Primaries
Former federal prosecutor and Levi Strauss heir Dan Goldman is declaring victory in the Democratic primary for New York’s 10th district. With 95% of the total counted he has a lead of just 1,300 votes over second-place Yuh-Line Niou, the Working Families Party-endorsed candidate.
In the last newsletter we broke down Niou’s position on BDS. Basically, she said she supported it but framed it on First Amendment grounds, as opposed to actually citing the goals of the movement. In the face of growing attacks from pro-Israel groups and lawmakers she eventually conceded that she didn’t back the movement, but continued to highlight its historic significance and condemned any attempt to criminalize it.
A (sarcastically named?) PAC called New York Progressive spent almost $400,000 on ads and flyers attacking Niou. One flyer declares that the Manhattan assembly member supports “the antisemitic BDS agenda.” New York Progressive is not legally required to divulge their funders yet, but documents filed with the Federal Election Commission show that Jeffrey Leb is the group’s treasurer. Leb is a managing partner at Capitol Consulting and former lobbyist for the pro-Israel group United Jewish Appeal. He’s also listed as treasurer for two other corporate PACs boosting centrist candidates this election cycle, Common Sense New Yorkers and Voters of New York. According to a June New York Focus report those groups raised $1.3 million over a five month period.
On Twitter 10th district constituent Maya Contreras documented what happened when she called the number on the anti-Niou flyer and Leb answered. “I said, ‘This PAC was just formed. Is it on behalf of Dan Goldman?’ He paused, and hung up.”
We might not have all of this PAC’s financial statements yet, but we do have some insight into who helped fund it. Shortly after Goldman declared victory, the United Democracy Project (one of two AIPAC Super PACs that have been heavily involved in the Democratic primaries) put out a statement revealing their role in the race. “We’re proud to have played a role in defeating Yuh-Line Niou—an anti-Israel candidate who endorses the BDS campaign against Israel—through our significant support of a local New York SuperPac,” tweeted UDP.
I’m a broken record on the subject of AIPAC not mentioning Israel in its ads because I think it says something notable about Israel’s declining reputation among Democratic voters. Here’s an instance where AIPAC didn’t even want UDP’s fingerprints on the race. The Forward’s Jacob Kornbluh asked UDP spokesman Patrick Dorton why the group didn’t run its own ads in the district and funneled money to a local PAC instead. “We decided it was more effective to contribute to a local Super PAC run by political operatives with strong knowledge of the district,” claimed Dorton.
Dorton probably isn’t lying, but why did they decide this route was more effective? AIPAC’s brand has taken massive hits in recent years and there’s been a lot of reporting about how they’ve intervened in this year’s primaries through UDP. It makes sense that they’d want to keep as low a profile as possible.
Foundation for Middle East Peace’s Lara Friedman had a good thread on the subject:
So what is going on here? In races AIPAC/UDP previously targeted, it largely hid its pro-Israel agenda, pouring money into attack ads that didn’t even mention Israel. In NY-10, it hid its role altogether. These tactics, together, underscore the fact that it is absurd for AIPAC (or anyone) to suggest that the results of these races reflect anything about voters’ views on Israel.
Remember: AIPAC called its PAC “United Democracy Project” (no mention of Israel). It hid its pro-Israel agenda in previous races. And in NY-10 it hid its involvement altogether. Very hard to avoid the conclusion that AIPAC – from the start – recognized that making Democratic primaries referendums on hard-line pro-Israel policies would not deliver the results it wants. Moreover, AIPAC’s decision to hide its involvement in NY-10, on the heels of its decision to NOT get involved in MN-5 (Ilhan Omar’s race) suggests that AIPAC recognizes its engagement in primaries may have become actively counterproductive…Especially when AIPAC wants to support a white/male/establishment candidate over a female/POC candidate who enjoys local popularity/credibility.
In Florida’s 10th district 25-year-old (Bernie Sanders-backed) community organizer Maxwell Frost won the Democratic primary, setting himself up to become the first member of Generation Z to join Congress. Back in March Frost held a Zoom meeting with the Florida Palestine Network (FPN) and told the group that he supported the BDS movement and was committed to ending military aid to Israel. He also said he wouldn’t submit a position paper without first consulting with FPN.
