Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good Monday morning, everyone. On Friday's show, we had the first of two segments with different views from the left about the Israel-Hamas war and the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab conflict. As I said opening that show, we'll continue on this program as best we can to discuss this crisis and the underlying issues with multiple points of view, as I've said before, trying our best to do this in good faith. I'm sure we fall short, but we do try.

Keep commenting and critiquing, listeners, as you see fit. Some of the context here about the discussion. On the American left is probably well-known to you, we had Journalist Molly Ball here earlier last week with her recent article called The Left is Tearing Itself Apart over Israel. Many of you know college students or faculty members who had generally agreed on other left of center politics but have been very at odds over this.

Politico had an article called The DSA, the Democratic Socialist of America, is Facing an Internal Reckoning over Israel. That was shortly after October 7th. Our guest on Friday was Jeremy Cohan, co-chair of the New York City DSA Steering Committee. He was here as a leader of the anti-Zionist left. He used that term. Our guest today, in just a minute, will be Alexis Grenell, among other things, a columnist for The Nation Magazine, obviously, a publication of the left, but who wrote an article there last year called How the Left Alienates Jews, and another this year, before October 7th, pointing to what she heard as anti-Semitism in a commencement speech at the City University of New York. As I said, Alexis Grenell will join us in a minute.

First, though, to set up the contrast, and for many of you I'm sure who didn't hear Friday's segment, here's an exchange I had with Jeremy Cohan from the Democratic Socialists as I ask him about something Alexis Grenell wrote. This exchange runs about two minutes. I mentioned that we'll have a different view from the American left on Monday with Alexis Grenell from The Nation Magazine who wrote that, "Where the rubber of anti-Zionism meets the road of anti-Semitism is the belief that Israel or a Jewish state should not exist."

Is the DSA anti-Zionist? Would you use that word?

Jeremy Cohan: Yes, I think so. Anti-imperialist is like the broad framing, so say no to taking other people's lands, ruling over other people, anti-colonialist, and seeing that from very early on, Herzl and others in the Zionist project, A, were okay with doing that to Palestinians. That was part of their stated intent and in alliance with Britain and other imperial powers, and B, had a hypothesis that Zionism was the solution to anti-Semitism.

Brian Lehrer: Right, but in the context of today, I'm interrupting for time, in the context of today, if you call yourself an anti-Zionist when the state of Israel exists, then are you not calling for there to be no Jewish state of Israel because you hedged on that before, or you said that's one possible solution?

Jeremy Cohan: I'm an anti-nationalist generally. I don't have particular love for any sort of nation states or nationalism. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm like, "The United States shouldn't exist," though, I think nationalism is a dead end as a solution for our long-term political issues. I think saying you're an anti-Zionist is about say no to special rights or Israelis say no to occupation, say no to apartheid. I think the actual particular political configuration that you end up with is beside the point a little bit to saying nationalism is not a solution to the ills of our world. We actually need justice. B, that any situation that disenfranchises and oppresses and kills Palestinians is totally morally unacceptable.

Brian Lehrer: Jeremy Cohan, co-chair of the Steering Committee of the Democratic Socialists of America, New York City chapter, on Friday's show. Joining us now with that other view from the left is Alexis Grenell, co-founder of the political consulting and communications firm, Pythia Public, a columnist at The Nation. I'll point out that her topline bio on Twitter includes those credits plus the words native New Yorker and Jewess. Alexis, thanks for engaging on this. Welcome back to WNYC.

Alexis Grenell: Thank you so much, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: Do you want to say first of all why you included that identity point at the end of your Twitter bio?

Alexis Grenell: Absolutely. Thank you for highlighting that. I can't exactly remember when I added it, but it was sometime earlier this year. It just felt important to me to publicly be seen as a Jew. For me, I've always loved the term Jewess, a sense of humor about it. I wanted that to be obvious. It's not always obvious to people, not based on my name necessarily. It was important to me that I be known as a Jew publicly.

Brian Lehrer: All right. Well, you heard that exchange with Jeremy Cohan that started with part of what you wrote in The Nation about anti-Zionism meeting anti-Semitism, I should say. I'll give you plenty of space to respond to that clip in any way you want. Let me ask so our listeners can get to know where you're coming from. Do you consider yourself a Zionist, an anti-Zionist, or neither of the above? Whatever your answer is, how does that fit into your general political identity as a progressive or someone on the left?

Alexis Grenell: Thank you so much for the question, Brian. I'm not someone who's actually ever thought too much about the term until I saw the way it was mutating in modern parlance to be sometimes a cover for anti-Semitism, sometimes just a shorthand for critiquing the Israeli government. I would say used in a multitude of contexts in which I think the speaker doesn't necessarily mean it to mean one thing or the other, but it has a broad series of meanings to it.

For myself personally, I believe that the state of Israel has the right to exist. I actually think that it's a very important place and must exist. I do not particularly use the term Zionist, but if the shoe fits, sure. I certainly don't have a problem with the term at all. To me, it's just a basic question of whether or not you believe Israel has a right to exist. There are some very principled, legitimate, not anti-Semitic anti-Zionism. That is absolutely a category of thought that I appreciate and respect even though I disagree with it.

Brian Lehrer: Is there an explicit argument that you would make that Zionism is consistent with being a person of the left?

Alexis Grenell: I guess, Brian, do you mean that there-- I don't think there's anything inconsistent for me about my politics and supporting the right of Israel to exist. No, I don't think it's inconsistent.

Brian Lehrer: Okay. Well, I had quoted you in that exchange that we replayed from Friday from one of your articles in The Nation from earlier this year before October 7th saying, "Where the rubber of anti-Zionism meets the road of anti-Semitism is the belief that Israel or a Jewish state should not exist." Would you elaborate on that and say why you think opposing a specific political configuration as unjust to minority groups there, which is their argument, is the same as bigotry against the Jewish people?

Alexis Grenell: I don't think that to be clear. The quote you just read was from an essay I wrote about a CUNY Law graduate student speaker and the way in which her anti-Zionism was anti-Semitic. To elaborate further, I do not consider progressive Jews who are anti-Zionist to be anti-Semitic. I do not think that the intellectual anti-nationalism that you hear a lot and that theoretical critique about favoring one minority's rights above another-- there's a whole space.

Brian Lehrer: As we heard in that clip, right?

Alexis Grenell: Exactly. Yes. Mr. Cohan from DSA articulated exactly that argument, which is not anti-Semitic at all. I also reject the idea that Jews are anti-Semitic. As an entire category, we can just disregard that, but I do think when we see a argument around anti-Zionism that includes language that Israel must be eliminated at all costs, death to Israel, every Zionist should be burned in the hottest pit of hell, I think oftentimes people who speak those words, and within that tradition, they think they're being anti-imperialist.

They think they're standing up for an oppressed people. I think they fundamentally, you both lack an understanding of the historical context of the Jewish people and the connection to that land, but also don't really fully grasp the impact of those words on the safety of Jews outside of Israel, certainly within America where we've seen this uptick in anti-Semitic attacks rhetoric and just an overall very significant encroachment on our personal safety and well-being. We have protests and frankly attacks on Israeli or Jewish owned businesses, defacements of public places.

Even the New York City public library was defaced around a donor's name, which was obviously Jewish, as if it had anything to do with Israel. That is where we start to see this blurring of the lines. I think there's something-- it's interesting, in the discussion about anti-imperialism, we're about to enter the Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights, which is a celebration of Jewish resistance to imperial occupation of Judea several millennia ago, and--

Brian Lehrer: Which is the West Bank. Correct?

Alexis Grenell: Exactly. When you talk-- Jews are native to the Levant and have been for millennia, and that's a plural of-- for thousands of years. We are not colonists. We are in fact indigenous to that land. Just understanding the history globally is so important, and it's why some of that language that we hear in modern rhetoric around anti-Zionism feels so historic, and frankly, anti-Semitic because it's denying the peoplehood and placement of Jews within history.

The fact that we are essentially eternal immigrants having been either occupied or driven out of various places we've called home historically, which was the entire purpose of establishing a state which would be a place we would always be welcome and able to seek refuge when we were kicked out of wherever, and that includes, by the way, the neighboring countries such as Yemen, Syria, Iraq, which Jews have, again, lived in for thousands of years, but were either sometimes subject to state sanctioned violence or rules and laws that restricted their ability to thrive, and in other times, did just fine, but have been expelled from those countries.

These are by and large what we call Mizrahi, who are Jews native to Middle East and North Africa. This does not easily fit a narrative of white supremacy, which is part of the critique so many anti-Zionists wrap up their arguments in, which is that this is imperialist western white supremacy being imposed on an Indigenous, Arab, brown people. It's just a exporting of the American construct of race into a context in which it absolutely has no bearing. That's a real problem, which is why I think the lack of education combined with a seeming, I would say, indifference or uninterest in knowing anything about this history is part of what renders sometimes an unintentional and oftentimes very intentional anti-Semitism.

