Are Establishment Democrats Really Taking A 'Tough Love' Stance With Israel?
Netanyahu and the 'one bad man' theory
It’s not a surprise that staunchly pro-Israel groups have backed Rep. Haley Stevens in Michigan’s Democratic primary. It also wasn’t a surprise that Stevens is now publicly attacking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. During a CNN interview, Netanyahu criticized Stevens by name and claimed she was “trying to probably excuse antisemitism” when she pointed out that his shoddy leadership had made Jews collectively less safe, and later that day Stevens held firm on her position.
“It is very clear that Mr. Netanyahu has not made us safer, has not brought us closer to peace. And he’s endangered Jews here in America and around the world. This is why he was just trashing me today on CNN,” Stevens said during last Tuesday’s Democratic primary debate. “I am not afraid of bullies. I am not afraid to stand up. And I continue to stand up for humanitarian aid, for the U.S. to work with the countries in the region and get aid into Gaza.”
Netanyahu, as well as Jonathan Greenblatt at the MAGA-excusing Anti-Defamation League, have consistently conflated any criticism of the Israeli government with violent antisemitism, but it’s still not a surprise that a pro-Israel candidate Stevens is suddenly “daring” to take on Netanyahu. Her words were hardly unique.
Rahm Emanuel, the former Chicago mayor and Barack Obama’s first Leo McGarry, gave a speech at Tel Aviv University, which is in Israel, where he warned that unconditional aid to Israel needs to end and that Israel must abandon its dreams of seizing the entire West Bank and, while we’re at it, give serious consideration to Palestinian sovereignty. What is he, AOC now?
The New York Times helpfully described Emanuel’s remarks as a “stern tough-love message,” rather than further evidence of rising antisemitism within the Democratic Party, which is probably how it would’ve been reported if someone without Emanuel’s pro-Israel, centrist credentials had said anything similar. Perhaps it’s another variation of “only Nixon could go to China.”
Hillary Clinton echoed the Times’ framing in a social media post last Wednesday, “Rahm Emanuel’s candid, tough-love speech in Tel Aviv deserves attention from anyone who cares about the future of both Israelis and Palestinians.”
Wow, it’s both “Israelis and Palestinians” now. It’s as if even non-progressive Democrats can no longer ignore the brutal polling on this issue. For instance, 60 percent of U.S. adults have an unfavorable view of Israel, an increase from last year’s 53 percent, and 59 percent have little or no confidence in Netanyahu to “do the right thing regarding world affairs,” which also increased from last year’s 52 percent.
It’s even worse within the Democratic primary electorate: Eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents currently have an unfavorable view of Israel. Although majorities of adults under the age of 50 in both parties now rate Israel and Netanyahu negatively, Democrats still rely the most on young voters and will need to turn them out in significant numbers in the upcoming midterms.
I don’t mind that establishment Democrats’ abrupt change is likely poll-driven, but I will probably forever hold a grudge against those who accused me of antisemitism or of not suitably caring about Jews because I defended Palestinians or dared question Israel’s actions after 10/7. (I lived through 9/11 so I know from experience how bad things can go when a terrorist attack has its own shorthand date that will live in infamy.)
That said, I’m always more interested in a productive way forward than harboring personal grudges, but I’m concerned that establishment Democrats are more interested in a politically convenient kayfabe act with Netanyahu as the star “heel” than a true change in policy. Will Democrats like Stevens and Emanuel actually hold back aid to Israel if the government doesn’t cut back on human rights offenses? That’s actual “tough love.” If establishment Democrats just express their disappointment with Netanyahu but continue fully supporting his government, then that’s more “spoiled rich kid love.”
Even before Israel’s approval plummeted in the polls, Democrats have tried singling out Netanyahu as the sole problem. Staunchly pro-Israel Democrats such as Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have openly criticized Netanyahu and his government. This is not out of the ordinary — our European allies might criticize Trump while making clear they still fully support a continued positive relationship with the United States. Of course, the big difference there is that Trump and his odious policies don’t enjoy popular support. American voters might have foolishly elected Trump twice, but we soon regretted ever putting on our electoral beer goggles. Our allies might rightly feel frustrated over American voters’ shortsightedness but they can also witness the ongoing public protests against the Trump regime. There is a significant anti-Trump coalition within the U.S.
Canada can reasonably embrace something close to a “One Bad Man Theory” about the U.S. Yes, MAGA is currently dominant, but the anti-MAGA opposition could prevail in the next election, if they can only stop nominating rapists. Canadians can reasonably presume that if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2028, all that crazy “51st state” nonsense will stop.
So, the Netanyahu Heel narrative raises the question of just who is the viable anti-Netanyahu politician with non-extremist positions? Yair Golan is the leader of the Israeli Democrats, and he opposes West Bank annexation and supports a two-state solution.
However, it’s not clear that Golan represents a sizable anti-Netanyahu coalition. According to a recent Gallup poll, just 27 percent of Israelis support a two-state solution with a 63 percent opposed. It’s a shocking shift from 2012, when 61 percent of Israelis backed a two-state solution. Although Netanyahu isn’t exactly popular in Israel, it’s not clear that any replacement would embrace a drastic change in policy or even have public support to do so.
Yashar leader Gadi Eisenkot, a former IDF chief, is rising in polling to possibly replace Netanyahu and his positions are better because it’s hard to be worse. I would love to see Israeli leadership forge a different path, one not tied to Trump’s gross hip and not openly antagonistic to the Democratic Party in the U.S.
However, the evolving rhetoric from establishment Democrats can’t help but remind me of the 2004 Democratic primary elections when Iraq War-voting Democrats tried to split the difference: They maintained their support for the invasion but tried blaming President George W. Bush entirely for botching the war. That was their version of the “One Bad Man Theory” and it didn’t prove compelling. John Kerry attempted this convoluted song-and-dance but still lost to Bush. Four years later, Barack Obama would win the Democratic primary after clearly opposing the war, without any hedging. I think we are moving in a similar direction on the U.S. relationship with Israel, and it’s a matter of whether establishment Democrats can effectively play catch up.
I haven't seen the Vichy Dems do anything, really.
Starting a war usually increases support for the government, as a stand in for the country. Bush got that after 9/11, Netanyahu after 10/7. It's interesting that Trump, with his touch of merde, has only worsened Americans’ opinion of his maladministration with his not-a-war war with Iran. Since the war is unpopular and our co-combatant is Israel, it’s not a difficult political decision for Democrats to speak out against the Israeli government.