The rallies that Nerdeen Kiswani has organized have supported the actions of terror groups like Hamas,
Hezbollah and the Houthis, not to mention Iran’s missile attacks on
Israel. She frequently proclaims that the
objective of eradicating Israel must be achieved “by any means
necessary.”
Unlike Mamdani, who supports the dismantling of the Jewish state but
claims to oppose violence, Kiswani isn’t shy about backing terrorism
against Israelis and Jews, including lauding the Hamas-led terrorist
attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. The rallies she has
organized have supported the actions of terror groups like Hamas,
Hezbollah and the Houthis, not to mention Iran’s missile attacks on
Israel.
She also appears to be an advocate of
imposing Sharia, or Muslim religious law, in America, especially with
respect to the treatment of dogs. That seemed to be the point of a Feb. 12 post,
which she later claimed was satire. In it, she complained about dog
owners not picking up after their pets in the aftermath of a large
snowfall in New York City: “Finally, NYC is coming to Islam. Dogs
definitely have a place in society, just not as indoor pets. Like we’ve
said all along, they are unclean.”
At that point, Fine, who is Jewish and, like a lot of prominent people, seems to spend far too much time on social media, responded: “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”
And that is why virtually the entire
Democratic Party congressional caucus, backed by many prominent Jews, is
calling for Fine to be censured for what they believe is brazen Islamophobia.
The dogs’ champion
Fine is, predictably, unembarrassed by the
brouhaha. To the contrary, he has gloried in the attention it has
brought him. His X feed is now a nonstop deluge of pictures and
caricatures of dogs who are protesting Muslim anti-canine sentiments and
intentions. To each post criticizing him, he responds with a cartoon
image of a dog over the Revolutionary War slogan of “Don’t Tread on Me..
Rep. Fine has responded to his critics by posting modified libertarian
Gadsden flags featuring puppies rather than the traditional snake
His barb aimed at Kiswani has seemed to
make him the hero not only of some dog lovers but also of many others
who are angry about the way people like Kiswani have helped normalize
antisemitism in American political discourse. More than that, the vast
majority of what radical groups like the Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR) claim is Islamophobia
is, in fact, usually an effort to take note of and criticize Muslim
antisemitism that has become commonplace, especially since Oct. 7.
In the eyes of his supporters, Fine is merely fighting fire with fire, and if Muslims are offended, so be it.
In part, this is just another chapter in
the story of the coarsening of American political discourse. Fault for
this is usually attributed to President Donald Trump. He does deserve a
good deal of the blame because of many statements, especially on social
media, in which he trolls his opponents in a manner that is often as
humorous as it is hyperbolic. But they are also sometimes vulgar and
misogynistic, or even—as with a recent post in which he depicted former
President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, as gorillas—arguably
racist.
A zero-sum game
He is far from alone in being an offender
in this respect. Where the president has really broken new ground is how
he is utterly indifferent to criticism or shame for what would have
been widely deprecated as bad behavior. Part of this is because his
supporters are delighted, rather than outraged, by his skewering of
liberal foes, even when it is unfair or wrongheaded. That’s because they
view his barbs as just desserts for arrogant credentialed elites who
look down on their fellow citizens and have imposed their own arbitrary
standards of behavior that often involve canceling anyone who disagrees
with them.
He has also come to understand that he—or
anyone who shares his conservative views—will be damned by his critics,
no matter what they do or say. And he has concluded that apologizing,
even when wrong, merely strengthens one’s opponents. Since he and others
on the right believe that liberals are not held to the same standards,
there’s no point in ever backing down, even when you are obviously out
of line.
So, by doubling down on his supposed
championing of dogs at the expense of Muslims, Fine is merely following
the same pattern that Trump has established.
Many on the right, most of whom might
never themselves speak or post in such an outrageous manner, think this
is just fine. That’s because they see political combat, even when it is
conducted in this sort of juvenile manner, as part of an existential
civilizational conflict in which the stakes are incredibly high.
