Uncategorized
Israeli democracy may not survive a ‘reform’ of its Supreme Court
(JTA) — On Dec. 29, Israel swore in Benjamin Netanyahu’s sixth government. The Likud leader became Israel’s prime minister once more, and one week later, Israel’s long-anticipated judicial counterrevolution began.
In the Knesset Wednesday, newly minted Justice Minister and Netanyahu confidant Yariv Levin unveiled a package of proposed legislation that would alter the balance of power between Israel’s legislature and its Supreme Court.
At the core of this plan is a bill to allow the Knesset to override the Supreme Court. Levin’s proposals — which almost certainly have the immediate support of a Knesset majority, regardless of Levin’s assurances that they would be subject to “thorough debate” — would pave the way for Israel’s new government to pass legislation that curtails rights and undermines the rule of law, dealing a blow to Israeli democracy.
The dire implications of this proposed judicial reform are rooted in key characteristics of the Israeli political system that set it apart from other liberal democracies. Israel has no constitution to determine the balance of power between its various branches of government. In fact, there is no separation between Israel’s executive and legislative branches, given that the government automatically controls a majority in the parliament.
Instead, it has a series of basic laws enacted piecemeal over the course of the state’s history that have a quasi-constitutional status, with the initial intention that they would eventually constitute a de jure constitution.
Through the 1980s, the Knesset passed basic laws that primarily served to define state institutions, such as the country’s legislature and electoral system, capital and military. In the 1990s, there was a paradigm shift with the passage of two basic laws that for the first time concerned individuals’ rights rather than institutions, one on Human Dignity and Liberty (1992) and the other on Freedom of Occupation (1994). These laws enshrined rights to freedom of movement, personal freedom, human dignity and others to all who reside in Israel.
Aharon Barak, the president of Israel’s Supreme Court from 1995 to 2006, argued that these laws constituted a de facto bill of rights, empowering the court to review Knesset legislation and to strike down laws that violate civil liberties, a responsibility not explicitly bestowed upon the court in the basic law pertaining to the judiciary. In 1995, the Supreme Court officially ruled that it could indeed repeal legislation that violates the country’s basic laws, heralding an era of increased judicial activism in Israel in what became known as the “judicial revolution.” The court has struck down 20 laws since, a fairly modest number compared to other democracies.
The judicial revolution of the 1990s shifted the balance of power in Israel’s political system from one of parliamentary sovereignty, in which the Knesset enjoyed ultimate power, to one in which the legislature is restricted from violating the country’s (incomplete) constitution. Israel’s Supreme Court became a check on the legislative branch in a country that lacks other checks and balances and separations of power.
As a result of these characteristics, the Supreme Court currently serves as one of the only checks on the extraordinary power of Israel’s 120-member Knesset — which is why shifting that balance of power would have such a dramatic impact on Israel’s democracy.
Levin’s proposed judicial overhaul includes several elements that would weaken the power and independence of Israel’s Supreme Court. The plan includes forbidding the Supreme Court from deliberating on and striking down basic laws themselves. It would require an unspecified “special majority” of the court to strike down legislation, raising the threshold from where it currently stands.
Levin has also called for altering the composition of the selection committee that appoints top judges to give the government, rather than legal professionals, a majority on the panel. It would allow cabinet ministers to appoint legal advisors to act on their behalf, rather than that of the justice ministry, canceling these advisors’ role as safeguards against government overreach. Should a minister enact a decision that contravenes a basic law, the ministry’s legal advisor would no longer report the violation to the attorney general, and would instead merely offer non-binding legal advice to the minister.
The pièce de résistance is, of course, the override clause that would allow the Knesset to reinstate laws struck down by the Supreme Court by 61 members of Knesset, a simple majority assuming all members are present. The sole restriction on this override would be a provision preventing the Knesset from re-legislating laws struck down unanimously, by all 15 judges, within the same Knesset term.
This plan’s obvious and most immediate result would be the effective annulment of the quasi-constitutional status of Israel’s basic laws. If the Knesset’s power to legislate is no longer bound by basic laws, these de facto constitutional amendments no longer have any teeth. There are no guardrails preventing any Knesset majority from doing as it wishes, including violating basic human rights. The Knesset could pass laws openly curtailing freedom of the press or gender equality, for example, should it choose to do so.
This counterrevolution, in effect, goes further than merely undoing what occurred in the 1990s.
Most crucially, the Knesset that would once again enjoy full parliamentary sovereignty in 2022 is not the Knesset of Israel’s first four decades. Shackling the Supreme Court is essential to the agendas of the new government’s various ultra-right and ultra-religious parties. For example, the haredi Orthodox parties are eager to re-legislate a blanket exemption to the military draft for their community, which the court struck down in 2017 on the grounds that it was discriminatory. They also have their sights on revoking recognition of non-Orthodox conversions for immigrants to Israel, undoing a court decision from 2021.
The far-right, Jewish supremacist parties of Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, meanwhile, see an opportunity to deal a decisive blow to an institution that has long served as a check on the settlement movement. They hope to tie the court’s hands in the face of oncoming legislation to retroactively legalize settlements built on private Palestinian land, which are illegal under Israeli law. But this is only the beginning: Neutering the authority of the court could pave the way for legal discrimination against Israel’s Arab minority, such as Ben-Gvir’s proposal to deport minorities who show insufficient loyalty.
The timing of Levin’s announcement Wednesday could not be more germane. The Knesset recently amended the basic law to legalize the appointment of Aryeh Deri, the Shas party leader who is serving a suspended sentence for tax fraud, as a minister in the new government. The Supreme Court convened Thursday morning to hear petitions against his appointment from those arguing that it is “unreasonable” to rehabilitate Deri given his multiple criminal convictions, a view shared by Israel’s attorney general. Levin’s proposals would bar the court from using this “reasonability” standard.
The Israeli right has long chafed at the power of the Supreme Court, which it accuses of having a left-wing bias. But a judicial overhaul like this has never enjoyed the full support of the government, nor was Netanyahu previously in favor of it. Now, with a uniformly right-wing government and Netanyahu on trial for corruption, the prime minister’s foremost interest is appeasing his political partners and securing their support for future legislation to shield him from prosecution.
In a system where the majority rules, there need to be mechanisms in place to protect the rights of minorities — political, ethnic and religious. Liberal democracy requires respect for the rule of law and human rights. Yariv Levin’s proposals to fully subordinate the Supreme Court to the Knesset will concentrate virtually unchecked power in the hands of a few individuals — government ministers and party leaders within the coalition who effectively control what the Knesset does. That those individuals were elected in free and fair elections is no guarantee that the changes they make will be democratic.
—
The post Israeli democracy may not survive a ‘reform’ of its Supreme Court appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Israel’s supreme court says Arab parties can run in Oct. 27 election
(JTA) — TEL AVIV – Israel’s Supreme Court ruling upholding the right of Arab parties to run in the Oct. 27 election could make it more difficult for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to form a new coalition after the election.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Joint Arab List and Ra’am, the two Arab-led political lists competing in Israel’s elections, could run. The ruling overturned a decision by the Central Elections Committee, a largely political body in which parties in Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition hold a majority of the seats, which had voted last month to bar the lists from running.
“The court found that the materials submitted to the Central Elections Committee did not meet the standards established in the case law for disqualifying a list of candidates,” the court said in its ruling, which did not include extensive reasoning.
The decision restored the parties that traditionally represent Israel’s more than 2 million Arab citizens and in doing so helped the opposition block. Now a wide constituency that rejects working with Netanyahu will have a reason to head to the polls rather than stay home.
Most polls have shown that the opposition bloc would need to include the parliamentary seats held by the Ra’am party, led by MK Mansour Abbas, in order to gain the lead over Netanyahu’s coalition. Unlike Ra’am, the Joint Arab List has never sat in an Israeli coalition and there is no expectation that it would join with Zionist Jewish-led parties to do so.
The court also took a number of other steps regarding the upcoming election. It overturned the committee’s decision to disqualify Ofer Cassif, a Jewish lawmaker running as part of the Joint List. In Cassif’s case, the decision was made by a 7-2 majority.
The Supreme Court justices said they “strongly condemn the outrageous statements and actions by Cassif that evoke revulsion.” At the same time, they ruled that “these statements or actions do not meet the stringent tests established” for disqualifying a candidate.
