Well, on a positive note, we finally have our answer- or at least are closer to one.
El-Sayed glibly saying “Israel exists” just as “Egypt
exists” is no different an evasion than when Republican Supreme Court nominees
would assure Democratic senators that they acknowledge Roe v. Wade was a
settled case. That left open the possibility that they wanted to unsettle Roe
and would, if given the power to do so, which they did.
Hunt responded "you say it exists, but does it have a right to"? El-Sayed then stated in part "I didn't say that- I just said the question of Israel's existence is not a question," a repetition of "Israel exists"
Hunt asked a third time about Israel's right to exist, and the candidate argued that domestic needs would be addressed were Israel not funded. He concluded "AIPAC and Israel have become questions that too many people have to answer because our tax dollars keep getting spent over there rather than being spent here." However, as Scher explained
Not for lack of trying, Hunt never got the answer which voters in Michigan had a right to. however, the morning after his victory over Haley Stevens in the primary, el-Sayed declared
We've been talking about an illegal apartheid regime for a very, very long time and that supersedes Netanyahu itself. So I just think we need to treat Israel the way we should treat any othre country that behaved the way Israel is behaving.
Although Israel often is shamelessly accused of practicing apartheid, the social and political system of Muslim nations of the Middle East more closely resemble apartheid than anything in Israel. (Muslims in the West Bank- under Israeli occupation and not a part of Israel- have fewer rights than those in Israel itself.)
But the new and especially significant portion of the nominee's statement is the allegation that "an illegal apartheid regime... supersedes Netanyahu itself." This goes right to the heart of el-Sayed's belief that Israel has no right to exist.
In February 2023 the cabinet created a new Settlements
Administration with the authority to expropriate land in the West Bank and
regulate its use, approve the expansion of existing Israeli settlements, and
determine whether buildings constructed by Palestinians have been built legally
according to the Israeli government. A document obtained by The New York Times
in 2024 revealed that enforcement of regulations restraining Israeli settlement
activity became virtually nonexistent when the Settlements Administration was
created.
This is an action of the current government, the quickening pace of Jewish settlement in the West Bank and steadfast resistance to consideration of a Palestinian state. Yet, although singling out Netanyahu for special opporbrium, el-Sayed alleges that the "illegal apartheid regime" is a product quite apart from the current Prime Minister. (He does not explain why it is illegal or constitutes apartheid, but never mind.)
Michigan's newest Senate candidate does not condemn the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. He never mentions Israeli use of 2,000 pound bombs on Gaza, which explode in a wide radius, killing Hamas fighers and civilians alike. Unsurprisingly, he does not refer to Israeli refusal to coordinate with the government of Lebanon so that the eradication of Hezbollah might become a reality.
He does none of that because to him, it is unnecessary and mere detail. Plain and simple, Michigan's newest Senate candidate is opposed to the existence of the state of Israel. Democrats understandably are not condemning their newly-minted nominee. But that need not, and shouldn not, prevent them from denouncing his extreme views on Israel and linkage to the brazenly anti-Israel, anti-American streamer Hasan Piker. Their refusal to do do so is a stain which won't go away on its own.
No comments:
Post a Comment