I’m a Former Jewish Refugee. Would “The Squad” Have Given Me Refuge Today?

Lately, as I’ve been reading about newer members of Congress who clearly have a problem with Jews, I’ve found myself repeatedly asking, “Where’s my blood pressure medicine?” The only problem? I don’t have high blood pressure.

But there was something about watching Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper last week, in which she suggested that Jews aren’t “partners in justice,” or her recent accusation that the United States, Israel, Hamas and the Taliban are basically the same entity, that really triggered me.

There was also Omar’s recent condemnation of the Biden administration’s air strikes against Iranian-backed militias near the Iraq-Syria border. The congresswoman criticized U.S. policy that targets terrorists who pose direct risks to American personnel and facilities abroad. Seven of them were killed by American airstrikes last week. Omar condemned the “cycle of violence and retribution.”

Yes, she sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. And I’m starting to think that her pursuit of justice is only reserved for undermining Israel; in 2019, she didn’t even vote “yes” on a House resolution recognizing the 1915 Armenian genocide, in which Ottoman Turkey killed 1.5 million Armenians. How did Omar vote? “Present.”

Suffice it to say, the past few weeks have forced me to contemplate whether I should at least have a sphygmomanometer in the house.

I was raised to be diplomatic, but in this case, I’ll be blunt: I can’t take Omar anymore.

And that has made me ponder something very sad, but probably true: If she and other members of “The Squad,” including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) were in direct control of allowing persecuted Jews into the United States as refugees today, perhaps few of us would be given refuge.

Yes, I realize that the previous administration’s policies against refugees entering the U.S., as part of former President Donald Trump’s “Muslim ban,” was abysmal. And yes, I know that I’m only speculating about a few, fringe congressional leaders while the last administration actually blocked refugee resettlement on levels previously unseen in this country.

But it just so happens that I know a thing or two about Jewish refugees. In 1989, my family and I entered this country through the invaluable efforts of HIAS, an organization that provides humanitarian aid and assistance to refugees, as protected Jewish refugees from Iran.

I can’t help but compare “The Squad” to American leaders in the 1970s and 1980s, including Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), who sponsored the U.S. Refugee Act of 1980, and Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), whose 1989 landmark legislation, eponymously known as the Lautenberg Amendment, allowed between 350,000-400,000 Jews and other religious minorities from the former Soviet Union to resettle safely in the U.S. as refugees. In 2004, the amendment was extended to Jews, Christians, Baha’is, and other religious minorities who sought to flee Iran.

In the 1970s, the Jackson-Vanik amendment, co-sponsored by Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D-WA) and Rep. Charles Vanik (D-OH), enacted changes to the Trade Act of 1974 and effectively restricted American trade with Communist-bloc countries that blocked Jewish emigration and denied Jews other human rights. American trade became tied with the human rights of Jews. Imagine that?

Thankfully, Omar, Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez and Pressley aren’t senators. But think about it: Given their deeply disturbing (and unabashedly public) views on Jews, why would they allow people whom they believe to be apartheid-practicing, money-controlling, minority-crushing, privileged oppressors into this country? (Although, frankly, it pains me to admit that I also question how much these lawmakers even like America, which they view as a bastion of racism).

In May, amid the fighting between Israel and Hamas, these American leaders were accused of proliferating messages that incited violence against Jews, whether Jews who were beaten in the streets in Los Angeles, New York, or, in the case of a horrifying incident last week involving a rabbi, stabbed outside of his home in Boston. What would make anyone think that if the leaders of “The Squad” had enough power, they wouldn’t subtly do things to keep “too many” Jews from entering the U.S.?

It’s a bold question, but it’s one worth asking. My childhood in post-revolutionary Iran taught me to take the words of leaders at nothing less than face value. No rationalizations.

My childhood in post-revolutionary Iran taught me to take the words of leaders at nothing less than face value. No rationalizations.

Ironically, watching American Jewish political behavior taught me to what lengths Jews in this country will go to rationalize and excuse antisemitism from their own beloved political parties.

For the record, I’m not imagining unlikely scenarios about desperate Jews in need of refuge. The era of Jews of fleeing oppressive countries is far from over. In fact, as long as there are Jews and oppressive regimes around the world, it will never be over. Think Venezuela. Or Iran. Or Libya. Actually, there isn’t a single Jew in Libya today. Not one, from the nearly 40,000 Jews who were still there in 1948.

There are, however, still up to 8,000 Jews in Iran, the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel. What will happen if the regime, in a final, desperate act of scapegoating to maintain power, targets them?

Or what about the Jews of France, who, at nearly 500,000 people, constitute the biggest Jewish population in Europe? In the last two decades, tens of thousands of Jews have already left France for the safety of Israel or the U.S. Perhaps you’ll think me glib, but what will happen if France becomes like Iran or the former USSR of the late 1970s and 1980s, not in terms of becoming a dictatorship, but in terms of devolving into a place from where Jews desperately need to flee persecution?

While “The Squad” doesn’t have enough power to keep Jews out of America, I wouldn’t be surprised if, should there be a large resettlement of Jews in this country in the next few years, these controversial leaders would condemn this policy, citing concerns about justice, favoritism, and privilege. Let’s just say that if someone had seen my family and I as we awaited American asylum in a resettlement town in Italy, the last word that would have described us would have been “privileged.”

Let’s face it: If Rep. Omar can’t even condemn the stabbing of an American rabbi in 2021 (was Twitter down for a whole week?), I’m not exactly convinced that she will welcome Jewish refugees from Iran at Dulles Airport, while waving a little American flag.

Maybe some will accuse me of criticizing these leaders because they label themselves as staunch progressives. It has nothing to do with that.

But I also don’t believe in being selectively progressive. Using language that dehumanizes Jews and incites attacks against them on American streets isn’t progressive; believing that Jews have too much money and power isn’t progressive (it’s actually as old-fashioned as you can get); and not offering one word of condemnation or sympathy when a Jew is stabbed outside his home isn’t exactly progressive, either.

While it’s true that people can change—and their ideas and behaviors can evolve—sometimes, if fed enough misinformation against Jews, and if supported by enough radicals (including financial support), some leaders can actually go in the other direction. Case in point: It was then-President Jimmy Carter who signed the 1980 Refugee Act into law, which enabled tens of thousands of Jews, including my family, to come to this country. But given his decades of dangerous Israel-bashing and cozying up to some of the world’s biggest antisemites, look how he turned out.

Tabby Refael is a Los Angeles-based writer, speaker and civic action activist. Follow her on Twitter @RefaelTabby