Dr. Gerstenfeld’s article first appeared in Israel National News and is republished here with the author’s consent…
Marie Newman: A glib Anti-Israeli Democrat for Congress
By Manfred Gerstenfeld
The Democratic primary in the third district of Illinois was hotly contested. In March 2020, progressive Democrat Marie Newman defeated longtime incumbent, Dan Lipinski. The expression “progressive Democrat” has increasingly become a pejorative the more so since Bernie Sanders became a presidential candidate.
Newman mentions that her husband is Jewish.1 For those who still believe that such a statement means anything concerning support of Israel, one should look at Sanders who makes repeated and strong anti-Israel statements despite his own Jewish background. He promotes the dignity of the murder-glorifying Palestinians, which are led by violent, corrupt, repressive and anti-democratic leaders. On the other hand Sanders has called Netanyahu’s government racist.
On her website, Newman has a detailed statement regarding her stand on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.2 A rapid look at its 12 points shows that she has many demands of Israel but only one of the Palestinians. Concerning them Newman writes: “I oppose the use of violence by Israelis and Palestinians as a means for resolving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because the use of such violence is morally wrong and harmful to the achievement of a just settlement of the conflict.”3 Yet the two types of violence are not comparable as Israeli violence is usually the result of Palestinian attacks.
Newman shows herself to be an extreme whitewasher of Palestinian crimes by not mentioning them on her website. There is no word about the genocidal aspirations against Jews of Hamas, which became the majority Palestinian party in democratic elections in 2006. No word about the ‘pay and slay’ policy of the Palestinian Authority. Nothing about Palestinian anti-democratic acts, the repression and corruption. There is no word about the huge promotion of antisemitic hatred by the Palestinians, which is even included in the teaching of children. No word either about the Palestinian refusal of the generous peace offer of then Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert. Nevertheless Newman defines herself upfront as “an ongoing advocate for civil rights.”
Newman’s text contains many manipulations applying a “verbal mask”. Her use of expressions such as “moral”, ‘fair’, and ‘just’ help in fooling the reader. It would take too much space to list all the demands this anti-Israeli Congress candidate makes on Israel. Thus, only some examples: About the Arabs in Israel, Newman writes: “Within the State of Israel, the civil, political, and economic rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel must be protected from all forms of discrimination and be allowed to vote.”4 Newman calls all Arab citizens of Israel ‘Palestinians,’ even if part of them do not consider themselves as such. To the uninitiated reader she furthermore falsely suggests that Israeli Arabs are not allowed to vote.
Newman is in favor of financial aid to both Israel and the Palestinian people.5 She thus supports giving money to the Palestinian Authority, which not only glorifies murderers of Israeli citizens but also rewards them financially. How this agrees with her desire of ensuring the democratic, civil and economic rights of all people she does not explain.
Newman supports the creation of an independent, viable, and secure Palestinian state.6 This civil rights advocate does not request that such a state should be democratic. It can be noted that there are indeed many examples of corrupt and repressive states that are viable. Size is also not a precondition for viability. Singapore has a surface of only 727 square kilometers. That is far less than the Palestinian state would have according to the Trump peace plan Yet, Singapore is far more viable than any Palestinian state is likely to be in the foreseeable future.
Newman states that “the United States should play an even-handed and unbiased role in the resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to achieve a permanent solution which honors the national aspirations of both peoples.”7 She thus perversely proposes American evenhandedness between a democratic U.S ally and a corrupt entity. Newman doesn’t mention that the national aspirations of the Palestinian people include the disappearance of Israel.
Newman supports — based on the First Amendment — the rights of the Palestinian people and their supporters to pursue the BDS campaign against Israel. She opposes making BDS illegal in the United States.8 Newman also opposes any action by the U.S. to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem “or any U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital unless there is a peace agreement which is not part of a final, mutually-agreed resolution of the Israel Palestinian conflict.”9 It so happens that the U.S. has already moved its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Newman opposes the “Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Israeli blockade of Gaza.”10 Yet Israel doesn’t rule the A and B areas of the West Bank. Furthermore, the West Bank cannot be occupied territory as there was no state who controlled it legally before. It is thus disputed territory. Opposing the Israeli blockade of Gaza is tantamount to facilitating murderous Hamas terrorism. It is one of many examples of a progressive indirectly supporting murder.
Potentially the most damaging of the many statements of this glib pro- Palestinian and extreme anti-Israeli is the following: “Palestinian refugees and Palestinians living in the Diaspora whose homes in Israel and the Palestinian territories were lost as a result of the conflict have the right to reside in Israel or Palestine and that the resolution of the conflict should include a fair and just resolution of the rights and aspirations of Palestinian refugees and Palestinians in the diaspora in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions.”11
Newman doesn’t define the word “refugees.” She thus leaves the option open to include in it the 99% of the so-called Palestinian refugees who aren’t refugees at all under common terms, but only under a special definition for Palestinians which includes descendants of Palestinians. Newman may therefore be in favor of swamping Israel with a flood of Palestinians who have never lived on Israel’s land.
Among those who backed Newman’s candidacy in her campaign were Sanders and Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.12 This is yet another indication that Ocasio-Cortez is a highly problematic congress member for Israel.
Newman was also supported by J-Street. A spokesman of this organization of Jewish masochists falsely claimed that Newman is pro-Israel and pro-peace.13 To such a claim the late David Bar Ilan’s expression the “peace of the grave” applies.
Without analysis one cannot see how extremely anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian Newman is. Yet I wonder why I had to carry out this case study. It is a huge failure of the Israeli government not to have systematically produced material to expose in detail the covering up of anti-Israel policies by people who ignore virtually all Palestinian crimes. Israel cannot interfere in U.S. elections. American pro-Israelis cabn. It is Israel’s duty to supply them with the information they need.
Until Israel, many years too late, establishes an anti-propaganda agency views like Newman’s heavily biased ones will continue to gain more traction. And that not only in the Democratic party.
5 Ibid, point 3
6 Ibid, point5