The Future of Pro-Israel Politics is at Stake in Gaza | Canada News Media
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.”

 

Source link

Politics

‘Disgraceful:’ N.S. Tory leader slams school’s request that military remove uniform

Published

 on

 

HALIFAX – Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston says it’s “disgraceful and demeaning” that a Halifax-area school would request that service members not wear military uniforms to its Remembrance Day ceremony.

Houston’s comments were part of a chorus of criticism levelled at the school — Sackville Heights Elementary — whose administration decided to back away from the plan after the outcry.

A November newsletter from the school in Middle Sackville, N.S., invited Armed Forces members to attend its ceremony but asked that all attendees arrive in civilian attire to “maintain a welcoming environment for all.”

Houston, who is currently running for re-election, accused the school’s leaders of “disgracing themselves while demeaning the people who protect our country” in a post on the social media platform X Thursday night.

“If the people behind this decision had a shred of the courage that our veterans have, this cowardly and insulting idea would have been rejected immediately,” Houston’s post read. There were also several calls for resignations within the school’s administration attached to Houston’s post.

In an email to families Thursday night, the school’s principal, Rachael Webster, apologized and welcomed military family members to attend “in the attire that makes them most comfortable.”

“I recognize this request has caused harm and I am deeply sorry,” Webster’s email read, adding later that the school has the “utmost respect for what the uniform represents.”

Webster said the initial request was out of concern for some students who come from countries experiencing conflict and who she said expressed discomfort with images of war, including military uniforms.

Her email said any students who have concerns about seeing Armed Forces members in uniform can be accommodated in a way that makes them feel safe, but she provided no further details in the message.

Webster did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

At a news conference Friday, Houston said he’s glad the initial request was reversed but said he is still concerned.

“I can’t actually fathom how a decision like that was made,” Houston told reporters Friday, adding that he grew up moving between military bases around the country while his father was in the Armed Forces.

“My story of growing up in a military family is not unique in our province. The tradition of service is something so many of us share,” he said.

“Saying ‘lest we forget’ is a solemn promise to the fallen. It’s our commitment to those that continue to serve and our commitment that we will pass on our respects to the next generation.”

Liberal Leader Zach Churchill also said he’s happy with the school’s decision to allow uniformed Armed Forces members to attend the ceremony, but he said he didn’t think it was fair to question the intentions of those behind the original decision.

“We need to have them (uniforms) on display at Remembrance Day,” he said. “Not only are we celebrating (veterans) … we’re also commemorating our dead who gave the greatest sacrifice for our country and for the freedoms we have.”

NDP Leader Claudia Chender said that while Remembrance Day is an important occasion to honour veterans and current service members’ sacrifices, she said she hopes Houston wasn’t taking advantage of the decision to “play politics with this solemn occasion for his own political gain.”

“I hope Tim Houston reached out to the principal of the school before making a public statement,” she said in a statement.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 8, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Saskatchewan NDP’s Beck holds first caucus meeting after election, outlines plans

Published

 on

 

REGINA – Saskatchewan Opposition NDP Leader Carla Beck says she wants to prove to residents her party is the government in waiting as she heads into the incoming legislative session.

Beck held her first caucus meeting with 27 members, nearly double than what she had before the Oct. 28 election but short of the 31 required to form a majority in the 61-seat legislature.

She says her priorities will be health care and cost-of-living issues.

Beck says people need affordability help right now and will press Premier Scott Moe’s Saskatchewan Party government to cut the gas tax and the provincial sales tax on children’s clothing and some grocery items.

Beck’s NDP is Saskatchewan’s largest Opposition in nearly two decades after sweeping Regina and winning all but one seat in Saskatoon.

The Saskatchewan Party won 34 seats, retaining its hold on all of the rural ridings and smaller cities.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 8, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Nova Scotia election: Liberals say province’s immigration levels are too high

Published

 on

 

HALIFAX – Nova Scotia‘s growing population was the subject of debate on Day 12 of the provincial election campaign, with Liberal Leader Zach Churchill arguing immigration levels must be reduced until the province can provide enough housing and health-care services.