Brian Lehrer: I guess people in the DSA, many of them and others might push back on that in this way. They might ask, "Isn't it fair to say perhaps that Zionism was from the start, maybe two things at once?" That it was a genuine national liberation movement for the Jewish people as you've been describing, who had been persecuted wherever they lived all over the world as a minority group. Absolutely.

That culminating in the Holocaust and wanting some self-determination, a progressive value in their ancient homeland, but at the same time, it was also settler colonialism, they would argue, because other people lived there and they weren't going to have equal political rights and ethnic nationalism like that with unequal rights especially as antithetical to the progressive project. Your thoughts on that?

Alexis Grenell: Sure. Absolutely. That would be a valid critique. The Nakba that displaced 700,000 Palestinians is in fact, the translation is a catastrophe for those people and is why the 75-year history of Israel has been fraught from start to finish. The only solution that people, both Palestinian Israelis and Jewish Israelis recognize is this two-state solution to rectify that original wrong. It is different than what, frankly, the general critique on the left, or rather solution on the left is, which is a binational state that's secular, which doesn't have any support locally of either Indigenous population. When there is a solution put forth that it's that solution, that's not one that is seen as viable.

Brian Lehrer: You don't think that's what a lot of Palestinians, and I'm not talking about Hamas, but a lot of regular Palestinians want?

Alexis Grenell: A binational state that's secular?

Brian Lehrer: Correct.

Alexis Grenell: There's polling on this, Brian. It's interesting. Both people want the right to self-determination, which is a very natural and legitimate claim. It's in fact the language of the United Nations that created Israel and that has created the concept of the modern nation state after the collapse of the imperial powers in the last century that necessitated these drawing of the map that created Jordan, that created Iraq, that created Syria. These were countries that didn't exist before.

That is a very valid notion, and actually, I'm going to credit the author of, I thought an incredible piece on this topic, who wrote that the binational state is essentially a delusion, and that's Arash Azizi who's a professor of Middle Eastern history at Clemson University. He wrote a piece in The Atlantic that was called the One State Delusion, because both people have a desire for this self-determination, which is why the two-state solution has historically been seen as the compromise that has actual legitimacy.

Brian Lehrer: I guess the supporters of that one-state, what you're calling binational, but it's one secular state, they would say the United States, it's a secular state where everybody has equal rights, even though we know it's not perfect in this country. It's that on paper. They say, "Look, the reality of Zionism since the state of Israel was founded," and you mentioned the Nakba, the displacement of so many people at the beginning of the history of the state of Israel through the 1967 war, which is when what we generally think of as the current occupation more or less began.

The argument would be that the reality on the ground is that the guaranteed rights for one people as a national home has not been compatible with the other peoples there having full civil and political rights. Something else has to happen. The two-state solution many people say is a relic of the '90s, and especially with the settler encroachment in the West Bank, it's dead.

Alexis Grenell: The last 20 years in which the rise of a right-wing fascism in Israel has created the settler's expansion into the West Bank and the anti-Palestinian racism has absolutely made that two-state solution seem like a hopeless dream. In some ways, I actually think perhaps there is an opportunity here to push for a resurgence of that model. It's frankly the only way forward. It's what the peace movement in Israel itself argues for. It's what the left-wing and organizations operating to create peace and community in Israel push for.

I don't disagree that it seems so hopeless. That's what's so horrible about this situation. It's actually incredibly complicated and fills one with despair. I would argue that simplifying this and reducing it to a narrative of who has power, the oppressed versus the oppressor, Indigenous versus colonial, none of this actually grafts onto the situation well, and it simply retrofits the reality into something that is ahistoric and wrong and actually ends up coming out kind of racist, which is what I wrote in June about the CUNY Law graduate speaker's speech.

It's also rather orientalist to continue to imagine that you can remake the Middle East in some western vision without actually paying attention to what's happening on the ground and working within those conditions, which is why serious people who do this work support a two-state solution. It was interesting for me listening to your interview with Mr. Cohan on Friday because of course, the values of progressivism, quality justice for all, equal rights, et cetera, are valid and right, and what all people deserve. The easy and glib way in which that advocacy thinned out when you asked questions about what a solution is. Mr. Cohan's exact quote was, "Heck if I know."

