When a freshman congresswoman reignited a debate over what anti-Semitism looks like, it was New Jersey congressman Josh Gottheimer, her fellow Democrat, who led the call to condemn her remarks.

“I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” his colleague, Rep. IIhan Omar, had said. “I want to ask, why is it OK for me to talk about the influence of the NRA, of fossil fuel industries, or Big Pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobby that is influencing policy?”

Gottheimer spoke to Star-Ledger editorial writer Julie O’Connor about the fallout, including a defense of Omar by others in his party, and where to draw the line between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Jewish bias. Below is an edited transcript.

Q. Let’s start with this: To what do you attribute the increase in hate crimes motivated by anti-Jewish bias? They jumped by 30 percent in New Jersey alone last year.

A. Social media has made it acceptable to say whatever you want in certain circles, and there’s no consequence. Like the comments that followed the neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville. There were pockets that actually defended the anti-Semitism. It’s almost like the top has been removed from the simmering pot of hatred, and those vapors are permeating communities across the country.

Q. You helped craft a resolution condemning anti-Semitism in the wake of Rep. Omar’s comment. Why was it anti-Semitic?

A. This has nothing to do with debates about Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship. It’s about questioning someone like me, or anyone else’s loyalty to the United States, because of my faith, because I’m Jewish. It’s an age-old trope. When John F. Kennedy ran for office, there were questions about whether he was able to put aside his Catholicism, and whether he’d be loyal to the Pope or the United States of America.

Rep. Omar has made other comments about Israel having “hypnotized” the world, and its support in Congress being “all about the Benjamins.” These are old tropes about Jews, money and buying influence – I could probably give you a hundred examples dating back to Shakespeare. Part of what makes our government work is that people come to Washington and advocate for ideas. Trying to tie that to Jews buying influence is obviously anti-Semitic.

Q. The House ended up passing a resolution that denounces all bigotry instead of your standalone condemnation of anti-Semitism. Was that a cop-out?

A. I’m glad that the Congress voiced its opposition to anti-Semitism and made it clear that the dual loyalty smear is unacceptable. Unfortunately, it was clear from the discussions this week — and in the ultimate resolution — that many people treat anti-Semitism differently than other forms of bigotry and hatred. There shouldn’t be an asterisk next to anti-Semitism.

Q. Your original resolution elicited a lot of pushback. Some Jews argued that what Omar said not inherently anti-Semitic, given that she goes on to talk about the influence of AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobbying group.

A. First of all, comparing a group like AIPAC to the NRA, as you might imagine, is intentionally trying to drag down AIPAC in the Democratic party. Would she say that about a group that advocates for other issues, like children with orphan diseases? Trying to blur the lines between her accusation of dual loyalty and AIPAC is a red herring. They’re trying to divert attention from what she said. It’s the trifecta of anti-Semitic tropes.

And there’s a long history of this Jewish “dual loyalty” trope, by Pat Buchanan, Richard Nixon and others dating back to the 1930s. It’s not like she can say, ‘I had no idea.’ I would never question where Rep. Omar’s loyalties lie. She was elected to the U.S. Congress. She may have different views than me, but I would never question her loyalty.

Q. Critics also argued that anti-Semitic tropes have been used by other members of Congress, like Kevin McCarthy, or President Trump, yet none were subjected to a resolution of disapproval like Omar. Your reaction?

A. Frankly, I thought it was obviously unacceptable what Rep. McCarthy said in October, about three prominent Jewish Democratic donors trying to ‘buy’ the midterm election. But he handled it in the right way. He retracted it and apologized. You apologize, and you don’t do it again. What’s so unacceptable in Omar’s case is that instead of apologizing, she’s just doubled down. That’s why it’s different.

Q. What about Trump? He praised “very fine people on both sides” at the neo-Nazi march, and recently called Jewish Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) “shifty,” a play on his last name, but also the historic anti-Semitic trope that Jews are crafty and sneaky. He hasn’t apologized.

A. After Charlottesville, when neo-Nazis and white supremacists marched in the streets shouting, “Jews will not replace us,” I joined my Jewish colleagues in Congress in writing to the president urging him to condemn this anti-Semitic hatred and to reject incendiary rhetoric that leads to violence.

Q. The anticipated indictments of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for shady dealings with wealthy businessmen in Hollywood and the media is bound to rekindle this debate. Where is the line between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism?

A. Of course people have a right to question Netanyahu and the alliances he’s formed. I’ve publicly questioned it myself and said it’s unacceptable. So have long, stalwart supporters of Israel. But you cross the line when you question Jewish loyalty to the United States, for instance. This is no longer a question of Israel.

Nobody brought up Ireland when they questioned Kennedy’s loyalty to the U.S. because he was Catholic. It’s similar here: Questions about Jews and loyalty and money have nothing to do with Israel. Trying to blur these things is a nefarious tactic to divert from what is anti-Semitism.

Q. Are criticisms of West Bank settlements legitimate?

A. There are certainly legitimate ways to criticize these and other Israeli policies. Personally, I am a strong supporter of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But, again, these are two separate issues. Questioning my loyalty to my country because of my religion is not a foreign policy debate. It’s a trope that goes back centuries.

I think blurring the lines between the issues of foreign policy – where we can and should have a debate about things – and anti-Semitic rhetoric and tropes is dangerous, and we can’t allow it to happen and take over our discourse.

Q. Is the BDS movement – which promotes boycotts of Israel until it withdraws from occupied territories, among other things – inherently anti-Semitic, as some politicians believe?

A. Yes.

Q. Why?

A. Americans have every right to express themselves and even to choose not to do business with certain companies or countries because of their own political beliefs. This conduct is not necessarily anti-Semitic. But the “Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement” was founded on certain ideas, including a rejection of Israel’s right to exist.

The notion that just one group of people – Jewish people – do not deserve the same right of self-determination as every other group of people is, I believe, anti-Semitic.

Q. Do you think people are ok with anti-Semitism, as long as it comes from others in their own party?

A. No. I don’t think it’s endemic to either party. I think 99 percent of my colleagues in Congress are not anti-Semitic, and that’s why when we see it, we have to speak out against it.