Churchill said Thursday a plan by the incumbent Progressive Conservatives to double the province’s population to two million people by the year 2060 is unrealistic and unsustainable.

“That’s a big leap and it’s making life harder for people who live here, (including ) young people looking for a place to live and seniors looking to downsize,” he told a news conference at his campaign headquarters in Halifax.

Anticipating that his call for less immigration might provoke protests from the immigrant community, Churchill was careful to note that he is among the third generation of a family that moved to Nova Scotia from Lebanon.

“I know the value of immigration, the importance of it to our province. We have been built on the backs of an immigrant population. But we just need to do it in a responsible way.”

The Liberal leader said Tim Houston’s Tories, who are seeking a second term in office, have made a mistake by exceeding immigration targets set by the province’s Department of Labour and Immigration. Churchill said a Liberal government would abide by the department’s targets.

In the most recent fiscal year, the government welcomed almost 12,000 immigrants through its nominee program, exceeding the department’s limit by more than 4,000, he said. The numbers aren’t huge, but the increase won’t help ease the province’s shortages in housing and doctors, and the increased strain on its infrastructure, including roads, schools and cellphone networks, Churchill said.

“(The Immigration Department) has done the hard work on this,” he said. “They know where the labour gaps are, and they know what growth is sustainable.”

In response, Houston said his commitment to double the population was a “stretch goal.” And he said the province had long struggled with a declining population before that trend was recently reversed.

“The only immigration that can come into this province at this time is if they are a skilled trade worker or a health-care worker,” Houston said. “The population has grown by two per cent a year, actually quite similar growth to what we experienced under the Liberal government before us.”

Still, Houston said he’s heard Nova Scotians’ concerns about population growth, and he then pivoted to criticize Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for trying to send 6,000 asylum seekers to Nova Scotia, an assertion the federal government has denied.

Churchill said Houston’s claim about asylum seekers was shameful.

“It’s smoke and mirrors,” the Liberal leader said. “He is overshooting his own department’s numbers for sustainable population growth and yet he is trying to blame this on asylum seekers … who aren’t even here.”

In September, federal Immigration Minister Marc Miller said there is no plan to send any asylum seekers to the province without compensation or the consent of the premier. He said the 6,000 number was an “aspirational” figure based on models that reflect each province’s population.

In Halifax, NDP Leader Claudia Chender said it’s clear Nova Scotia needs more doctors, nurses and skilled trades people.

“Immigration has been and always will be a part of the Nova Scotia story, but we need to build as we grow,” Chender said. “This is why we have been pushing the Houston government to build more affordable housing.”

Chender was in a Halifax cafe on Thursday when she promised her party would remove the province’s portion of the harmonized sales tax from all grocery, cellphone and internet bills if elected to govern on Nov. 26. The tax would also be removed from the sale and installation of heat pumps.

“Our focus is on helping people to afford their lives,” Chender told reporters. “We know there are certain things that you can’t live without: food, internet and a phone …. So we know this will have the single biggest impact.”

The party estimates the measure would save the average Nova Scotia family about $1,300 a year.

“That’s a lot more than a one or two per cent HST cut,” Chender said, referring to the Progressive Conservative pledge to reduce the tax by one percentage point and the Liberal promise to trim it by two percentage points.

Elsewhere on the campaign trail, Houston announced that a Progressive Conservative government would make parking free at all Nova Scotia hospitals and health-care centres. The promise was also made by the Liberals in their election platform released Monday.

“Free parking may not seem like a big deal to some, but … the parking, especially for people working at the facilities, can add up to hundreds of dollars,” the premier told a news conference at his campaign headquarters in Halifax.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 7, 2024.

— With files from Keith Doucette in Halifax

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version