Brian Lehrer: Well, he was arguing, I think, that the DSA doesn't take a position that there should be a one-state solution. It could be some kind of one-state solution, or it could be a two-state solution, as long as Palestinians wind up with the full civil and political rights, which they don't have now.

Alexis Grenell: When they fail to condemn then rhetoric that says by any means necessary, Israel must be eliminated, or the idea of death to Israel, or frankly, fail to condemn Hamas, this cannot possibly be read as anything other than an ethnonationalism in the other direction.

Brian Lehrer: He would've said, and I think I asked him that question, that at least at the DSA, they definitely condemn Hamas. They definitely condemn any kind of violence against civilians and doesn't shrink from naming the various horrors that Hamas committed on October 7th and since, but that that doesn't justify what Israel is doing, certainly since October 7th,

You used the word power. He used the word power, and that's a standard critique from the left, as you well know, and you probably use it in other contexts, that Israel is the more powerful actor here, and they're responsible for the underlying conditions, which they would say is not to support Hamas. Of course, some people support Hamas, but by and large, the anti-Zionist left would say they don't support Hamas, but keep your eye on who's got the power here, and that's where the change has to occur.

Alexis Grenell: Mr. Cohan's critique was actually quite valid, but it is not broadly what you see from so much of the anti-Zionist critique. We've seen these large chants where people say, "We don't want two states. We want '48," which refers to 1948 when the state of Israel was established to say, "Let's roll back time and eliminate the state entirely." When we hear chants of-- and you asked him this question from the river to the Sea, Palestine will be free, which Mr. Cohan's response was, "Well, I hear that as a cry for liberation."

What's interesting to me is that that is not how, of course, Hamas uses that slogan, and it is not how it is meant when it is chanted within the context of eliminating Israel, which Hamas is very clear on in their charter. I don't understand how this got-- Anyone thinks that celebrating Hamas helps the Palestinian people in any way by conflating them with terrorists who haven't held elections since 2006.

This is just wild to me that that would seem like a positive way to frame a people, but that slogan, for instance, and I say this after years of left-wing arguments legitimately saying that we should think about language in terms of impact, not intent. It doesn't matter what's in the heart of the person who says the N-word, it matters that the N-word is wrong and immoral and is heard rightly by Black people as a racist, slander, and dehumanization of them.

Brian Lehrer: I guess it depends if you think that the large number of pro-Palestinian, or let's say the majority or a large percentage of the people in the pro-Palestinian demonstrations around the country and around the world now actually support Hamas, or actually condemn Hamas and really do see from the river to the sea as aiming toward one secular state.

Alexis Grenell: Brian, why should it be that that is the exception to how we treat language? If the impact not the intent when it comes to language about marginalized communities, is what we should be evaluating when we think about the effects of language, why is there this carve-out? I would also say the condemnation of Hamas has been rather light. As you pointed on that interview, the DSA's move the next day while the bloodshed was still being accounted for, was to sign on in support of a rally for Palestinian rights, which felt, and I think to the broader Jewish community, a little bit like, "Let us catch our breath here for a minute. We haven't even counted our dead."

We are still evaluating the extent of sexual violence and rape as a weapon of war in Israel, and there's been much coverage of the way in which traditional human rights institutions like UN Women, like the United Nations itself, have failed to properly condemn that use of violence against women that's gender-based and specific, and we recognize as a unique form of violation.

The response has been either light, "Oh, all rape is wrong, of course," yada, yada yada, which again, really skips over the extent, and I think trauma of this particular violation or denialism. "Oh, we don't have enough evidence. Oh, it's not real," and that's been in some ways what we've seen, like at the Oakland City Council hearing last week that went viral for the number of speakers who got up to speak out against a resolution condemning Hamas to say, "I will not condemn an oppressed people's resistance. No, this didn't happen. It's all fake. Let's not fall victim to propaganda."

Or the way in which people we've seen all over the country have ripped down signs of hostages who are still being held by Hamas in Gaza. That it's not just a-- By the way, a failure more broadly for people, including left-wing organizations, to speak out against that. That is a blight on the left wing, that failure to recognize the hostility and rising anti-Semitism related to this discourse, and to condemn it.

Brian Lehrer: We still have two more clips that we're going to play, another one of Jeremy Cohan from Friday, one of Kamala Harris from over the weekend. We'll take some phone calls. A lot of people are calling in, as you might imagine, as they did on Friday. Listeners, if you're just joining us, this is the second in our two conversations of views of the Israel–Hamas war and the larger Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab conflict.

