New York’s 10th
Let’s take a look at the wild Democratic primary happening in New York’s 10th district, which includes lower Manhattan and parts of northwest Brooklyn. It’s a challenging area to run a campaign, as candidates have to make a case to the residents of places like Park Slope and Borough Park.
There are 12 candidates on the ballot. There were 13, but former NYC mayor Bill de Blasio dropped out last month. The New York Times just endorsed Dan Goldman. He’s a conservative Democrat, attorney, and heir to the Levi Strauss fortune. He hits the standard notes on the subject of Israel. He believes in the perpetual promise of a two-state solution. He’s iffy on settlement expansion and believes the Israeli government has moved a little too far to the right, but Palestinians need to disavow any violence because as long as Hamas et cetera, et cetera. He obviously opposes the BDS movement. Here he is responding to a question about conditioning military aid in a Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) questionnaire:
The special relationship between the United States and Israel must remain a cornerstone of our national security policy. As the lone true democratic nation in the Middle East, and as the homeland for the Jewish people, I believe the United States must do whatever is necessary to support Israel’s security. This includes military and security assistance without preconditions so that Israel is capable of defending itself against neighbors who don’t recognize its legitimacy. To be very clear, Israel must have the right and ability to defend itself. That’s why I support the funding of U.S. security assistance to Israel, to ensure security from terror in all forms.
We’re going to return to that same questionnaire in a moment.
Mondaire Jones is currently the Representative for the state’s 17th district and he’s only running in the 10th because Rep. Sean Maloney (who currently represents the 18th) was going to run against him. The election is a week away and at the moment it doesn’t look like Jones made the best decision. Here’s New York Magazine reporter Ross Barkan on Twitter: “Anything can happen with a week to go, but it’s looking like Mondaire Jones’ gambit failed. He bet on endorsements that didn’t arrive and on voters not caring he came from Rockland. He’s a talented politician who got advice that was not very good, or really was too confident. From what people told me, Mondaire thought he’d be in-line for WFP [Working Families Party], a possible NYT endorsement, and even the backing of heavyweight House colleagues. He got Pelosi, but couldn’t get AOC or Nydia [Velazquez]. His huge TV spending didn’t move him in the polls.”
Jones is often associated with the few progressive members that exist in the House. On domestic issues this lines up, but he’s certainly no Rashida Tlaib when it comes to foreign policy. Before he was elected he said he would use his position to strengthen the U.S./Israel relationship and last year he signed an AIPAC-promoted letter opposing any conditioning of military aid to the country.
Then there’s Yuh-Line Niou, who we’ve mentioned in this newsletter before. She’s repeatedly said she supports the BDS movement since July, but when pressed on the issue she only talks about how people have the right to boycott Israel. This is obviously a massive distinction. There’s plenty of Democratic lawmakers who oppose anti-BDS legislation on First Amendment grounds, but don’t support the movement or straight up condemn it.
One such exchange can be found in the New York Times‘s recent interview with Niou:
NYT: So can I ask you — you said that you support B.D.S., this movement to boycott Israel. You have a very large Jewish community in this district. How do you explain that to your Jewish voters?
Well, I support the freedom of speech. I think that that’s really my point here, is that I think that people have the right to be able to exercise what we’ve always exercised in our American democracy, whether it’s the Great Boycott or the Montgomery bus boycotts or —
I think that it’s really important to be able to exercise that freedom of speech. I think that it’s important to protect it. I think that it’s important to make sure that people have that. I think that the Jewish community is not a monolith, just like the A.A.P.I. community is not a monolith. And I think that there are a lot of people who also believe that Palestinian human rights are important in this moment and in all ways.
I think that it’s really important that we are looking at protecting everyone. I think that it’s really about making sure that we have Israeli and Palestinian rights respected. It’s something that I strongly believe, because I think that no matter what I do, I look through a human-rights lens no matter what. That’s where we have to have that political courageous too.
NYT: But does that mean you support boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel?
Niou: I think that it’s important for us to be able to honor the fact that there is a movement of doing that. I think that that part is important.
Niou is then asked again if she supports it…
Niou: I support its right to exist. There are currently people all over the country who have put out laws that would prohibit people from doing certain things that are just their First Amendment rights. And I think that that part is really important to make sure that we are not prohibiting people from doing things that are protected by our law, right?
We are allowed to criticize our government. We’re allowed to criticize how our government interacts with other governments. And I think that that’s something that must be protected, just like freedom of the press. We should make sure to protect our freedom of the press. We should make sure to protect our freedom of speech.
