adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

The Future of Pro-Israel Politics is at Stake in Gaza

Published

 on

In November of 2022, the pollster Mark Mellman gathered a group of pro-Israel Democrats to pick over the results of the recent Israeli election. The voters had put Benjamin Netanyahu back into power in a coalition with extremist leaders, including one convicted of supporting a terror group and another who has railed against LGBTQ people and called for ethnic segregation in maternity wards.

For moderate and liberal supporters of Israel, it was a bleak moment.

Mellman, a veteran Democratic strategist who has worked extensively in Israeli politics, did not sugarcoat the results. The advocacy group he leads, Democratic Majority for Israel, had denounced the Israeli far right during the election as unfit to govern. Still, Mellman stressed to the collection of allies and donors that they should be wary of an open breach: American disagreements with Israeli leaders, he said, were better handled behind closed doors so that they could not be exploited by provocateurs in both countries.

It was not a reassuring message. For many American friends of Israel, an agonizing political balancing act was ahead.

Eleven months later, the political situation appears both clearer and far more anguished.

The barbaric attack on Israel by Hamas militants last weekend summoned an outpouring of sympathy for Israel from across the American political spectrum. Democratic angst about the Netanyahu government seemed to disappear — and, suddenly, the composition of Israel’s leadership changed as the opposition politician Benny Gantz joined Netanyahu in an emergency war government.

What is not clear is how long this spirit of pulling together might last in America’s varied and strained pro-Israel community. Within days or even hours, the impulse to lock arms with Israel could be challenged by the country’s promise of unforgiving retaliation against Hamas and the consequences of a military campaign for Palestinian civilians in Gaza and elsewhere. Already, progressive lawmakers have begun urging the Biden administration to do more to restrain Israel’s military response.

When I spoke with Mellman on Friday, he said this moment had brought a kind of awful moral definition to the politics of the Democratic Party, likening it to previous invasions of Israel that shifted American public opinion.

“The savagery of Hamas has moved the center of gravity in a pro-Israel direction,” Mellman said. “This is a redefining moment in the same way that ’67 and ’73 were redefining moments.”

It is a core trait of American progressives to identify with communities they perceive as vulnerable and disempowered and often to interpret foreign conflicts in those terms. Mellman suggested that the attack could resonate with particular effect among liberal Americans who tend to see the world in terms of “victims and oppressors.”

“The reality is, people are seeing thousands of Israeli families as victims today, and that’s a very different picture than some of those folks had just last week,” Mellman said, adding: “That’s going to be tested, obviously, as Israelis move from being victims to trying to end Hamas’ rule in Gaza.”

Even in this moment of relative unity, Israel faces two profound political challenges in the United States.

The first and better understood one is the growing suspicion of the country among younger and more liberal Americans. They are likelier than their parents and grandparents to see the Palestinian cause as just and morally urgent. Few of them remember a time when there was an active and promising peace process, or when Netanyahu’s name was not virtually synonymous with the Israeli state. These generational trends are not on Israel’s side.

The second, perhaps more dangerous, problem for Israel is American voters’ default indifference to the rest of the world.

The biggest American threat to Israel may not be that the pro-Palestinian left wins a grand policy debate that shifts regional politics on its axis, but rather that most Americans forget that they are even supposed to care about that debate. We are already well past the post-9/11 phase of U.S. politics in which most of the country saw the Israeli fight for long-term security and the American struggle with Islamic terrorism as synonymous. Is it possible that within a decade or two, most Americans might react to a brutal attack on Israel with the same shoulder shrug they gave to Azerbaijan’s recent blitzkrieg against Armenia?

The polling this week is instructive. A YouGov/Economist survey found a jump in support for Israel following the Hamas rampage. The share of Americans saying they sympathized more with Israelis than with Palestinians rose by 11 points — from 31 percent in March to 42 percent now. That is a pronounced change, but still something short of overwhelming concern.

Just as suggestive is the reaction to the attack within the GOP — ostensibly the party that feels less ambivalence about Israel.

Amid an outpouring of support for Israel across party lines in Washington, Donald Trump at first largely ignored the attack and then trashed Netanyahu in personal terms at an event in South Florida. Several of Trump’s opponents, including Ron DeSantis and Mike Pence, rebuked him. But he does not seem likely to pay a political price for his comments; many conservative voters may feel kinship with Israel but not to the point of letting it affect their more passionate love for Trump.

For anyone who thinks it is outlandish to suggest conservatives might stop caring about Israel altogether, consider how recently it was unthinkable to imagine Republicans might lose interest in securing Eastern Europe from Russian aggression.

What American supporters of Israel need is a new political story — one that is neither anchored in nostalgia for a 20th century version of the country nor one that draws on a Bush-era spirit of unity and crusade. Those are the political currents that have drawn Netanyahu and Biden together, again and again, despite their differences. For many voters they are losing force, similar to what has happened with Cold War-style rhetoric about restraining Russia.

Too many American politicians have tried for too long to talk around the most vexing elements of Israel’s identity: the rifts in culture, religion and politics that have destabilized the country; the power of radical right-wing factions and settler movements; the refusal to address the suffering of ordinary Palestinians in a responsible way. American leaders have assumed (perhaps rightly) that voters can’t be counted on to process the nuances of the world.

That is not a sustainable arrangement. Appeals that are anchored in evasion and elision cannot hold up over time. Supporters of Israel need to figure out how to acknowledge to American voters what Israel is — a vibrant, resilient, alarmingly polarized society that shares many American values but not all of America’s interests — and persuade them to regard it as an especially important country all the same.

The long-term viability of that political project may depend on what happens on the ground in Israel in the next few weeks.

I asked Mellman on Friday if he worried that Americans could lose interest in Israel over time — that voters here could come to see violence there with the same shallow and short-lived empathy that they feel for victims of natural disasters in far-off places. He did not sound as concerned as I am about that precise scenario.

“This is a situation that doesn’t disappear,” he countered. “For better or worse, the Middle East will be with us on a continuing basis.”

Mellman acknowledged more uncertainty about whether the present mood of solidarity would hold — and whether American liberals would continue to embrace Israel as so many of them have done for the last week.

“That redefinition is at some risk with some people because of what is about to happen in Gaza,” he said. “But I think there has been a fundamental shift.”

 

728x90x4

Source link

News

Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in ‘Baywatch’ for Halloween video asking viewers to vote

Published

 on

 

NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.

In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”

At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.

“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.

She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.

“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.

“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.

“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”

The Harris campaign has taken on Beyonce’s track “Freedom,” a cut from her landmark 2016 album “Lemonade,” as its anthem.

Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.

Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Justin Trudeau’s Announcing Cuts to Immigration Could Facilitate a Trump Win

Published

 on

Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.

Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.

Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.

My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.

Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.

My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.

To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.

Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…

The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.

The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.

The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.

Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.

In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.

If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.

Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.

______________________________________________________________

 

Nick Kossovan, a self-described connoisseur of human psychology, writes about what’s

on his mind from Toronto. You can follow Nick on Twitter and Instagram @NKossovan.

Continue Reading

Politics

RFK Jr. says Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water. ‘It’s possible,’ Trump says

Published

 on

 

PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.

Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.

Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.

“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S​. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.

Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”

The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”

Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”

The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.

In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.

Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.

In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.

A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.

In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.

Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.

What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.

But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.

Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.

“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending