Preach It

Regarding the DNC race, I'll just let Erik Loomis speak for me:

I am through with the discussion over the next DNC Chair. While the Democratic Party should be getting ready to win a hopefully wave election in the House in 2018, different factions of the party are relitigating the primary. SO you have this endless back and forth between Keith Ellison and Tom Perez, both excellent candidates and great progressives, which is really just an excuse for angry partisans to hate on each other. This is beyond worthless. We deserve to not control government if we can’t have enough party discipline to just elect someone to what is an overrated position that did not cost Bernie the primary but which should have someone competent in it for once.

Here’s the thing: If you think Hillary Clinton is a horrible person who is the enemy of the Democratic Party, you are the problem. If you think Bernie Sanders is a horrible person who is the enemy of the Democratic Party, you are also the problem. Quit being part of the problem and get to work doing something useful.

It's not that you can't have valid reasons for preferring Ellison over Perez or vice versa. I've voted in many Democratic primaries where my decision was based on relatively minor and idiosyncratic differences between two strong progressive candidates, either one of whom would make for a fine Representative/Senator/President if elected. This is more or less that scenario.

But the people who are insistent on turning this race into a Total War for the Soul of the Democratic Party are delusional and, more importantly, damaging. Again, preferences are fine. Being primed to scream betrayal if the eventual selection is only 98.5% similar to your ideal choice is not

Ellison Continues To Impress on Jewish Engagement

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), one of two leading candidates to become the new DNC chair (the other being former Secretary of Labor Tom Perez), has faced concerns about prior associations with anti-Semitic groups -- specifically the Nation of Islam.

He's also done, in my view, a very good job responding to them -- certainly, he's been far more impressive than certain Jewish organizations I could name which treated him as a make-up call for Steve Bannon. I was extremely pleased to see the group I'm a part of, Third Narrative, issue a strong statement defending Ellison on this front. And the letter Ellison just wrote to a group of Conservative Rabbis only reaffirms my sense that he'd be an excellent friend and ally to Jewish Democrats as DNC chair:

Ellison, beginning his three-page letter to the Rabbinical Assembly with a quote from Pirkei Avot, Jewish ethical teachings – “The one who learns, learns from everyone” – expressed regrets, as he has several times since launching his bid to lead the DNC, for his association years ago with the anti-Semitic Nation of Islam.

“At the time, I did not grasp [Louis] Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism,” he wrote, referring to the movement’s leader.

“It was difficult for me to see that the struggle for equality for African Americans could be subverted into hatred of others, specifically anti-Semitism,” Ellison wrote. “I focused on Farrakhan speaking to concerns of Black men. When I became aware that he made hateful statements about other groups, including the Jewish community with whom I was so close, I knew that I must reject his teachings. And I rejected them completely.”

[...] 

Ellison, who has routinely voted for defense assistance to Israel, also for the first time regretted his exceptional vote against additional missile defense assistance for Israel during the 2014 war between Israel and Hamas.

“In my mind, confident that the Iron Dome funding that I have always strongly supported would pass, I cast a vote reflecting my commitment to restoring calm and quiet at a moment of violence,” he said, referring to the anti-missile system Israel used to deflect Hamas rockets. “My voice was not being heard and I felt in the moment that casting my vote was a vital way to amplify my message. It was the wrong way to speak out and it was the wrong way to vote. I regret it deeply.”

Ellison, who first publicly rejected the anti-Israel Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement in a statement last month to JTA, says in the letter that he has “fought” BDS with Jewish allies.

“Together we have fought against BDS and continuous attempts to delegitimize Israel in Minnesota, in the United States, and around the world,” he said. “I have said time and time again that BDS does not help anyone advance the goal of a two-state solution.”

Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, also recalls his years of combating Holocaust denial, including among Muslims.

Good for him -- and in particular, good for him on the Iron Dome portion (which has been one of the last remaining sticking points for many of my Jewish friends).

I should say that, my warm feelings towards Ellison aside, I remain undecided between him and Perez (who's been doing outreach of his own to the Jewish community). On the one hand, Perez comes more from my "wing" of progressivism (wonkish rather than populist). On the other hand, I think it's fair to say that my wing had its people in place this election and we lost. On the other other hand ... well, this would be its own post.