According to the petition seeking Cassif’s disqualification, he had legitimized Palestinian violence during the war, referred to those seeking to attack Israeli soldiers as “freedom fighters” and taken actions against Israel in international legal forums.
The most significant development, however, came in the case of Sami Abu Shehadeh, the leader of Balad, one of the parties that make up the Joint List.
During a Thursday hearing, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of indicating to Abu Shehadeh that a majority of the justices were inclined to disqualify him and recommended that he withdraw his candidacy.
Following internal consultations, Balad announced that Abu Shehadeh would withdraw his candidacy, rendering the court’s expected ruling on his disqualification moot.
“Sami Abu Shehadeh did not retract his positions and did not flee the struggle. Only after the court itself announced its intention to uphold the disqualification did he decide to withdraw his candidacy,” Balad said in an official statement.
A central part of the case against Abu Shehadeh focused on an article he published on Oct. 8, 2023, one day after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, in which the terror organization killed 1,200 people in Israel and took another 251 hostage.
In the article, Abu Shehadeh described the Oct. 7 events as an “important historic event” and suggested that lessons could be learned from how Hamas had managed to surprise Israel and carry out its invasion. His comments were cited as evidence that he supports armed struggle against Israel, one of the grounds on which candidates can be disqualified under Israeli law.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court said there was “a consensus that the things said by Mr. Abu Shehadeh are painful, outrageous and revolting.” The decision to disqualify Abu Shehadeh was also supported by the Democrats, Israel’s most left-wing Zionist party.
During the Supreme Court hearing, Abu Shehadeh acknowledged that “this paragraph was not written correctly.” He said, “I have never supported violence in my life,” and said that he knows victims of the Oct. 7 attack.
Balad said Abu Shehadeh would continue to lead the party’s political activities even without serving in the Knesset.
The Joint List sharply criticized the court’s handling of the case. In a statement, the list said that “the heart of the matter” was “preventing an Arab political leader from running in the elections and infringing on our public’s right to choose its representatives.”
The list accused the court of acting “following a campaign of incitement and political persecution led by the fascist and Kahanist right, joined by the leaders of the Zionist opposition parties.”
“The court must bear responsibility for its disgraceful decision before our public and before public opinion in Israel and around the world, for providing judicial cover for political exclusion. This ruling is another link in the chain of persecution of our public.”
Right-wing Israeli politicians also criticized the court for declining to issue a ruling formally disqualifying Abu Shehadeh rather than merely pressing him to withdraw.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, an ultranationalist member of Netanyahu’s government, called the court’s proposal “too merciful” and said it “harms the democracy of the State of Israel.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Israel’s supreme court says Arab parties can run in Oct. 27 election appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
A town in the Alps that rescued Jews from the Nazis
על-פּי צופֿאַל האָב איך הײַיאָר פֿאַרבראַכט עטלעכע טעג אין די פֿראַנצייזישע אַלפּן-בערג. די בילעטן זײַנען נישט געווען אַזוי טײַער, און „בוקינג“ האָט רעקאָמענדירט אַ דאָרף נישט ווײַט פֿון ניצע (ניס).
דאָס דאָרף, סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי , איז פֿאַרשפּרייט אויף אַ באַרג אין דרום-פֿראַנקרײַך, און די קאָלירפֿולע הײַזער גיבן אָנצוהערן, אַז עס געפֿינט זיך נישט ווײַט פֿון דער איטאַליענישער גרענעץ. אין מיטן דעם דאָרף איז פֿאַראַן אַ טײַך, און אַלץ איז מלא-חן, פֿול מיט סאָסנע־ביימער און רײַפֿע טרויבן. אויף אַזעלכע ערטער זאָגט מײַן מאַמע: „מײַן באָבע האָט אויך נישט געהערט פֿון דעם.“
אָבער עס ווײַזט זיך אויס אַז מײַן באָבע וואָלט יאָ געקאָנט הערן פֿון סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי. שוין אינעם ערשטן טאָג האָב איך געפֿונען דאָרטן אַ ייִדיש פּינטעלע, און דווקא גאָר אַ וויכטיקס. די וועגווײַזערין פֿון דאָרף, אַן סיווירין, האָט אונדז דערציילט אַז אין דער צײַט פֿונעם צווייטן וועלטקריג איז סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי געווען כּמעט אַ יאָר לאַנג אַ מקום-מיקלט פֿאַר מער ווי 1,200 ייִדן.