Ok, now back to that JCRC questionnaire. Like I said, that Goldman reply was from a question about conditioning aid. The next question is about BDS. Here are the two questions and how Niou answered:
JCRC: Where do you stand on conditioning US Military or Non-Military Aid to Israel?
Niou: I believe our tax dollars should never be used to violate human rights, which is why I support the [Betty] McCollum legislation, which is also supported by J-Street and Americans for Peace Now, among others.
As the question below about BDS does not allow candidates to elaborate, I’m going to share more here. I am adamantly committed to the safety, security and wellbeing of all Jewish people, whether they live in my district, in New York, in the United States, in Israel – or anywhere else in the world.
I have dedicated my personal and public life to fighting for all targeted communities impacted by bigotry, white supremacy, and nationalism. That has and will always include Jews. When it comes to Israel-Palestine, I support the BDS movement’s right to political speech, including boycotts and economic pressure, which has been targeted by laws that undermine core first amendment principles. Boycotts are a tried, true, respected, and constitutionally protected nonviolent tactic for human rights and social justice movements. From the movement against South African apartheid to the grape boycott in solidarity with the United Farm Workers to the Montgomery bus boycott to fight segregation.
I share the movement’s commitment to human rights, equality, and freedom for everyone in the region. I do not support calls to oppose the BDS movement; at the same time, I do not agree with all of its demands nor do I embrace all of its tactics. No movement is perfect just like no person is perfect.
JCRC: Do you support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement?
No.
So what’s going on here? Either Niou has conflated the right to boycott and support for BDS or this strategy is purposeful. If it is purposeful, then what does her campaign see as the advantage and what is the endgame? Does she believe she’ll get support from pro-Palestine voters, but not alienate pro-Israel voters or pro-Israel groups in the process? Is she simply waiting to get elected before coming out in support of BDS or denouncing the movement?
If it’s a political strategy it doesn’t entirely add up. Niou’s wavering certainly hasn’t stopped pro-Israel groups from criticizing her. It hasn’t even stopped fellow Democrats from attacking her. Bill de Blasio called her out before dropping out of the race and State Democratic Party Chairman Jay Jacobs condemned her comments. “She should pull out her history book. Her position shows a lack of understanding of the region,” he said.
But Niou’s confusing stance has not generated support from Palestine groups either. So, where’s the advantage? Anecdotally it seems like her position alienated some voters, but failed to gain any. One wonders what would have happened if Niou had simply come out and declared herself an unashamed supporter of the movement. Imagine if, when confronted with something like the JCRC questionnaire, Niou said, “Israel is an apartheid state that subjects the Palestinian people to perpetual human rights violations and daily humiliations. It kills with impunity and this violence is financed by the United States government. I believe there’s a lot of important things we could spend $3.8 billion on, right here in the United States. These are the reasons I support an international nonviolent movement committed to ending Israeli oppression.”
Keep in mind that most Democratic voters support the goals of the movement after learning about it, but most still don’t know what BDS is.
If the Andy Levin/Haley Stevens race in Michigan showed taught us anything, it’s that groups like AIPAC will attack anyone who deviates from their line. It doesn’t matter if you’re a pro-Israel candidate who never cosponsors pro-Palestine legislation, like Levin was. His attempts to thread some sort of needle on the issue seemingly proved futile. We have yet to see a candidate enthusiastically back BDS and win. You might recall that Cori Bush had some nice words about the movement on her campaign website, but they were quietly removed in response to attacks. Imagine the blow to the pro-Israel lobbying groups when this finally happens. It won’t be Niou, but it feels inevitable.
Having said all that, it’s entirely possible that Niou’s team looked at the Levin race and walked away with an entirely different conclusion. Maybe they saw AIPAC drop millions on a Democratic primary and feared their candidate could be the next victim. Personally, it would be hard for me to see that happening in this race. As pollster Peter Feld pointed out on a recent episode of our podcast, Levin was probably going to lose his primary with or without the intervention of AIPAC. The group purposely zeroes in on vulnerable candidates to project the image of a behemoth that can’t be crossed. I don’t see AIPAC hedging their bets on a wacky twelve-person primary in New York, but that doesn’t mean the specter of the Israel lobby isn’t impacting the decisions of candidates.
One more note on the 10th district race. Former House member Elizabeth Holtzman is one of the candidates. She was recently interviewed by Hamodia, which led to this exchange:
Hamodia: Would you visit Israel on an AIPAC trip?
