Yesterday I did a somewhat-snarky post on a N.Y. party to push Senator Elizabeth Warren to run for president at which the Palestine question came up. “Warren supporters can’t talk about Palestine” was the headline; and I quoted Reeves Wiedeman’s report in The New Yorker:
A hundred and fifty people mingled in [Julie] Pacino’s loft, listening to speeches from Warren supporters. After one audience member posed a question about Warren’s stance on Palestine, the organizers decided that there had been enough dialogue, turned on the music, and told everyone to dance.
Charles Lenchner says that account is wrong. He was one of the speakers at the event. He told me that after a few speeches from members of Democracy for America, Moveon, and his group, “Ready for Warren,” the floor was opened to questions and a young filmmaker asked about Warren’s position on Palestine. Lenchner answered her, saying the issue was very important to him personally, as a longtime opponent of the occupation and former Israeli refusenik; but that people in the room had to respect “the process and rate of change” inside the Democratic Party. A Democratic presidential candidate was going to reflect that change, not lead it.
“It’s perfectly reasonable to ask why Warren’s positions are not more connected with the base,” Lenchner said. But anyone who works in politics knows why that’s the case. “Trying to extrapolate from how Warren behaves as a politician to what the organizations supporting her believe is a fundamental error. There’s no connection.” Lenchner said that her supporters “know the deal” about Palestine.
Warren has not ruled out running, but she has no association with the groups pushing her to run.
Lenchner also advised those in the grassroots left that if they want to sincerely engage in the Democratic primary process, “if the goal is to push people on Palestine,” they should drop the strident tone and stop taking potshots at Elizabeth Warren (he was talking
about me, in part), which will only help hawks like Hillary Clinton, and actually try to promote change inside the party, say by joining
Moveon’s remarkable petition to “boycott” Netanyahu’s speech.
That petition and the young filmmaker who asked about Palestine reflect a genuine shift in the party base that was also evident at the 2012 Democratic convention, the famous floor demonstration over the Jerusalem plank, Lenchner said. The young are moving on this issue, away from the older generation.
Sorry, but “The left needs to stop hounding Lyndon Johnson on Civil Rights” doesn’t sit well.
Whether music was immediately turned up for dancing or CL responded to the question, in both cases EW didn’t answer.
To me, that’s the issue.
The Left needs to make the politicians understand that the day is approaching that this uncritical support for Israel will be a deathblow to their careers.
“A Democratic presidential candidate was going to reflect that change, not lead it.”
Why? What’s wrong with showing leadership if you want to be POTUS?
I’m reminded of a joke I heard cracked by Tom Paxton, though I’m sure it’s old and well worn – “I’m not a member of any organized political party; I’m a Democrat.”
Those are two very different accounts of the evening, Lenchner’s and The New Yorker’s. Did the questioning stop and the dancing start or not? Guess we’ll never know. All we know for sure is that it’s Lenchner who is running the Warren Presidential Draft Campaign. Just possibly he could be in marketeering mode. (By the way, have we reached the point where Israelis running US presidential candidates is no longer commented on?)
Maybe if we heard a little about what this “Israeli refusenik” has ever actually said and done on the subject of zionism, we’d be in a position to know whether to take him seriously or not. (After all, even the Dersh claims to be a “long time opponent of the occupation.”) Because otherwise this is just damage control undertaken by an ambitious courtier.
I’d love to know if Lenchner expanded on his comment, “Trying to extrapolate from how Warren behaves as a politician to what the organizations supporting her believe is a fundamental error. There’s no connection.” I have no idea what this means. Is it something he’s proud of?
“Lenchner also advised those in the grassroots left that if they want to sincerely engage in the Democratic primary process, “if the goal is to push people on Palestine,” they should drop the strident tone.”
Why?