Two views from the left. We heard Jeremy Cohan from the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialist of America on Friday. Now our guest is Alexis Grenell from the democratic party leaning communications firm, Pythia Public, and a columnist for The Nation. Justin in Clinton Hill, you're on WNYC. Hi, Justin.

Justin: Hi, Brian. Thanks so much for taking my call. What I want to address here is how language is used, and you were just talking about that, so appreciate that, and this constant phrase of Israel's right to exist, which I just find bizarre because it's not really applied to any other context, and what I think a lot of people-- I really appreciate your guest contextualizing it, so I'm not saying it as simple as this, but I think a lot of people hear it as--

You don't really hear this applied to other countries and countries really having rights. It seems to a lot of us like it's a way to say it has a right to exist as an apartheid state, or it has a right to exist in these certain terms. There's a lot of language like that and also a lot of calls for condemnation. You rarely hear people asking people to condemn the Israeli government before they make a statement on anything.

To your guest's comment about people's skepticism and wanting evidence for certain things, there has been a lot of bizarre stories from the Israeli government, for instance, 40 beheaded babies that were started by many big politicians that turned out to be absolutely untrue. I think it's reasonable for people to demand evidence and demand these things to be backed up, so [unintelligible 00:28:16]

Brian Lehrer: Justin, thank you for all that. Alexis, raised a few things there.

Alexis Grenell: Yes, sure. It's a really interesting point you make about where's this language from? Right to exist. We're never like, "The United States has a right to exist," when we then say, and President Trump is the worst person ever. It's because it's a given. We're not calling for the end of the United States. Part of the root of that language has to do with these circumstances under which Israel came into existence, which was met with massive backlash from the Arab world, which summarily expelled its Jewish populations at the time in response.

Iraq, Yemen, it was a huge backlash to Israel being created at all, and most of these countries where Jews had lived for, again, millennia, were suddenly given either in some cases, some notice to leave, like my upstairs neighbor growing up who came from Baghdad, and in others, they were simply slaughtered and [unintelligible 00:29:20] to death, and had to then be, in case of Yemen, airlifted out of Yemen into Israel.

There is this notion because of the complete and utter rejection of a Jewish state within the Arab world of asserting a right. Part of that is based on the history. Again, I made this comment earlier that if you want to talk about anti-imperialism, Jews who've been there for millennia have fought off many different imperial "occupations of Judea." In some ways, the establishment of a state is deeply anti- imperialist actually. That's one point. The other point about evidence, and I think that, again, a valid claim.

My point though, I do think the debate about whether the babies were merely butchered in their cribs or in fact beheaded was a real low point on the left, and I think that's an open and closed case. The issue around rape and sexual violence. Hamas terrorists wore GoPros. They were proud of what they did and it's been widely documented by them and in some cases, they actually uploaded video of them murdering a grandmother to her own Facebook account as a [unintelligible 00:30:37] film for her family to watch. This is primary source material. It's not actually based on reporting or what the IDF says.

That is where the-- and rape is always actually very-- I've written obviously a lot about the way in which we demand special proof of rape. It's part of why we have such low prosecution rates and conviction rates in this country, for instance, because of a high level of skepticism around what women say happened to them. In this case, we have actually quite a bit of video evidence. I think the continued insistence on more and more proof that women were gang raped by eight men versus just the one man is really splitting hairs over something quite despicable. In the same way that debating whether the babies were beheaded or simply butchered is not something we should be proud of.

Brian Lehrer: Let me take one more call for you. Iman in Brooklyn. You're on WNYC with Alexis Grenell. Hi, Iman.

Iman: Hi, Brian. Hi, Alexis. I'm Palestinian. My family has been in our village in Palestine for 700 years. We've been there for 700 years, long before Hamas existed, long before this right-wing Israeli government existed, and just even before any of this started on October 7th. My sister, when I was 16 years old, was shot in the back by Israeli soldiers for being in a peaceful protest. No Israeli soldier was ever held accountable. My 8-year-old brother, a few years later, had a gun put to his head by Israeli settlers. No one was held accountable. My parents had their home stormed by Israeli soldiers and put guns to their head and made to get on all fours. No one was ever held accountable.

This is what we're fighting for as Palestinians. We're just fighting for equality, and you, Alexis, are making excuses for the Israeli government. You are making excuses. We do not have the right to drive on roads that only Israelis are allowed to drive on. We're not allowed to have the same access to water as Israelis. We're not allowed to have the same access to housing as Israelis. We're not allowed to have the same access to civil court. We are tried in military courts. We live under martial law. That is what we are facing on a daily basis, and not just my family, right? We're talking about millions of Palestinians who are suffering under this while you are sitting here dissecting the words and the language.