But this is all overshadowed by my main priority: the ever-futile effort to prevent a choice between two great progressive options becoming a hysterical battle wherein each side considers the other traitors to the party (it was such fun in 2016 and 2008!). Both Perez and Ellison would make excellent DNC chairs. Simple as that. But on the subject of the Jews and in the context of being a great DNC chair, one of Rep. Ellison's greatest strengths will be the genuine and sincere friendship he's extended to the Jewish people and his commitment to the preservation of a secure, democratic state in Israel that exists in peace with a Palestinian neighbor.

Panic! At the ADL

Pictured: The ADL, piloting the right TIE fighter.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) is running for DNC chair. The ADL has thoughts on this.

On November 22, Jonathan Greenblatt issued a very thoughtful, balanced statement:



There are concerns, but there's also much that's positive in Congressman Ellison's record. The concerns should be addressed, the positives should be acknowledged, and at all points the conversation should be open, fair, and free of race- or faith-based innuendos.

Not everyone likes thoughtful, balanced statements. ZOA had come out swinging against "Congressman Keith Ellison a/k/a Keith X. Ellison a/k/a Keith Hakim a/k/a Keith Ellison Muhammed."  They were not happy that the ADL refused to jump on the bandwagon, and weren't shy about claiming "double-standard" since the ADL had condemned Steve Bannon (my post on the matter explains why I think that's a bogus comparison). Three days later, feeling the pressure, Greenblatt backtracked a little.

Today, the Investigative Project on Terrorism released a short audio clip where Rep. Ellison says the following:

“The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people,” Ellison is heard saying. “A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes. Can I say that again?”

Now, we could say that the IPT -- last seen bringing us that ridiculous "Muslim no-go zones" bit on Fox -- might not be a source worth taking at face value. We could express skepticism of whether that bit provides the full context. Nonetheless, I think it is fair from that clip to express worries. These are, indeed, worrisome remarks. They are a reasonable addition to the inquiry that Jewish and pro-Israel groups might wish to make into Congressman Ellison's candidacy. He should be asked to address them, and address them seriously. And an unsatisfactory answer would be a cause for deep concern.

So the ADL issued another statement. It starts off fine. It recaps its previous analysis. It quotes the newly released material, which it says "raises serious concerns about whether Rep. Ellison faithfully could represent the Democratic Party’s traditional support for a strong and secure Israel." And then it says that

Rep. Ellison’s remarks are both deeply disturbing

Fine.

and disqualifying.

Oh for the love of....

See, this is what happens when mainline Jewish groups have become conditioned to flinch each time right-wing groups go "boo!" They trip over themselves to show they're not "soft", and end up getting trapped in ill-thought out, ill-advised, and uncompromising positions.

It would have been absolutely appropriate to raise these concerns, note that they raise serious questions, and then say "these comments demand a serious and thorough explanation from Congressman Ellison, which we will review very carefully" -- without flying straight into the "disqualifying" wall. Maybe Congressman Ellison would have a response that would assuage our justified concerns. Or maybe his response would be terrible, fully vindicating a conclusion that he cannot be supported in good conscience! Either way, notice how not locking oneself into a permanent position based on a brief audio-clip from six years ago leaked by a hatchet operation gives you a much nicer array of options.  Putting aside whether it was fair to Ellison or not, taking away your own leeway to respond to any further developments is the definition of amateur hour. To quote de Talleyrand: "It's worse than a crime, it's a blunder."

But no. The ADL panicked, and decided it was done without any consultation whatsoever. And now they're stuck. Fabulous work, guys -- this is why you're the professionals.

The really amazing thing is that Congressman Ellison's reply is far, far kinder than the ADL had any right to expect.


This would have been a great letter had the ADL not elected to do the bull-in-a-china-shop thing. That it was issued after the ADL did so is the sort of gift from God that I hope the ADL is privately thanking each and every lucky star for. If they're supremely lucky, they can restart this conversation the way it should have happened all along.

And yes, one element of that conversation should be to interrogate Congressman Ellison's statements. That's part of the tragedy here: the ADL's panic has deeply tainted the discussion we should have had. Ellison's comments were problematic. Perhaps context would mitigate their apparent meaning, perhaps not. Regardless, it would be worthwhile to explain, clearly and explicitly, why they were so troublesome, and see how he took that critique. I am not someone who will ever say that we should fail to call out anti-Semitism or troublesome tropes when we see them, and Keith Ellison is no exception to that rule.