It’s the same sort of thinking that
inspired Michael Anton, an academic who served in the George W. Bush
administration, to write the famous essay, “The Flight 93 Election,” in the Claremont Review of Books in
2016 under a Latin pseudonym. In it, he argued that electing someone
who might truly overturn norms like Trump was necessary if the nation
was to be saved from the left. Anton, who served in both the president’s
first and second administrations, was not arguing in favor of
social-media posts that were either vulgar or clearly prejudiced against
faith or ethnic groups, such as Fine’s anti-Muslim riposte. But the
point is, once you see all political arguments or discourse as a
zero-sum game, anything goes.
More than that, those who subscribe to
this thesis—as the many people who posted their support for Fine’s
position—believe that not giving an inch to the other side is not merely
defensible but laudable.
This may make sense in an exchange of
insults on X. But is it good for the country, or consistent with
traditional Western ideas of ethics or Jewish values? Clearly, that is
not the case.
It must be pointed out that even in a time
in which political discourse has been coarsened, and politics is a
zero-sum game, there are still some things decent people simply
shouldn’t say. And among them are statements that express direct
religious bias.
Fine’s defenders may assert, with some
justice, that antisemites like Kiswani don’t have the same scruples
about insulting their opponents that the congressman’s critics expect of
him. While it may be a double standard, shouldn’t we expect a member of
Congress to behave with more manners than the leader of a pro-genocide
group whose name states its goal of destroying the Jewish state within
the lifetimes of its members?
Animals or humans?
I share the sentiments of those who are
disgusted by Kiswani’s prejudice against dogs and deeply offended by her
suggestion, whether in jest or not, that Americans adopt Muslim taboos
about living with humanity’s best friends.
But Fine’s quip about preferring dogs to Muslims is not consistent with the values of his faith. Fine wears a kippah
on the floor of the House, in part, he says, to demonstrate solidarity
with Jews who are faced with intimidation and violence by Israel-bashers
and Jew-haters like Kiswani. But while Judaism forbids cruelty to
animals, it is equally clear that it requires us to prioritize human
life over them. As prominent Jewish writer and talk-show host Dennis
Prager teaches,
the fact that so many contemporary Americans openly admit that they
think that the lives of their pets are of equal or greater value to them
than those of human beings who are strangers is part of the price we
are paying for the decline of religious faith.
People of faith, especially those steeped
in the Judeo-Christian tradition, believe that human beings are created,
as the Torah teaches, in the image of God. We may love our pets, and
they may love us. But their rights are not more important than those of
human beings, even those with whom we have profound political, religious
and ethical disagreements, such as Muslims who may agree with Kiswani.
So, to state, as Fine has done, that dogs
should be chosen over Muslims isn’t just offensive or politically
incorrect. It’s profoundly wrong. Seen in that light, it should be
considered, along with the many instances of left-wing members of
Congress like Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) of
antisemitism, worthy of censure.
Instead of taking sides in this scrum,
thoughtful Americans, including those who are angry about the stands
that Kiswani and her allies, like Mamdani, take about Jews and Israel,
need to refuse to go down the rabbit hole of mutual delegitimization.
The point is, in a free country not
governed by Sharia law, we don’t have to choose between having dogs and
tolerating fellow Americans who are Muslims—some of whom, like Kiswani,
believe in and say awful things. Indeed, our faith in the values of
Western civilization, of which Judaism helps form the foundation,
compels us to value their lives and to protect their rights.
Nor do we have to choose between opposing
Kiswani’s brand of Jew-hatred and the sort of civil discourse that is
necessary to ensure that the American constitutional republic survives
and thrives. Trump has taught conservatives that if they are to defeat
the toxic Marxist left, they must be as tough and as unashamed to engage
in political combat as their opponents. But that doesn’t excuse
comments that are prejudiced.