100% I agree with you, anti-Semitism exists. I know because as a Palestinian, sometimes when people know I'm Palestinian, they immediately approach me to tell me what they think about Jewish people. I find myself having to say, "No, how dare you. Please do not talk about Jewish people that way. This is not a Jewish issue. This is the state of Israel that is mistreating my people and has now for 75 years." I know this to be true because the biggest group of people who support us are usually young Jewish activists who have often put their bodies in front of us to protect us.

Alexis, I would invite you to go to my village. I would invite you to go and stay in a Palestinian town and learn what we have to live through as Palestinians and then come back to Brian Lehrer's show and tell him what you think then. That's what I would invite you to do. Please do not ignore that right now as we speak, there is a Palestinian child being killed every 10 minutes in Gaza. Every 10 minutes in Gaza. Every 10 minutes in Gaza

Brian Lehrer: Let me get you a response, Iman, thank you for all of that. Obviously, this is personal for her. It comes out different than when people are discussing things in the abstract, than when somebody's family has lived through it and died through it. Alexis, is there anything there that you disagree with her on?

Alexis Grenell: No, I don't actually. I want to be-- I'm so horrified, Iman, about what has happened to your family. It's so-- wrong is just not enough of a word to capture the violation and trauma and just dehumanization. I would love to clarify, I make no excuse for this right-wing, fascist government that has created these conditions and the lack of accountability, and the invasion of your family's home and integrity as people with every right to be there. I certainly did not mean to imply that or convey that. I don't, and I'm not sitting here making those excuses at all.

I so appreciate what you said that you [unintelligible 00:35:58] don't see the anti-Semitism that comes up and the anti-Zionist rhetoric as being helpful because I don't think it's helpful when you have people, and I wrote this in June in my column. It is just as wrong when you have your right-wing Jews in the United States saying there shouldn't be a Palestinian state. That there isn't really a Palestinian people. That is just as racist and wrong. Part of what I appreciate here is the idea that we benefit mutually from resisting the so-called allies or movements that seek to dehumanize the other, because we need to live together and we need to live together with equality, justice, and dignity.

There's no part of me, Iman, that doesn't see that or that needs to make a special visit to your village to understand that. I accept you and your family's rights and humanity unquestioningly. That's what I think is the basis for any peaceful coexistence in a two-state solution and must be.

Brian Lehrer: Iman, I wonder if hearing that answer, if you're still there-

Iman: I'm still here.

Brian Lehrer: -if you feel you and Alexis have a fundamental common ground or not.

Iman: It's very simple, Brian and Alexis. Palestinians want equal rights. For all this talk about October 7th, which was horrible, no one talks about October 6th, October 5th, October 4th, and the 270 Palestinians who were killed before October 7th, just since January. The common ground, Alexis, if you truly believe and 100% are doing this not for public relations purposes, but because you truly feel compassion and believe in equality, drop what you're doing, go to Gaza right now and help my people survive the bombing. Drop what you're doing right now.

The Israeli government has at this point assassinated over 66 journalists. How can we talk about telling the truth when all the journalists are being killed by Israel? How, Brian? How are we supposed to tell the truth when they target journalists, and not just journalists, but I'm sure you heard that story about the journalist whose family was targeted and the entire family was killed.

Alexis, you want to have a meeting and have coffee? Let's do it. Let's do it, but it doesn't change the fact that my people, Palestinian people, do not have equal rights, and that is what we have been fighting for for 75 years.

Brian Lehrer: Iman, thank you so much. One more brief response to Iman.

Alexis Grenell: Sure, I'm unfortunately not in a position to drop everything and go to Gaza, but I appreciate that and I want to make clear that my criticism of the government and the absolute horrors and fascism they have inflicted on your family and others is unambiguous, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. That's why I'm interested in a solution that recognizes the dignity and humanity of both peoples to live side by side.

Brian Lehrer: Iman, thank you again for your very important call. Before we wrap up this part of the conversation, I want to play one more Jeremy Cohan clip from Friday. He said the DSA does not make it a litmus test for endorsing politicians, but some politicians want the DSA endorsement, obviously. They do not make it a litmus test that they support a one-state solution, but that sometimes people think that's the case because they confuse it with something else. Listen.

