A few weeks ago, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, D, surprised many on the left when he broke with establishment Democratic protocol and likened Israel to an “apartheid state.” But then, in another twist, he said in an interview that he regretted using the term — and that he “reveres” the state of Israel.
Newsom’s striking criticism of Israel, swiftly followed by a reversal, reflects how potential Democratic White House hopefuls are uneasily trying to figure out what a “moderate” position on Israel might look like in 2028. It also raises the question of whether Israel’s “apartheid” status is the best litmus test for progressives to focus on when it comes to demanding different U.S. policies toward the country.
Newsom hasn’t done himself any favors with his squirming.
Newsom’s first comment, in early March, came during an event promoting his memoir, during which he criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as opportunistic and desperate to pander to the extreme right in the country:
He’s trying to stay out of jail. He’s got an election coming up. He’s potentially on the ropes. He’s got folks, the hardline, that want to annex the West Bank. Friedman and others are talking about it appropriately, as sort of an apartheid state.”
Newsom’s remark — the mention of “Friedman” was a reference to The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who regularly covers Middle East politics — sparked some backlash from pro-Israel advocates and politicians. It seems likely that Newsom was rattled by the response and decided to partially walk back his criticism.
When asked by Politico’s Jonathan Martin in an interview published Tuesday if he regretted the comment, Newsom said, “I do in this context,” clarifying that he doesn’t think Israel is an apartheid state but that it could be heading in that direction. (This is something Friedman suggested in a recent column.) And when Martin asked if he was a Zionist, Newsom said, “Do I consider myself a Zionist? I revere the state of Israel. I’m proud to support the state of Israel. I deeply, deeply oppose Bibi Netanyahu’s leadership.”
Newsom’s combined comments make it clear that after a brief foray into sharper criticism of Israel, he’s seeking refuge in a classic establishment Democrat playbook: Criticize Netanyahu as a reckless leader but decline to critique the way the country’s government operates on a deeper level.
Newsom would have been on stronger ground if he hadn’t hedged on “apartheid.” Many human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Israel’s premier human rights watchdog, B’Tselem, characterize Israel’s current system of governance as apartheid. And the reason is simple: Israel systematically segregates territory and assigns freedoms to residents differently, based on whether they are Jewish or Palestinian. The reason this matters is not only because it’s barbaric but also because Israel’s existence as an ethnocracy discredits one of its cardinal arguments for why it deserves the unconditional support of the West: that it is the “only democracy” in the Middle East.
Newsom hasn’t done himself any favors with his squirming. If there’s anything that should be evident to Democrats by now, it’s that Democratic voters are hungry for politicians who have clear beliefs and can speak plainly. Newsom evinces the painfully focus-grouped answers of the old Democratic establishment that the party’s voters have grown sick of. All that said, the buzz around using the word “apartheid,” while significant, should not be the primary issue that White House hopefuls are judged on when it comes to Israel policy. Amid the hubbub, Newsom’s hazy positioning on the pivotal question of U.S. military aid to Israel went virtually unnoticed. Notably, Newsom’s language on this matter during his first set of remarks was vague — he said he felt obligated to consider whether to rethink military aid to Israel, but he made no commitments. That is in and of itself worth scrutiny. In the coming years, the recent growth of pro-Palestinian sentiment in the Democratic Party means that there are bound to be plenty of intraparty arguments about whether Israel should be considered an apartheid state or be described as guilty of the act of genocide in Gaza. (My opinion on both those matters is yes.) But the most important thing as a material policy matter going forward is to insist on politicians putting their money where their mouth is, and restricting the constant, colossal flow of aid to the country. For some on the left, cutting off all aid to Israel is emerging as a standard for a progressive candidate. It is a wise one. It is a prerequisite for the U.S. claiming credibility as a supporter of human rights and democracy. And it is the only way to meaningfully pressure Israel to stop acting as a rogue state in the Middle East. Everything else is talk.
Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He primarily writes about politics and foreign policy. 