צווישן די ייִדן זײַנען געווען פּליטים פֿון דײַטשלאַנד, פּוילן, האָלאַנד און בעלגיע, וואָס זײַנען אַנטלאָפֿן צו דער „זאָן ליברע“ – דעם פֿרײַען געביט, ד״ה דרום־פֿראַנקרײַך, וואָס איז אין די ערשטע צוויי יאָר פֿון דער מלחמה געבליבן פֿרײַ פֿון די נאַציס. אויך מײַן באָבע פֿייגע, צוזאַמען מיט דער משפּחה, האָט פּראָבירט אַנטלויפֿן פֿון בעלגיע קיין דרום־פֿראַנקרײַך, אָבער צוליב פֿאַרשיידענע סיבות איז עס נישט געלונגען, און די משפּחה איז געבליבן אין אַנטווערפּן.
אין נאָוועמבער 1942 זײַנען די דײַטשן אַרײַן אינעם „פֿרײַען געביט“, און זייערע אַליִירטער, די איטאַליענער, האָבן אָקופּירט די דרום-מזרחדיקע געביטן פֿון פֿראַנקרײַך. פֿאַר די ייִדן איז עס דווקא געווען אַ גוטע בשׂורה. כאָטש די איטאַליענער האָבן געפֿירט זייערע אייגענע „ראַסע-געזעצן“, האָבן די ייִדן אין איטאַליע — און דערווײַל אויך אין דרום-פֿראַנקרײַך — געקאָנט לעבן; און לעבן איז גאָר נישט געווען קיין קלייניקייט אין סוף 1942, בשעת ס׳רובֿ ייִדן פֿון אייראָפּע האָבן די דײַטשן שוין דערמאָרדעט.
אַ דאַנק די באַמיִונגען פֿון אַנדזשעלאָ דאָנאַטי, אַן איטאַליענישן ייִד וואָס האָט געוווינט אין ניצע, האָבן די איטאַליענער מסכּים געווען צו שאַפֿן אין סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי אַ צענטער פֿאַר ייִדישע פּליטים, וווּ זיי זאָלן קאָנען לעבן כּמעט אַ נאָרמאַל לעבן. אַזוי זײַנען אָנגעקומען אין דאָרף מער ווי 1,200 ייִדן. פֿאַר דער מלחמה האָט דאָ געוווינט נאָר איין ייִדישע משפּחה — די משפּחה לעווין-דריזדאָ, און מיט אַ מאָל איז עס געוואָרן ממש אַ ייִדיש שטעטל.
אין מיטן דער מלחמה, צווישן די אַלפּן-בערג און די וועלדער, האָבן ייִדן פֿון אָנהייב 1943 זיך געלערנט, געדאַוונט, געאַרבעט, געשאַפֿן יוגנט- און ספּאָרט-אָרגאַניזאַציעס, און אַפֿילו חתונה געהאַט. די אײַנוווינער, די פֿראַנצויזן, האָבן זיי בדרך-כּלל פֿרײַנדלעך אויפֿגענומען, און אַ סך האָבן זיי געגעבן עסן און געהאָלפֿן אויף אַנדערע אופֿנים — אַ זעלנטקייט, און נישט נאָר אין פֿראַנקרײַך.
אין אָנהייב סעפּטמבער 1943, נאָך דעם ווי די איטאַליענער האָבן קאַפּיטולירט, איז אָבער געקומען אַ סוף צו דעם גן-עדן. די דײַטשן זײַנען אַרײַן אין איטאַליע, און אין אַ פּאָר טעג אַרום זײַנען זיי אָנגעקומען אויך אין סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי. ווען די ייִדן האָבן דערהערט די נײַעס זײַנען אַ סך פֿון זיי, מיט דער הילף פֿון די אָרטיקע, אַנטלאָפֿן אין די בערג, מיט דער כּוונה צו גנבֿענען די גרענעץ קיין איטאַליע. די טעג זײַנען געווען קאַלטע און רעגנדיקע, און יציאת-סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי איז געוואָרן שווער אָן אַ שיעור (אויך פֿאַר מיר, ווי אַ טוריסט, איז דאָס קלעטערן געווען כּמעט אוממעגלעך).