Jeremy Cohan: I think that maybe the confusion sometimes comes because DSA is a supporter of the BDS movement, a nonviolent attempt to pressure the Israeli state to--

Brian Lehrer: That's Boycott, Divest, and Sanction.

Jeremy Cohan: Yes. That is very important to our members. That is very important. The general standing of legislators with Gazans and with Palestinians and for the democratic, civil and political, and economic rights of Palestinians is very, very important to our members. That is definitely a litmus test in our organization.

Brian Lehrer: Alexis, what's your own position on BDS?

Alexis Grenell: I think it's not been very successful. I think there's actually a lot of ways to look at this. When I wrote my piece in January, it was about the DSA debate about expelling Jamaal Bowman, congressman from the Bronx in Westchester, over his support for BDS, or lack of support rather, which is consistent with Bernie Sanders, who also does not support BDS. What Bernie has said is that, "I don't think it's productive. I don't think it's helpful. I don't think it's successful, and I don't think it's a way forward."

Really, my issue is what gets us to a practical solution, and the problem, and I think this is what is often meant as simply a peaceful protest against Israel's policies towards Palestine is read and heard in a way that is not appreciated on the left because of both ignorance, but also I think lack of interest in Jewish history and the Jewish experience in America and the Jewish experience more worldwide.

Alexis Grenell: Sure.

Brian Lehrer: Let me jump in for time. Jeremy said in the clip that BDS is a nonviolent attempt to pressure Israel. Supporters compare it to the global divestment movement aimed at South Africa during the apartheid era, which helped bring an equal rights state to that country. It's economic pressure, peaceful and political, so consistent with progressive nonviolent activist values and action and shouldn't be vilified as anti-Jewish. Do you reject the South Africa comparison? We're going to have to take a break in about 30 seconds.

Alexis Grenell: Sure. I don't think that it's wrong to conceive of BDS that way. I just think that it's not terribly effective and it ends up backfiring, and that the pathway forward with people who support BDS is towards a peaceful resolution that recognizes the humanity and dignity of both people in the region, then that's not really working.

Brian Lehrer: Backfire how?

Alexis Grenell: I did write about this. The way in which BDS lands as a protest of products coming out of Israel and the West Bank is, for many Jews, reminiscent of a, don't buy from Jews victim that we experienced in pre-war Germany and in various other preludes to our removal or expulsion from other countries. It is an isolating tactic, which is meant to be a diplomatic tool, I think by people who mean it in good faith, but it cannot be divorced from the emotional context in which it exists for many Jews who do feel it to be a unique attack.

I heard this very much in your interview with Mr. Cohan, who I think is a very much a good faith actor, but his analysis thinned out as you started pushing for solutions. For people with real skin in the game, that is central to any tactic or strategy, and it seems that a lot of allies external to the conflict aren't necessarily as connected with that goal of a solution. Mr. Cohan was very up-front about that. He said it's frankly been an incredible organizing opportunity for DSA, which has a goal of growing its membership and increasing its influence, which is valid, but it's not necessarily related to a resolution for people who are stuck in this situation and who have to stay focused on solutions, not just on rhetoric or theory, but on a practical reality that they live every day.

Brian Lehrer: All right. I think between Friday's show and today's show, your two different views of the BDS movement are clear. Now, listeners, we're going to take a break here, and we're actually going to turn the page, because like we did with Jeremy Cohan on Friday, talk to him about some other US domestic politics and the DSA. We're going to do a very short segment with Alexis Grenell about something that she's probably involved in as a Democratic political consultant here in New York, and that is who's going to replace George Santos? Stay with us.

[MUSIC - Marden Hill: Hijack]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC with political consultant Alexis Grenell and a columnist for The Nation Magazine. On a much lighter note than what we've been talking about so far, this song is dedicated to Tom Suozzi. An old song by The Roaches that some of you may know. I think it applies here to Democrat Tom Suozzi, who gave up his seat in Congress to challenge Governor Kathy Hochul in a Democratic primary. What could go wrong? Well, he lost and the congressional seat flipped to red with the election of George Santos.

Now that that all happened and Santos has been kicked out, Tom Suozzi wants, as the song goes, all he wants is to have his old job back again. Problem is, so do a lot of other people in the swing district in Northeast Queens and Nassau County. We continue with Alexis Grenell from her Pythia Public Political communications firm and The Nation Magazine for just a few more minutes with some thoughts on that. Alexis, the district lines are a little bit different than when Suozzi had it. Maybe it's a little more conservative, a little more Republican-friendly, but does he have the inside track, at least for the Democratic nomination?

