Stephen Zunes Podcast

About Stephen Zunes Podcast

I am Professor of Politics, University of San Francisco. I write on US politics and the Middle East. stephenzunes962006.substack.com (https://stephenzunes962006.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast)

Publisher

Stephen Zunes

Category

history · news

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

28 May 2025

Latest episode

27 Oct 2026

Latest episodes

31 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   27 Oct 2026

   The North Carolina Democrat Holding Out for Israel

   First published in The Progressive (https://progressive.org/latest/the-north-carolina-democrat-holding-out-for-israel-zunes-20261023/), October 23, 2026. Read by Greg Bates The dramatic shift in public opinion regarding U.S. relations with Israel, particularly among Democrats, has become apparent in the thirty-four Senate races this fall. The majority of Democratic nominees this cycle are seeking to distance themselves from the traditional pro-Israel groups that had previously backed them, rejecting the longstanding Democratic position (https://inthesetimes.com/article/biden-netanyahu-israel-harris-zionism-gaza) of supporting billions of dollars’ worth of unconditional military aid to Israel. This is smart politics: A May 2026 NBC News poll (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/poll-israels-standing-plummets-democrats-fueling-primaries-left-rcna262995) found that 67 percent of Democrats are more sympathetic toward Palestinians than Israelis, with only 13 percent viewing Israel positively. An August 2025 Quinnipiac poll (https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3929) found that 77 percent of Democrats believed Israel was committing genocide. And a May 2026 New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/05/21/polls/times-siena-poll-democrats-crosstabs.html)/Siena poll (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/05/21/polls/times-siena-poll-democrats-crosstabs.html) showed that 74 percent of Democratic voters opposed providing additional economic and military aid to Israel, with only 8 percent of Democrats strongly supporting it. One measure of this shift is that the once-influential Democratic Majority for Israel (https://dmfipac.org/candidates/) (DMFI) is finding fewer candidates to endorse. In 2022, the political action committee endorsed nine Democratic Senate nominees; in 2024, the endorsements were down to six. This year, there are only two: Representative Chris Pappas in New Hampshire and former Governor Roy Cooper in North Carolina. Two additional Democratic Senate candidates endorsed by DMFI—Representative Haley Stevens (https://progressive.org/latest/a-dangerous-contender-for-us-senate-in-michigan-primary-zunes-20260729/) in Michigan and Representative Angie Craig (https://dmfipac.org/news-updates/press-release/dmfi-pac-announces-first-round-of-senate-endorsements-in-high-stakes-2026-battlegrounds/) in Minnesota—lost (https://www.timesofisrael.com/progressive-israel-critic-defeats-more-moderate-democrat-in-minnesota-senate-primary/) their primaries to progressive opponents who explicitly challenged their support for the Israeli government and their reception of millions of dollars in campaign contributions from hardline pro-Israel groups. Throughout his four terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, New Hampshire’s Pappas was one of Israel’s biggest Democratic supporters (https://pappas.house.gov/media/press-releases/pappas-affirms-support-for-israel-opposes-gop-s-politically-motivated-bill). Facing a strong progressive challenger, Karishma Manzur, in September’s Democratic primary, however, Pappas began moderating his stance. In July, he voted (https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2026/09/03/pappas-is-making-campaign-finance-part-of-his-us-senate-bid-his-opponents-cry-hypocrisy/) “present” on an amendment to restrict additional arms sales to Israel rather than casting an anticipated negative vote. He has also called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies “indefensible and unsupportable” and said the situation constituted “an important moment for a reset” with respect to the U.S. policy toward Israel. Cooper, who faced no serious challenger in the primaries, appears by contrast to be resisting demands to distance himself from his longstanding support for the Israeli government, saying (https://dmfipac.org/) he was “grateful” to receive DMFI’s endorsement. Despite DMFI supporting (https://demmajorityforisrael.org/who-we-are/mission/) the Israeli occupation, condemning (https://demmajorityforisrael.org/media/press-release/statement-on-the-senates-international-criminal-court-measure/) the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, and opposing (https://demmajorityforisrael.org/media/press-release/democratic-majority-for-israel-applauds-democratic-led-letter-demanding-hamas-surrender-release-hostages-and-end-the-conflict-in-gaza/) a Gaza ceasefire, he praised the group “for the work they do to advocate for peace and prosperity both at home and abroad.” Cooper’s support for Israel’s wars and occupation predates his Senate campaign. As governor, he signed (https://www.carolinajournal.com/cooper-signs-law-barring-state-investments-in-companies-boycotting-israel/) a Republican-sponsored bill punishing companies and individual contractors not only for boycotting Israel, but for simply boycotting Israeli settlements or companies directly supporting the occupation. Even J Street and other liberal Zionist groups—which oppose the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement overall—recognize such legislation as an effective endorsement of the Israeli occupation and colonization of the West Bank and have come out (https://jstreet.org/press-releases/j-street-opposes-trade-bill-that-undermines-us-and-israeli-interests_1) in opposition. Cooper also signed (https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2023/Bills/House/PDF/H942v4.pdf) into law another Republican-sponsored resolution to suppress pro-Palestinian activism by using (https://progressive.org/latest/the-chilling-effect-of-equating-criticism-of-israel-to-antisemitism-zunes-20240517/) the controversial definition of antisemitism, put forward by a group known as the International Holocaust Remembrance Association, which labels certain criticisms of Israel or Zionism as a form of bigotry subject to civil rights statutes. Both of these bills were strongly opposed (https://www.courthousenews.com/north-carolina-legislature-passes-antisemitism-definition-measure/) by the American Civil Liberties Union, progressive