אין איטאַליע האָבן הונדערטער ייִדן געפֿונען נײַע באַהעלטענישן, אָבער אַ סך האָבן די דײַטשן דאָרטן געכאַפּט. צוזאַמען מיט ייִדן וואָס זײַנען געבליבן אין דאָרף — מסתּמא אַלטע לײַט און קינדער — האָט מען זיי דעפּאָרטירט קיין דראַנסי, לעבן פּאַריז, און פֿון דאָרטן קיין אוישוויץ.
אָבער אויך דעמאָלט זײַנען צענדליקער ייִדן געבליבן אין סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי, און אָרטיקע מענטשן האָבן זיי באַהאַלטן אין פֿאַרשיידענע ערטער. פֿאַרשטייט זיך, נישט אַלע אין דאָרף האָבן זיי געהאָלפֿן, אָבער ס׳רובֿ אײַנוויינערס, וואָס האָבן געוווּסט וואָס קומט פֿאָר, האָבן דאָס קיינעם נישט אויסגעזאָגט. נאָר איין ייִד האָט מען געמסרט — דעם ייִד וואָס האָט געוווינט דאָ פֿאַר דער מלחמה.
מיט דער צײַט האָט „יד־ושם“ אַנערקענט צען אָרטיקע מענטשן, וואָס האָבן געראַטעוועט ייִדן ווי „חסידי-אומות-העולם“.
אויב איר האָט גאָרנישט געהערט פֿון דעם העראָיִשן, באַשיידענעם דאָרף זײַנט איר נישט די איינציקע. אַפֿילו אין סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי האָט מען יאָרן לאַנג נישט גערעדט וועגן די געשעענישן במשך פֿון דער צווייטער וועלט־מלחמה. „עס זײַנען געווען די וואָס האָבן געהאָלפֿן און די וואָס האָבן קאָלאַבאָרירט, און אַלע האָבן געדאַרפֿט לעבן אין איינעם נאָכן קריג“, האָט דערקלערט די וועגווײַזערין, אַן סיווירין. „אָבער איין טאָג האָט אַ יונגע פֿרוי געהערט, ווי די אַלטע לײַט ריידן צווישן זיך וועגן ׳די באַהאַלטענע ייִדן׳, און די פּאַנדאָרע-קעסטל האָט זיך צעעפֿנט.“
פֿון דעמאָלט אָן שטאָלצירן די איינווינערס פון סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי מיט דעם וואָס די מענטשן פֿון זייער שטעטל האָבן געהאָלפֿן ראַטעווען ייִדן בעת דער מלחמה. אין יעדן פֿראַנצייזישן דאָרף שטייט אַ דענקמאָל לזכר די געפֿאַלענע במשך פֿון די צוויי וועלט־מלחמות (און אויך אַנדערע קריגן). לעבן דעם גרויסן דענקמאָל אין סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי שטייען הײַנט דרײַ גרויסע דענקמעלער: איינער לזכר די אומגעקומענע ייִדן; אַ צווייטער אין אָנדענק פֿון די „חסידי-אומות-העולם“, און אַ דריטער וואָס דערציילט די גאַנצע געשיכטע.
הײַנט קאָן מען לייענען וועגן דער פּרשה אין פֿאַרשיידענע ביכער: איין ביכל אויף פֿראַנצייזיש, וואָס סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי האָט אַרויסגעגעבן: „די ייִדן און ‘צדיקים’ פֿון סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי“; אַ בוך אויף ענגליש: „די חורבן־אָדיסייעס: די ייִדן פֿון סאַן־מאַרטען־וועזובי און זייער פּליטה דורך פֿראַנקרײַך און איטאַליע“, און אויך אַ ראָמאַן אויפֿן סמך פֿון יענעם קאַפּיטל געשיכטע.
סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי שטאָלצירט מיט נאָך עפּעס. אינעם גרויסן קלויסטער פֿון דאָרף שטייט אַ הייליקע סטאַטוע פֿון דער מאַדאָנע, אַ הילצערנע סטאַטוע וואָס די אָרטיקע הייליקן שוין הונדערטער יאָרן. לכּבֿוד דער אַלטער מאַדאָנע מאַרשירן זיי יעדעס יאָר אין אַ גרויסן פּאַראַד צו די בערג, על-פּי דער טראַדיציע איז איר מקור. אין גײַסט פֿון יענער טראַדיציע האָבן די אײַנוויינערס פֿון סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי, מיט בערך 10 יאָר צוריק, באַשלאָסן אײַנצופֿירן אַ נײַע טראַדיציע: יעדן 3טן סעפּטעמבער מאַרשירן זיי לכּבֿוד די ייִדן וואָס זײַנען אַנטלאָפֿן אין די בערג, ביז דעם באַרגפּאַס אויף דער גרענעץ מיט איטאַליע. דאָרטן, לעבן דעם טאָוול לזכר די ייִדן, דערמאָנען זיי די אומגעקומענע און די וואָס זײַנען ניצול געוואָרן אַ דאַנק די אַמאָליקע אײַנווינערס פֿון סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי. אויך די קינדער אָדער אייניקלעך פֿון די געראַטעווטע ייִדן נעמען צו מאָל אַן אָנטייל אין די פּראָצעסיעס.
אויפֿן טאָוול שטייט געשריבן, אויף איטאַליעניש און פֿראַנצייזיש: „דורך דעם באַרגפּאַס, אין סעפּטעמבער 1943, זײַנען דורכגעגאַנגען הונדערטער ייִדן פֿון גאַנץ אייראָפּע, וואָס האָבן געזוכט מיטלען זיך צו ראַטעווען פֿון די אַנטיסעמיטישע רדיפֿות.“
און גלײַך נאָך דעם בײַט זיך דער טאָן פֿון די ווערטער אויף אַ גאָר רירנדיקן אופֿן: „דו, וואָס דו גייסט דאָ אין דער פֿרײַ, דאַרפֿסט געדענקען אַז דאָס קאָן געשען ווען מע לאָזט נישט אַלע מענטשן געניסן פֿון די זעלבע רעכט.“
The post A town in the Alps that rescued Jews from the Nazis appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Democratic socialists scored big primary wins. But that’s not the whole story.
(JTA) — A string of U.S. House primary successes for democratic socialists, most of whom are sharp Israel critics, was hailed as a major shift in party politics over the course of the summer. But now that the primaries have concluded, a full picture of the results shows that the group’s victories were concentrated in House races in the deepest-blue districts, while few politicians have scored wins in Senate races.
During the primary season, candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America won seven out of the 25 U.S. House primaries in which they competed, securing two wins in Michigan, one in Colorado, three in New York and one in Pennsylvania, according to the DSA’s vote tracker. However, these wins have all occurred in Democratic strongholds: New York City, Detroit, Denver and Philadelphia.
“It’s a little bit dangerous to overinterpret a handful of elections compared to all the others,” Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow in governance at the Brookings Institution, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “Calling the DSA the new big kid on the block is a little bit premature.”
In addition to the seven DSA primary winners, another DSA candidate who ran in a California nonpartisan primary advanced to a U.S. House runoff against a Democratic incumbent in November. Two additional democratic socialists, from Kansas and New Hampshire, withdrew before their respective House primaries.
Of the DSA’s 18 House primary losses, seven occurred in deep-blue areas – demonstrating that even in the country’s most progressive pockets, democratic socialists often weren’t popular. These defeats notably included one in St. Louis, where incumbent Wesley Bell trounced DSA firebrand and anti-AIPAC crusader Cori Bush.
Granted, the DSA victories are still unprecedented in a country where socialism has long been anathema. The candidates might have only succeeded in deeply Democratic districts – but that means they are all but assured victory on Election Day. Taken together, they’ll constitute a larger contingent in Congress than ever before.
Many of the DSA candidates made Israel and its supporters central issues during their campaigns, and there’s little doubt that their presence will tilt the Democratic caucus in the Congress further away from Israel.