Alexis Grenell: Brian, and I just want to be very clear, I have nothing to do with this race. I'm not doing any work around this, but Jay Jacobs, who is the New York State Party Democratic chair and who's chair of the Nassau Democratic party, has always been supportive and friendly with Tom Suozzi and the rumor is that that's going to be his pick for the seat.

Because this is a special election that the governor has the authority to call, she does not appoint, the party gets to appoint who gets the Democratic line, and it will be held in February, which is, of course, the dead of winter, a low turnout time. The last time that happened, I believe, was Craig Johnson in 2006 or 2007 when Spitzer appointed Mike Balboni to his administration. It looks like Jacobs, who has a tendency to rely on tried and true candidates without much vision for what could be or what should be, is going to go the predictable route and appoint Tom Suozzi.

Brian Lehrer: Now wait, I think you told me something that I didn't know, and in fact, that I was under a misimpression about. There is no primary in this race? The party leaders appoint the candidates?

Alexis Grenell: No, no, no, that's not true. There can be a primary. It's that the party leader has the power to designate the line. The Democratic line will go to whomever the party leader designates. Somebody can run on the Working Families Party line, somebody can run on a third line as a Democrat, but because it's a special election, it's not a primary. A special election is outside of the normal election cycle.

Brian Lehrer: You are saying there's no primary first.

Alexis Grenell: Correct.

Brian Lehrer: Suozzi is not going to have to stand against other Democrats to the voters or whoever Jay Jacobs picks.

Alexis Grenell: He won't have to stand against any other voters on the Democratic line. That means that there could be other Democrats who run, let's say they run, like I said, on the Working Families Party line.

Brian Lehrer: Only in the one special general election.

Alexis Grenell: No. Yes, you're right, in the one special election, but that is in which any candidate can run. Let's say Tom Suozzi has a Democratic line, let's say somebody else has a Working Families Party line, let's say somebody has a Republican, somebody has a Conservative, somebody has an independent, they all get to run in this one special election. It's not a primary.

Brian Lehrer: They have to take different lines if Jay Jacobs doesn't wave his magic wand and appoint that person.

Alexis Grenell: Correct.

Brian Lehrer: I just want to mention the name, just to be fair to her, of the other name that's mentioned prominently, former state senator Anna Kaplan. We're going to invite at least both of them on if they both, in fact, are on the ballot. Last question. Since this was one of those various states, congressional district in New York State, near New York City that flipped from blue to red in 2022, why do you as a democratic strategist think the Dems lost these seats in the New York City suburbs last year, and also Republican Lee Zeldin came closer to Hochul than Republicans running for governor usually do. Are Democrats losing touch with a sizable portion of their base? If you were consulting somebody in this race, would you advise them maybe even to the left of where you would personally like them to be politically? To the right of that I mean.

Alexis Grenell: I understand. Two things. Brian, I actually was on your show last year around this time when that seat flipped and my analysis then, which is the same now, is that the lack of infrastructure in the Democratic Party in New York State is significant. The fact that Lee Zeldin came so close to knocking off Kathy Hochul, which was the first time in 30 years a Republican had become within spitting distance of a Democrat in New York State, was a function of the fact that the party is sclerotic, did not, and does not mobilize its voters, does not communicate with them, seems to be essentially a fundraising entity that then doesn't know how to spend its money and barely communicates or activates its base.

That's just by comparison, you look at Wisconsin where the Democratic party is on fire. I get more emails from Ben Wikler, who's head of the Democratic Party in Wisconsin, than I do from the New York State Democratic Party or the Brooklyn Democratic Party, which has the highest number of registered Democrats in the country, which is remarkable. The lazy way in which this party has been run, which is often more focused on primary, fighting with the left than on winning elections, created the circumstances for right-wing candidates and Republicans to run up as match victory.

Brian Lehrer: Weak party organization is your main analysis.

Alexis Grenell: Yes. That's a huge, huge problem because of who's in charge, and that's Jay Jacobs.

Brian Lehrer: A lot more to come on this, obviously between now and whenever that special election is held. Governor Hochul has about another week to name the date, and we thank Alexis Grenell from Pythia Public. She co-founded that political communications firm, and a columnist for The Nation magazine for both parts of this conversation today. Alexis, thank you so much.

Alexis Grenell: Thank you, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Much more to come.

 

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.