It was this tweet that started it all:

On February 10, Ilhan Omar — a Democratic Congresswoman from Minnesota — received widespread criticism from both Democrats and Republicans for tweeting that money from the pro-Israel lobby influences politicians to be more supportive of Israel.

Of course, this is, well…objectively true.

When Saudi Arabia influences the U.S. government with dark money, few reject the notion that this money is intended to secure the billions of dollars in weapons exchanged between Washington and Riyadh each year.

When ExxonMobil devotes millions to lobbying Congress, it’s an effective strategic effort to prevent environmental regulations and sustain the billions Exxon receives in tax breaks — and Americans know that.

But when it comes to AIPAC, a firm which invested $3.5 million in lobbying in 2018 to advocate for the U.S. to continue supplying arms to Israel, a nation that is building settlements that are classified as illegal under international law by the United Nations? Here’s the response:

Nearly the entire Democratic and Republican establishment labeled Omar’s comments as bigoted and anti-Semitic.

The problem, of course, is that they’re conflating anti-Semitism — hatred against Jewish people — with anti-Zionism — legitimate criticism of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and, yes, the powerful lobby that advocates for the U.S. to support it.

Omar’s comments were clearly and intentionally directed at Israeli policy and lobbying, not Jewish people, and therefore should be seen as nothing more than anti-Zionism.

For good measure, here is Omar making virtually the exact same argument about Saudi Arabia that she did for Israel, to virtually no criticism:

The difference? No one called Omar anti-Muslim or bigoted against Arabs for these tweets — and rightfully so. She was making a political statement about the harmful policies of a nation we militarily support — not a bigoted one about the people living in that country.

At the end of the day, here is what is abundantly clear: Omar’s comments were not bigoted or anti-Semitic. But the overwhelming majority of the political establishment viewed them as hate speech.

This brings us to a serious question:

If there were a law, constitutional amendment, or landmark Supreme Court decision in the United States that attempted to censor or regulate “hate speech,” would speech that’s critical of Israel — including Omar’s comments—fall under that category?

It appears that it very well might.

Look at the language in Pelosi’s statement above. The House Majority Leader labeled Omar’s tweets as “anti-Semitic tropes” that were “prejudicial” and “deeply offensive [to Jews].” It sounds to me, quite clearly, like she considers Omar’s comments to be hate speech.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was no kinder, alleging that Omar used “crude, hateful, and backward anti-Semitic stereotypes [that] we must not tolerate.” Sounds like “hate speech” to me.

If the majority of establishment politicians in both American parties consider comments critical of Israel to be anti-Semitic hate speech, then it certainly follows that our conservative-leaning Supreme Court would likely agree.

What does this mean?

It means that if we lived in a country where “hate speech” were subject to regulation or censorship, Omar’s comments would very likely be censored or punished by the State— even if the hate speech law was solely intended to prevent bigoted and racist speech.

This demonstrates that proposed regulations of “hate speech,” however well-intentioned, would likely lead to the censorship of legitimate critics of Israel.

This would actively hurt the struggle for Palestinian rights and the movement for peace in Gaza and the West Bank.