The DSA’s official stance on Israel includes an end to the country’s “colonization and occupation of all Arab lands,” the “self-determination of the Palestinian people” and the cessation of “U.S. complicity in Israel’s genocide and apartheid.” Although the DSA has won fewer races than it has lost, the victories would more than triple the group’s presence in the U.S. House, with five newcomers in addition to Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
Jeff Robbins, a Boston-based attorney and former Democratic Senate staffer, said that supporters of Israel should be concerned by the wins, even if they don’t constitute a wave.
Robbins, who also served as a delegate to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights under former president Bill Clinton, warned that if anti-Israel DSA politicians keep racking up wins, Democratic strategists will discourage candidates from supporting Israel’s response to Hamas after the Oct. 7 attacks.
Recommending any action to the contrary, he argued, will result in “the quickest campaign you’ve ever seen.”
“It will be over before you can say ‘the Golan Heights’,” Robbins quipped.
And yet, although the media spotlight has shone on the DSA’s standout victories, establishment candidates have secured more wins at the ballot box from a numerical perspective. In addition, democratic socialists have focused more on the House than the Senate, where they would need to appeal to broader statewide electorates to win seats.
One major exception to that rule is Florida DSA member Angie Nixon, who pulled off a stunning primary victory in a state that Trump won by about 13 percentage points in 2024. But she didn’t join the DSA until shortly before the election and she didn’t get its endorsement.
Another DSA Senate candidate, Gregory Levy of Ohio, will be running in the November general election as an Independent.
But the three other staunchly progressive Senate candidates who will be on the Democratic ballot in November – in Maine, Michigan and Minnesota – don’t define themselves as democratic socialists. While many are still highly critical of Israel, they have differences with DSA and are more interested in making sure they appeal to the more politically diverse populations they will face statewide. They face close races where swing voters who don’t identify strongly with either party are likely to make the difference.
For instance, though many of Abdul El-Sayed’s positions are similar to DSA policies, last month he told The Wall Street Journal that he is “not technically or practically DSA” and that he doesn’t oppose capitalism. At the same time, he has earned the support of many democratic socialist politicians, including Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Kamarck observed that Michigan, which has a huge Arab-American population, remains the nerve center of the Democratic Party’s pro-Palestinian movement. Yet although polls forecast a landslide victory for El-Sayed, who sharply criticized Israel throughout his primary campaign, she termed his victory in early August as “a squeaker.”
“It was a one-point race,” she said. “What that says is that this is not finished.”
Haile Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, said in a statement at the time that although her group was disappointed in El-Sayed’s victory, his “razor-thin margin isn’t the resounding win for the far-left that was predicted.”
An Economist model issued shortly after El-Sayed’s victory predicted that the Democratic Party’s chances of winning in November fell to 48% following the primary. But a Marist poll published on Wednesday gave El-Sayed a seven-point lead over Republican Mike Rogers, with a 3.8% margin of error.
Meanwhile, post-primary predictions showed that Minnesota’s Peggy Flanagan would secure an easy victory in her blue state’s Senate race. However, a new KSTP/SurveyUSA poll found that her five-point lead over Republican Michele Tafoya had narrowed to a statistical tie. Like many party progressives, Flanagan has accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.
As for Maine’s Jackson, the progressive was trailing Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a five-term incumbent, by 3 points, with a 3.1% margin of error, according to an AARP poll released on Thursday.
Nixon in Florida was 11 points behind Republican Sen. Ashley Moody, with a 4% margin of error, a Stetson University from late last month poll found. On the other hand, St. Pete Polls placed the candidates in a dead heat just the week before, giving Moody just a 0.3-point edge, with a 3.2% margin of error.
In a testament to the growing power of the DSA – even in a red state – Moody reportedly told Fox News Radio this week that she is “seeing way-too-close-for comfort polls in many Republican Senate races.”
And in an email blast sent the same day, according to Florida Politics, Moody warned that “the polls have been all over the place.”
“Some have us up. Two have us tied,” she wrote. “We’re in the final stretch, where everything we do, and your support, really matters.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Democratic socialists scored big primary wins. But that’s not the whole story. appeared first on The Forward.
