Newsom
© WikimediaUS presidential hopeful: California Governor Gavin Newsom
In recent weeks, we have referenced Gavin Newsom, the California Governor and presidential hopeful, who had seemingly modified his public position on Israel amid the war on Iran.

During an interview, Newsom said Israel was an apartheid state and floated the idea of conditioning military aid to the country. However, in a new interview with Politico, Newsom said he regrets using the word "apartheid" and insists he was only referring to a possible future where Israel emerges as an apartheid state.

Newsom told the website that he was simply referring to a New York Times Op-Ed by Thomas Friedman, a columnist for the paper, where he said that Benjamin Netanyahu's success in possible upcoming Israeli elections would "be a major propellant to his efforts to annex the West Bank, cripple the Israeli Supreme Court and make Israel an apartheid state."

Newsom's latest about-face comes amid even more polling showing that support for Israel has all but entirely cratered among Americans.

An NBC News poll shows that just 32% of registered voters view Israel in a positive way. 13% of Democrats view the country positively, and nearly 60% of them view it negatively. A recent Gallup poll also showed that, for the first time in 25 years, a majority of Americans sympathize with Palestinians more than Israelis.

The reality is that a politician like Newsom finds himself between a rock and hard place when it comes to Israel. It's obvious that he will readily shift his position on any given issue if it results in him becoming President, but what's the appropriate move for such an opportunist?

On one hand, he certainly doesn't want to lose support from Democratic, pro-Israel mega-donors like Haim Saban and he runs the risk of attacks from advocacy groups if he criticizes the country too much. This goes beyond groups like AIPAC, as we have already seen his previous comments criticized by groups like the ADL.

However, the polling is the polling. It's not just the Democratic base that's flipped on this issue, it's swing voters and independents too. Precisely the kind of people that Newsom would want appeal to via a presidential campaign.

Additionally, a public debate has broken out about AIPAC's role in the U.S. electoral system, what it means, and how such groups present a potential liability for Democrats running for office.

Finally, we have the example of Kamala Harris. It's probably not accurate to say that the Gaza genocide was the only reason she lost the election to Donald Trump, but no one can deny that her inability to separate herself from Biden on the issue factored into the loss.


Comment: Kamala was not leadership quality period. Her viewpoints did not matter, nor was she a standout VP while in office.


The reality is that the Democrats limped into the race, having completely alienated and discarded the left-flank of their base. You'd think Newsom would be aware of this.

Having said all that, it seems that Newsom is picking his lane. He didn't just say that Israel isn't an apartheid state.

He also said this: "I revere the state of Israel. I'm proud to support the state of Israel."

A truly incredible and tone deaf declaration amid the time of genocide.

Iran War Powers resolution shot down again

This week, Senate Democrats made another attempt to reel in Trump's war.

The War Powers resolution, which was introduced by Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) was intended to stop Trump from using further force in Iran without congressional approval.

The effort came just days after a previous push, and resulted in an identical vote: 53-47.

It's the third Iran resolution to be rejected by the upper chamber.

Once again Rand Paul (R-KY) was only Republican to break with his party, while the rabidly pro-Israel John Fetterman (D-PA) dutifully joined the GOP's vote.

Paul after the first vote said:
"Only Congress can declare war,. That's not my opinion. That's Article 1 of the Constitution. We forced the vote. The Senate said 'no.' History will not be kind to a Congress that gave away its most solemn responsibility."
Senator Murphy told reporters before the most recent vote:
"It's our only opportunity to debate the war, which is tragic. And we need to continue to put Republicans on record. This war is not getting more popular as time goes on."
He's certainly right about that. However, as he alludes to, the vast majority of GOP lawmakers remain in lockstep with the Trump administration on the issue.

Stephen Starr has an interesting piece in The Guardian wondering whether the war on Iran will raise problems for Republicans in Midwest swing states.

Barbara VanSyckel, vice-chair of the Republican party in Michigan's Macomb county told Starr:
"I am hoping to see the gas prices go back to a lower level as yes, the electorate votes by what is affecting them at the time they cast their ballots. The November elections are still months away, but if the gas prices stay high, it will likely affect voting for Republicans, which would affect the midterms and thus Trump's agenda."
Former Trump official and right-wing pundit Steve Bannon recently warned his listeners: "We are going to bleed support."