But there's no rule that vigorous opposition to anti-Semitism requires that one be an idiot about it. Part of the job of combating anti-Semitism is getting people who have made problematic remarks to disavow them and return to the fold. Groups like ZOA make that harder, because they rather the Jewish state have enemies they hate than for it to have allies they detest, so their strongest efforts are to ensure that Israel and the Jewish community stays in a constant state of implacable warfare against anyone to the left of Naftali Bennett. It's bad for Israel, and it's bad for the Jews. Yet the institutional Jewish community has a reflexive instinct to coddle a tiny right flank whose volume is grotesquely out of proportion to its numbers. Until the ADL weans itself from this habit, it's going to keep making very basic mistakes that undermine its effectiveness as an organization and its credibility as a Jewish communal leader.

Can Keith Ellison Become America's Sadiq Khan?

In 2006, Keith Ellison was elected to the United States Congress, representing Minnesota's 5th Congressional District. In doing so, he became the first Muslim-American ever to serve in Congress. I was living in Minnesota at the time and so I had the opportunity to follow both his campaign and how it was covered and perceived in both the national press and the local Jewish community.

The first post I ever wrote on Keith Ellison, in October of 2006, I think nails down the story pretty well:

• Ellison had some past associations with the Nation of Islam and past anti-Semitic remarks which were genuinely problematic.
• But he put in the work to heavily court the Twin Cities Jewish community, persuading them that those days were behind him and gaining their trust and backing.
• His position on Israel well-recognized the significant security threats it faced and the culpability of groups like Hamas in the conflict. This view was not remotely in tension with his support for Palestinian rights.
• He pledged to visit Israel after his election (a pledge he followed through on).

The other major theme in early Ellison coverage was the tragically unsurprising bigoted backlash he faced from elements of the American (including, unfortunately, Jewish) right. The most prominent manifestation came when Dennis Prager (a Jewish writer notorious for being wholly enthralled by the Christian right) accused Ellison of "undermin[ing] American civilization" by swearing his congressional oath of office on Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran. 

Now Ellison is a front-runner to take over the Democratic National Committee  (he's already secured the endorsement of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer), causing him to again to return to the front pages of national media. Many conservatives -- desperate to draw attention away from the mainstreaming of anti-Semitism brought about by the Trump campaign and seeking to return to the "good old days" where the only anti-Semitism that mattered was on the left -- have sought to portray Ellison as a radical anti-Semite and anti-Israel extremist. I've read several of these dispatches (this one by Jeff Ballabon in Tablet is representative), and it inspired me to once again sort through my thoughts.

• Ellison's past associations with groups like the NOI were genuinely problematic, and I am convinced that Ellison consciously sought to downplay them. It is reasonable to interrogate them and insure that they no longer are reflective of Ellison's views. 
• That said, I am equally convinced that he's completely repudiated them.  These links are now well more than a decade old; since being elected to Congress he has completely followed through on his friendship to the Jewish community.
• On this score, his letter to the Minnesota JCRC on is simply excellent -- a clear, unambiguous admission of responsibility and a full and complete disavowal of the views he once held. In contrast to "apologies" which functionally deny wrongdoing and defiantly assert that it is wholly irrational to even consider one a racist or anti-Semite, Ellison's frank admission that his prior actions did give rise to concern and did demand a response that fully demonstrated an actual change in attitude is refreshing in its honesty. That letter should be distributed far and wide as a model of how one can successfully reengage with a community after committing genuine wrongdoing.
• It is clear that Keith Ellison cares about Palestinian rights. So do I. So does the majority of the American Jewish community. He has also been clear, time and again, that the full measure of responsibility does not fall on Israel's shoulders, and has always taken care to condemn Palestinian terrorism and incitement. A tweet noting that West Bank Palestinians are accusing Israel of practicing "apartheid" does not falsify this.
• There is no evidence of any sort I've seen indicating that Ellison supports BDS, and considerable evidence (from his own personal statements to his repeated trips to Israel) cuts the other way. The declaration in Tablet's headline that Ellison "Supports BDS" appears to be flatly inaccurate, and should be corrected (the article presents zero evidence in support of this proposition).
• The effort to act as if Ellison is the equivalent of -- or, more implausibly, is worse than -- Steve Bannon is both opportunistic and flatly ridiculous. The simple difference is that Ellison has put in the work to earn the support of his local Jewish community on a community-wide basis, and has a few partisan detractors. Bannon, by contrast, has alienated and infuriated the American Jewish community on a community-wide basis, and has a few partisan defenders. Ultimately, if the relevant question on anti-Semitism is "do you trust the instincts of the broad Jewish community," that suggests that Ellison is kosher, and Bannon is treyf.
• Finally, Shmuel Rosner's assessment back in 2006 that a Muslim congressman giving support to Israel is exceptionally valuable even if he doesn't get a 100% AIPAC scorecard remains absolutely true. A high-profile Muslim leader who does not take the "Israel is always wrong" route, who does not endorse BDS, is a gift for the Jewish community that we would be fools to pass up.

