against it when she thinks it serves her broader ideology to be against it, and in favor of it when she thinks that being in favor of it is helpful. Her priority cause is Palestinian nationalism, so anti-Semitism in the service of that is fine. But neo-Nazis anti-Semitism is fine to be against, because that lets her pretend to be tolerant.