Holtzman: I’ve visited Israel plenty of times. No one has to take me to Israel.
Hamodia: Would you go on an AIPAC trip?
Holtzman: I don’t need to go on a sponsored trip. No one has to take me on a trip to Israel.
Hamodia: Are you saying that as a Member of Congress, you’re not going to go on any sponsored trips to Israel?
Holtzman: I didn’t say that. I said I don’t need to go on a sponsored trip. I have been there many times. And if I need to go to Israel, I can figure out how to get there.
Hamodia: Would you go on a trip sponsored by any group at all?
Holtzman: Not necessarily. I don’t know why I would need to go on a trip that’s sponsored by somebody. I actually know some of the members of the government. I’ve been to Israel many times. I don’t need someone to take me by the hand and lead me around.
J Street and AIPAC
In recent newsletters I’ve written about liberal criticisms of AIPAC that conveniently omit any discussion about the group’s actual goals. Many of these critiques center around the pro-Israel organization endorsing a number of election-denying Republican candidates.
In a rare interview with the Washington Post last week AIPAC’s CEO Howard Kohr was asked about the group’s support for these Republicans directly. “We’re about addition,” responded Kohr. “We’re not trying to constrict the community. We’re trying to enlarge the community that’s both on the left and on the right.”
Kohr was then asked if there was anything a pro-Israel candidate could do that would rule them out for AIPAC support. Here’s what he said: “I’d have to think about that. Again, because we’re a single issue organization and we’re bipartisan, that’s the reason that the majority of Republicans and the majority of Democrats have been recipients of our PAC support. The good news about American politics is that there are many organizations that deal with a whole range of issues that are in the American political system.”
In other words, no.
Kohr’s comments caught the attention of J Street, the liberal pro-Israel group that’s squared off against AIPAC in a number of Democratic primaries this year. Of course J Street doesn’t have the resources to really compete here. They spent something like $700,000 backing Andy Levin in Michigan and AIPAC spent something like $5 million on Haley Stevens, who won the race. At any rate, the two groups often back opposing candidates and they criticize each other on social media so J Street naturally gets grouped in with other Israel critics. For instance, a couple weeks ago Pennsylvania GOP Senate candidate Dr. Oz shared a Mondoweiss piece about the (uncharacteristic) lack of social media support that Israel had gotten from Democrats in response to its attack on Gaza. A picture of Oz’s opponent, John Fetterman, was used for the piece. “It’s no surprise that a radical left anti-Israel website is praising John Fetterman for not standing up for Israel,” wrote Oz. “This comes after far-left J Street endorses him. John Fetterman is no friend of Israel. I will stand up and fight for Israel.”
One can probably assume that J Street sees the association as something of a smear and why wouldn’t they? “We believe in the Zionist ideal on which Israel was founded—that of a Jewish homeland where Jews can always go to be secure,” explains its website. “We hope that Israel will live up to and represent the core Jewish values of justice, equality and democracy.” We like to consistently point out that AIPAC purposely neglects to mention Israel in its ads because the country no longer polls well with Democratic voters, but it’s worth remembering that J Street doesn’t mention it’s a pro-Israel organizations in theirs either.
Anyway, J Street’s comments on the Kohr interview are worth taking a look at. “It’s staggering that AIPAC needs to be prompted to think about the impact of their actions and the risks of supporting anti-democratic candidates,” said the organization’s Senior Vice President of Policy and Strategy Dylan Williams. “They clearly need to think harder about their values, the direction they’ve chosen and setting some moral red lines. They need to listen to the clear majority in the pro-Israel community who know there can be no excuse or justification for giving financial support to the most dangerous pro-conspiracy theory, anti-democratic Trump Republicans.”
The stuff about AIPAC (a group that was literally created to run PR for Israeli atrocities) thinking hard about values and setting moral red lines is objectively funny, but look who they’re supposed to listen to here. “The clear majority in the pro-Israel community” who know that January 6th Republicans are awful. What makes Williams think this is a majority, much less a clear majority? A great number of pro-Israel Americans are obviously Republicans. Does anyone think the people attending Christians United for Israel conferences disagree with Trump’s conspiracies about the election?
