It was always going to be hard, after Oct. 7, for Bowman to bridge the gulf between his convictions and the expectations of many of his Jewish constituents. His district, which includes a small slice of the Bronx as well as the suburbs of southern Westchester, is among the country’s most Jewish, and many of his voters, traumatized by Hamas’s attack on Israel and by increasingly visible antisemitism in America, wanted someone who would stand resolutely with the Jewish state. Bowman was never going to do that; he was horrified by his encounter with Israel’s occupation during a congressional trip in 2021, and he’s been anguished by the mass death and suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, where he believes Israel is committing a genocide. There is something deeply admirable about his refusal to subordinate his values to political expediency.But Bowman has also been reckless in stomping on ideological land mines. Among his greatest unforced errors was claiming that reports of Israeli women being raped on Oct. 7 were a “lie” used for “propaganda.” (He later apologized.) Though he says he continues to support a two-state solution, he’s fallen into the left-wing habit of using “Zionist” as an insult, such as when he referred to the “Zionist regime we call AIPAC.” Speaking to Politico, he complained about the “decision” some Jews have made to segregate themselves, which many saw as an insult to the Orthodox communities in his district. I suspect Bowman didn’t know that the idea of Jews as clannish is an antisemitic trope, but when you have lots of Jewish constituents, understanding their sensitivities is part of the job.
- Calling Israel's actions in Gaza "genocide" is antisemitic.
- Denying that Israeli women were raped and claiming that it is a propaganda lie is antisemitic.
- Using the word "Zionist" as a pejorative is antisemitic.
- Complaining that religious Jews live in their own neighborhoods, when they must all be walking distance to synagogues, is antisemitic.
Doing all of this while representing a large Jewish community is not simply an oversight, or reckless, or a series of unforced errors. It is an indication of Bowman's embrace of antisemitism as a key component of his own political stance.
What, exactly, is "deeply admirable" about resolutely refusing to change his antisemitic positions? (And does that make his belated "apology" for denying October 7 atrocities less admirable?)
Goldberg remains perplexed but still admiring at the end of the article despite her own listing of no less than six antisemitic positions that Bowman has taken:
After the rally on Friday, I asked Bowman about choices he’s made that seemed to me like political malpractice. He rejected the idea that he should cater to those who’ve already decided that he’s antisemitic, emphasizing all the other communities in the district that he’s accountable to: “The community living in poverty, the community that can’t afford housing, the community that can’t afford child care” and those who want to see the war in Gaza end. But he can’t represent those communities, I said, if he loses. “If we lose, we lose,” he said. “It’s not about that. It’s bigger than that.”
Would Goldberg say that far right politicians who refuse to change their racist positions when criticized are "admirable"?
Publicly espousing antisemitic positions is acceptable and even praiseworthy as long as it is couched as anti-Israel rhetoric. And we can see it in the pages of the New York Times.
|
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. Read all about it here! |
|