On that final note, the person Keith Ellison may be most likely to emulate is London Mayor Sadiq Khan. Like Ellison, Khan has been a trailblazer for Muslims in Western politics. Like Ellison, Khan had some genuinely troubling associations with Muslim extremists early in his career; and like Ellison, he has since repudiated them. Like Ellison, Khan put in the work to earn Jewish support (and unlike Ellison, Khan had to deal with a political climate where his left-of-center party -- Labour -- was in more-or-less open warfare with the UK Jewish community); like Ellison, he successfully persuaded them that he was a genuine Jewish ally. Since his election, Khan has upheld his promises -- being a steadfast critic of anti-Semitism (including in his own Party) and coming out against BDS.

I think there is a strong chance Keith Ellison could fill a similar role. If he becomes DNC chair, I am confident he will oppose BDS and anti-Semitism. I am confident that he will support Palestinian rights, perhaps more so than has been seen in the official DNC line; I am also confident he will do so in a way that is cognizant and respectful of Israel's genuine security needs.

Keith Ellison's greatest strength is not that he says he's an ally of the Jews. It is not that he publishes loud columns talking about how much he loves Netanyahu or hates the Palestinian Authority. Keith Ellison's strength is that he acknowledged past wrongs, committed to better choices, and has taken it on himself to earn the Jewish community's trust. He put in the work. And that makes him very, very different from certain other alleged anti-Semites who are now demanding Jewish respect as an entitlement.

UPDATE: JTA just put up a very good article on Rep. Ellison, including an explicit rejection by him of BDS.

Assorted Thoughts on the DNC Platform Committee

The DNC has released its platform committee, and the big news is that Senator Sanders successfully got near-parity with the Clinton campaign (he got five appointees, Clinton got six, and the DNC, through chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, picked four). Some assorted thoughts (in no particular order):

* Both Clinton and Sanders picked a Congressperson who is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Sanders picked Rep. Keith Ellison (MN) and Clinton Rep. Luis Gutierrez (IL). But interestingly enough, the most progressive elected official on the whole committee is probably a DWS pick. That would be my Congresswoman here in Berkeley, Rep. Barbara Lee.

* Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD) is a great choice as chair. Universally respected by all factions in the Democratic Party. That doesn't mean I envy him.

* Who is Alicia Reece, and why is an Ohio state representative getting a slot? I'm hoping the answer is "because she's a rising star in Democratic politics and in ten years everyone will think this was a stupid question."

* I presume there is already some murmuring in pro-Israel corners about Sanders picking Arab American Institute head James Zogby to be on the committee. I don't think there is any cause for concern, and I'm in fact optimistic that he will help the committee produce language that instantiates the vision for Israel and Palestine that is shared by most Democrats (as well as most Jews): Two states for two people, respecting the democratic and national rights of each. Zogby is a pro, I doubt he would produce anything objectionable even if he were writing the language himself (which he isn't). None of this will stop some elements of the "pro-Israel" community from releasing commentary about Zogby's selection that will double as a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

* There is a real, non-trivial chance that Cornel West will be a catastrophe in this role. Remember that time he called "Brother Trump" an "authentic human being" (like "Brother Bernie" but unlike all the other candidates)? Or the time he called Obama our "first niggerized black president"? These do not speak of someone interested in the good of the Democratic Party or, quite frankly, the good of the progressive movement writ large. Most of the people on this committee I'm sure will do a good and conscientious job to produce a good document that represents Democratic Party principles and aids the nominee tasked with implementing them. West I can absolutely see deciding to make a grandstanding show that could detonate the whole endeavor.