Fast-forward to August. Not only is Frost submitting a position paper to Jewish Insider, he’s completely reversing his position on the previously mentioned issues. Frost told the website that he’s “pro-Israel” and “pro-Palestinian” as if that is supposed to mean something. BDS? Suddenly it was “extremely problematic” and “counterproductive” to peace in the region. Military aid to an apartheid state? Israel is “under
great threat and it is important that we help to make sure they maintain a qualitative military edge, so that they can properly defend themselves.”
Not only did Frost go back on these positions, he had also been using FPN events as a platform to boost his popularity. At an FPN-organized protest in 2021 he told the crowd that, “We have to demand — not ask — we have to demand that our leaders see the world through the eyes of the most vulnerable.”
FPN says they were shocked over Frost’s move and they’re demanding an apology. “Palestinians will not be a bargaining chip, nor are they disposable,” they said in a statement. “To use FPN’s organizing success as a stepping stool and become anti-Palestinian is disturbing and unacceptable. This is not who we want representing us in the halls of congress.”
“Time and time again we see ‘progressive’ leaders, like Maxwell Frost capitalizing on Palestine solidarity networks for their election campaigns only to throw Palestine under the bus later on when the AIPAC pressure ramps up,” tweeted Al-Shabaka’s Dr. Yara Hawari.
The Intercept’s Ryan Grim predicts more Frosts: “Now that AIPAC and DMFI have shown they’ll spend millions in a single House race, this type of thing more likely to happen…”
The State Department and the Six
Last week Israeli forces stormed the offices of seven Palestine civil society organizations in a series of overnight raids. Property was damaged, items were confiscated, and the doors were welded shut. The Israeli government designated six of those groups as terrorists last October, a move that’s received international condemnation because the country has produced no evidence to back it up. Investigations into Israel’s alleged findings have proven that the allegations are without merit.
Israel shared its “evidence” with the White House nine months ago and the Biden administration has had to pretend it’s spent all this time looking at the documents closely, but it’s pretty clear that no one actually believes the Israeli government here. A classified CIA report shows that the intelligence organization can’t back up any of Israel’s claims. The Guardian reports that not even the rabidly pro-Israel Ted Deutch can vouch for this one:
Last year, an Israeli delegation provided a similar dossier and briefing to members of Congress…But at the briefing, there was dismay at the quality of the dossier’s evidence, said a congressional source. Among skeptics was the Florida Democratic congressman Ted Deutch, who has described himself as “a passionate supporter of Israel”.
After receiving the dossier, said the source, Deutch told the Israeli delegation its evidence was insufficient. Deutch’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
This week State Department spokesman Ned Price expressed “concern” over the raids, but obviously would not condemn them. He told reporters that the administration was waiting to receive information about the situation from Israel before proceeding.
What about the information from last October though? Price insisted that they were still looking at that, and the briefing began going in circles. Here’s one exchange between Price and the AP’s Matt Lee:
QUESTION: Okay. So, does that mean that based on what you know now pending the arrival of this new information that the Israelis say that they’re going to give you, you do not see any basis for the raids and the closures that took place today?
MR PRICE: Again, we have been promised additional information regarding —
QUESTION: But I’m not asking about what you might learn in the future because that’s a hypothetical. I’m asking you about what you know now, and based on what you know now, were these – was this action legitimate?
MR PRICE: We have conveyed the message that there must be a very high bar to take action against civil society organizations. Our Israeli partners in turn have conveyed back to us that they have met that high bar.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR PRICE: That is why we are going to carefully review the information that they have pledged to provide. We will form a conclusion, on the basis of that information. We don’t have that information yet. In the interim – in the interim – to your question – that is why we voiced our concern. We have voiced our concern publicly. We have also voiced our concern directly and privately to our Israeli partners.
QUESTION: Okay. But you got information about these groups from the Israelis a year ago, and you still haven’t made a conclusion. So, I’m sorry, it’s just a little hard to believe —
MR PRICE: Well —
QUESTION: — that all of a sudden new information is going to arrive, and you’re going to make it – when you haven’t made one in a year on the previous information, that you’re going to be able to say something – or will say something anytime soon about this.