Williams continues: “AIPAC’s aggressive support for dangerous politicians and massive spending from far-right donors is harmful to American foreign policy, harmful to our democracy and, ultimately, harmful to bipartisan support for the US-Israel relationship. Rather than building sustainable, bipartisan support, AIPAC is turning Israel into a hyper-politicized wedge issue and using its Super PAC to defeat pro-Israel, pro-peace leaders who actually represent the balanced, nuanced views of the majority of Jewish Americans. Our shared democratic values are the foundation of the US-Israel relationship. Undermining those values on either end of that relationship undermines its future.”
So, there it is. J Street’s real beef with AIPAC doesn’t involve Palestinian human rights, apartheid, or Gaza being bombed. In fact, the group put out a statement in support of Israel’s most recent attacks, which killed a number of civilians. They’re concerned about the deterioration of the United States/Israel relationship and AIPAC is bad for the brand.
Actual opponents of that relationship presumably have no problem with it becoming a “hyper-politicized wedge issue.” Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians should constitute a divisive line and should obviously be politicized.
Odds & Ends
?? Law student Suad Abdel Aziz is in Truthout writing about Israel’s war on Palestinian civil society organizations.
? Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) tried to make nice with AIPAC after gently criticizing them for supporting election-denying Republicans earlier this year. She lost big to a Trump challenger on Tuesday. “I will never waver in my support for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship and Israel’s right to defend herself,” she declared. This last-minute move might be connected to an eventual presidential run.
?? The United Nations says that 95% of Afghans are going hungry and the country’s food crisis is being worsened by Biden. After al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri was killed in Kabul, the administration announced that it had suspended talks with the Taliban and that it wouldn’t release the frozen $7 billion of Afghanistan’s central bank assets. Just Foreign Policy on Twitter: “This decision will destroy Afghanistan’s fragile economy and likely cause more deaths than the Taliban ever have — disproportionately harming women and girls. Needless to say, it’s abhorrent to cause more deaths than the Taliban.”
? The Jerusalem Post obtained a three-page letter that former president Donald Trump sent to former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu back in January 2020. In the letter Trump authorizes Israel to annex parts of the West Bank. The document contradicts a narrative put forward by Trump’s son-in-law and former senior adviser Jared Kushner. In Kushner’s book on his White House years he claims that former ambassador to Israel David Friedman went behind the administration’s back in telling Netanyahu that the U.S. supported annexation.
? Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) had a tweet where she criticized the recent attacks on Gaza. This upset the St. Louis chapter of Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC), who put out a statement declaring that Bush should have consulted with pro-Israel group and verified her statements before posting. The organization also called on its followers to contact the congresswoman over the issue. Bush’s tweet was, “My heart breaks for the dozens of Palestinians, including children, killed by Israel in Gaza. Palestinians too deserve to live free from siege and bombardment. There must be accountability. Israel must end the blockade. And Congress must stop funding Israeli apartheid.”
When the JCRC says her statements should have been verified, they are presumably referring to the fact she said Israel was responsible for the deaths of Palestinians. Israel initially blamed Islamic Jihad for the death of 5 children, but they’ve since admitted that they actually killed them. “This is standard practice,” tweeted JVP Action’s Beth Miller. “The Israeli military kills Palestinians, adamantly denies responsibility through PR campaigns, waits until undeniable evidence has come out and international attention has shifted, admits culpability, is never held accountable.” This new information hasn’t promoted JCRC St. Louis to take down its statement of course.
?? Retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson on what Israel’s goals are in Gaza and the West Bank:
I had a student at George Washington University who was in the IDF. He participated in Operation Cast Lead, you may remember, one of the first [attacks on Gaza, 2008-2009]. At a briefing of his battalion he was told that the object of that operation was to kill every Palestinian in sight, it didn’t matter who they were or what they were. They needed to teach the Palestinians in Gaza a lesson.
That was the standard operating procedure– that’s what they’ve been doing ever since. Every time you shoot a rocket at us, we will kill 1300 of you, men, women and children it doesn’t matter. And you will kill two or three of us. OK? We will live with those odds.
And we will eventually eradicate you. I’m convinced that’s their ultimate goal, eradication and/or apartheid. Now they’re very, very close to apartheid in the entire region. They’re already at apartheid in the West Bank. To a certain extent in Jerusalem.
In Gaza it’s a special kind of apartheid. You own it all, we will just keep you there, and we won’t let you do anything and we will come in periodically and kill you. Especially if you let the more active agents in Hamas do something to us, or the Islamic Jihad or whatever.
That’s Israeli’s policy, and eradication is not too strong word.
? New Mexico has become the sixth state to legally adopt IHRA working definition of antisemitism.
Stay safe out there,
Michael