* Both Clinton and Sanders have a committed environmentalist on their slate, but it's interesting that Clinton's put on the only union representative on the Committee (Paul Booth, of AFSCME).

* Gender breakdown is as follows: Clinton -- four women, two men. Sanders -- four men, one woman. DWS -- two men, two women.

* All of this being said, by far the most likely outcome is that this is essentially the last time we ever hear anything about the platform committee or its work ever again.

Making Race an Issue

The Star-Tribune today reported on the election contest in my new district with the headline Fifth District rival makes race an issue. The incumbent is Rep. Keith Ellison (D), an African-American and the first Muslim elected to Congress. His opponent, Chris Fields, is also Black and is trying to argue that Ellison has failed his Black constituents (the 5th district is the most diverse in Minnesota, encompassing much of Minneapolis, ranging from urban professionals to impoverished slums).

Now, there is a large sense in which this is futile -- the 5th District is one of the most liberal in the country, and nobody thinks Fields has a prayer of unseating Ellison. But I don't object to Fields effort in theory. This, of course, is how politics works -- one tries to win by seeking to persuade key constituencies that your policies are better than your opponent's. There is nothing I find intrinsically objectionable about politicians seeking to appeal to Black voters, compared to the status quo amongst Republicans wherein it seems they think there is something illegitimate in a politician being liked by racial minorities.

To be sure, it hardly seems like Fields is making a particularly sophisticated appeal to Black voters (at least, the Strib doesn't give any examples of what his argument is other than a generic "he doesn't care about you"). If Republicans are going to appeal to Blacks, they'll have to do better than run Black candidates and make bare assertions that they care. It takes real legwork. But the ambition, itself, is a positive sign.

Clearing the Box Roundup

Another day, another day I should have spent taking (or least studying for) finals.

* * *

Marc Lynch gives a good rundown of how the terrain has changed with respect to the Arab revolutions.

I meant to post this in the last roundup, but it slipped through -- Latoya Peterson on being the token Black woman in feminist circles.

Conservatives mock Keith Ellison for his heartfelt testimony about a Muslim first-responder who died on 9/11.

Most late-term abortions are the result either of late-appearing health problems, or lack of access to abortion services earlier during the pregnancy.

Jewish groups split on the Peter King Muslim radicalization hearings: The AJC lauded them, while they were subjected to harsh criticism by the ADL and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

Dana Milbank calls the King hearings a "red scare".

Another Jewish Roundup

This is becoming a near-daily occurrence. I wonder what that means.

The Forward obits Janet Jagan, former President of Guyana, and one of two Jewish women to lead a modern nation (the other was Golda Meir).

Also in the Forward, Rep. Keith Ellison (R-MN) "walks a tightrope" as he tries to craft a stance on Israel/Palestine that is genuinely pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, and pro-peace. I'd say he's doing a darn good job so far, and has seemingly maintained the support of the local Jewish and Muslim communities (both of which were early backers of our nation's first Muslim congressman).

Still from the same source, an examination of how and why Palestinians are so resistant to acknowledging the Holocaust (exemplified by the disbanding of a Palestinian youth orchestra which had serenaded Jewish Holocaust survivors).

Aliza Hausman writes on her experience as a Latina woman who converted to Orthodox Judaism.

For some people, every Seder is an African-American Seder.

UN Human Rights High Commissioner Navanethem Pillay is worried that the Durban II conference may get hijacked by the same elements who poisoned Durban I.

At a Norwegian dialogue on hatred, one speaker helpfully explained to his audience "Why I hate Jews".

A 13-year old boy was axed to death and a seven-year old wounded in a terrorist strike on a West Bank settlement. Though Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack, a Hamas spokesperson praised it, saying "This attack was committed in the framework of the resistance .... We are a people occupied, and it is our right to defend ourselves and to act in every way and with every means at our disposal in order to defend ourselves."

New Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman continues his zig-zag tacking, renouncing the Annapolis agreements while simultaneously criticizing his predecessors for refusing to evacuate settlement outposts. He said, however, that there must be "reciprocity" from the Palestinians when Israel follows the 2003 U.S. "roadmap" for peace.

Meanwhile, Syrian President Bashar Assad distressingly echoed Lieberman's claim that "If you want peace, prepare for war," arguing for his part that "The Israeli will not come by his own will, so there is no alternative but for him to come from fear."