Lee went on to observe that the situation seemed to be “in a perpetual state of limbo” and eventually Price admitted that the administration’s view of these human rights organizations wasn’t altered by what Israel provided to them. In other words, the U.S. government doesn’t actually believe these groups are connected to terrorists, but they can’t say that Israel is lying or that their findings are rubbish. They also can’t come out and proclaim the innocence of these groups directly.
Here’s another exchange between Price and (an an exasperated) Lee. You’ll notice how Price is struggling to dance around the issue without stating the obvious:
MR PRICE: Matt, I’ve said this now a couple times. We haven’t changed our position on those organizations.
QUESTION: But that’s – but what was your conclusion about the information that they – did you – do you agree with them that these groups are terrorist organizations or connected to terrorist organizations?
MR PRICE: What happened last year is the Israeli Government designated these organizations.
QUESTION: I know; I remember it very well.
MR PRICE: We have not – we have not followed through with any designations, nor have we changed our approach to these designations.
QUESTION: Okay, so that – okay, so then why can’t you just come out and say that you don’t accept the Israeli allegations —
MR PRICE: We are going to continue to review any information that’s provided to us.
QUESTION: Well, have you gotten anything since – since October of last year and today?
MR PRICE: We’ve been promised information today.
QUESTION: Yes, but have you gotten anything since October and today that would make you – apparently not.
MR PRICE: As I just said, we have not changed our position on these organizations.
QUESTION: Okay. So, you don’t believe the Israelis’ information?
MR PRICE: This is information – intelligence information is always information that is the subject of analysis, and different parties can read information differently, can perceive of threats differently. Our own analysis heretofore of the information that was provided last year has not caused us to change our approach to these organizations.
The Biden administration’s handling of this situation is not dissimilar from the way it’s had to approach the killing of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. The State Department can express concern about her death, talk about the importance of journalism, and vaguely speak of accountability but they can’t actually condemn the IDF for murdering someone, launch their own investigation, support a third-party investigation, or suggest that Israel is incapable of investigating itself.
These are good case studies when taking a close look at how the “special relationship” functions. The United States allows Israel to function like a rogue state in a variety of ways. In this case its purposeful stagnation has allowed Israel to avoid accountability and emboldened them to heighten their attacks on the courageous people who document their human rights abuses.
Odds & Ends
? A number of Democratic lawmakers have condemned Israel’s recent raids on the Palestinian human rights organizations and called on the Biden administration to take action. “I condemn the Israeli military’s most recent attacks on Palestinian human rights and civil society orgs,” reads one tweet from Rep. Chuy Garcia (D-IL). “Silencing human rights defenders is an attempt to avoid accountability, and the U.S. should immediately condemn these violent efforts to undermine their work. #StandWithThe6”
?? Haaretz has a good article on U.S. evangelicals trying to steal more land in the West Bank: “The Hayovel nonprofit is hoping to plant 3,000 trees in the West Bank by the end of the year, and is already nearly halfway to achieving its initial goal. Yet the land being forested appears to belong mainly to Palestinian farmers.”
? Massarah Mikati has a great piece at the Philadelphia Inquirer on Natalie Abulhawa, a 25-year old who was fired from her job as an athletic trainer in 2021 over tweets she made about Israel years ago. Abulhawa says she’s been unable to find work since.
? Ben & Jerry’s failed to get a preliminary injunction in its attempt to stop its ice cream from being sold in the occupied West Bank.
? You can read more about the Maxwell Frost situation from Mitchell Plitnick at the website.
?? Ali Abunimah was on the BreakThrough News show Dispatches talking Palestine and anti-imperialist resistance.
?️ Staunch pro-Israel Democrat Max Rose easily prevailed in New York’s 11th district.
? From Jewish Insider: Arizona’s state treasurer has notified Morningstar last week the investment firm’s ESG rating system violates the state’s anti-BDS law.
? New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft donated $1 million to AIPAC’s United Democracy Project last month.
Stay safe out there,
Michael