Jewish organizations, and various liberal groups. Cooper’s position on Israel does not reflect that of residents in his state. Not long after October 7, 2023—seeing Israel’s disproportionate (https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/) targeting of civilians and their infrastructure—sizable numbers of North Carolinians joined Americans nationwide in calling for the Biden Administration to withhold offensive military aid. In response, despite not being a member of Congress, Governor Cooper declared (https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/local/cooper-north-carolina-israel-hamas-war-politics/275-b4e2db05-7212-4a3f-bc6b-f4cb9a5bd8a6): “I stand with Israel and its right to defend itself from barbaric violence and Congress needs to supply the funding requested by President [Joe] Biden.” Soon after Cooper announced his candidacy for Senate in 2025, liberal Senate Democrats unsuccessfully tried to block Trump’s proposal to send additional offensive weapons to Netanyahu. Cooper’s campaign then released a statement (https://jewishinsider.com/2025/08/democrats-top-senate-recruit-roy-cooper-rejects-effort-to-block-aid-to-israel/) saying that he “does not believe we should withhold aid from a critical ally like Israel,” citing the need “to defend themselves against countries like Iran,” which Israel, with U.S. support, had recently attacked. Cooper takes this position despite widespread opposition from within his own party. The North Carolina Democratic Party, at its annual convention this summer, voted (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jasp7UcTJt29q1fhIr011kUUsYBCS1oEvnZiK-LmWoQ/edit?tab=t.0) 407-89 to include a call for a complete arms embargo on Israel in the party platform. Apparently, Cooper doesn’t appear to care what Democratic voters think; he’s confident they will vote for him anyway, given the importance of getting a Democratic majority in the Senate amid his race against MAGA Republican Michael Whatley. These stances raise questions about what kind of senator Cooper would be in the likelihood he is elected in November. He would almost certainly join the shrinking minority of Democrats—including John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Chuck Schumer of New York, Jacky Rosen of Nevada, and Adam Schiff of California—in allying (https://time.com/article/2026/04/16/the-seven-senate-democrats-who-caucused-with-republicans-to-continue-arms-sales-to-israel/) with Trump and congressional Republicans on matters dealing with Israel and Palestine. It’s hard to tell exactly why the sixty-nine-year-old Cooper is so attached to Israel, and whether it reflects a worldview hostile to human rights and international law overall. Cooper backing the Trump Administration’s provision of unconditional offensive military aid during a genocide (https://newlinesmag.com/essays/by-rejecting-evidence-of-genocide-in-gaza-the-us-is-following-a-familiar-pattern/) raises thorny questions. Would he have supported Nixon arming Pakistan during the genocide in Bangladesh, or Reagan arming Guatemala during its genocide against indigenous peoples? Would he have supported Reagan’s backing of South Africa in the face of its illegal occupation of Namibia and its apartheid system? Cooper’s hostility to those boycotting the Israeli occupation and settlements raises similar questions. Would he have supported historical efforts to punish those engaging in boycotts of non-union lettuce and grapes, segregated buses, or companies engaging in union busting and utilizing sweatshops? And would he have supported Republican-backed legislation to enable a state crackdown on those opposing the Vietnam War or intervention in Central America? This does not necessarily mean Cooper will be another Jesse Helms (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DylFJF-oMoTER2juuHeQKrSNDZ39--K8lx7_-Io50TE/edit?tab=t.0), the rightwing Republican senator who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for six years at the turn of the twenty-first century. For one thing, Cooper has focused almost exclusively on domestic issues during his campaign. His opposition to the Iran War is expressed primarily in the context of how it has contributed to inflation, a reflection of his focus on affordability. Moreover, Cooper seems to be going out of his way to avoid talking about Israel and Palestine. His campaign refused to respond to repeated emails and phone calls for this article. In short, Cooper knows that his position is an unpopular one. He knows that like-minded pro-Israel hawks are a rapidly shrinking group within the Democratic Party. This past spring, forty out of forty-seven Senate Democrats voted (https://www.sanders.senate.gov/in-the-news/the-dam-breaks-democratic-senators-overwhelmingly-reject-arms-sales-to-israel/) for an unsuccessful effort to block a supplemental arms sales package to Israel. And that is why, despite frustrations with holdouts like Cooper, we have reason to be optimistic. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit stephenzunes962006.substack.com/subscribe (https://stephenzunes962006.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2)

2. 

   17 Oct 2026

   Why Navi Pillay’s Receiving the Nobel Peace Prize Is So Important

   By Stephen Zunes First Published in The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/world/navi-pillay-nobel-peace-prize-international-law/) October 14, 2026 https://www.thenation.com/article/world/navi-pillay-nobel-peace-prize-international-law/ (https://www.thenation.com/article/world/navi-pillay-nobel-peace-prize-international-law/) With international law and human rights under attack by such major powers as the United States and Russia and with ongoing genocidal wars in Sudan, Myanmar, and Palestine, the Norwegian Nobel Committee, in awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the prominent South African jurist Navi Pillay, has sent a message that these foundational principles of the post–World War II era indeed do matter. In the statement announcing its decision (https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2026/press-release/), the committee declared, “In awarding this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wants to remind the world that the rule of law—national and international—underpins the system we have set up to ensure peace and resolve conflicts non-violently. Peace requires justice.” While not specifically naming such major violators as the United States, Russia, Israel, and Morocco, the Nobel committee warned that international law is “an absolute necessity” for peace, noting how Pillay embodies these values—values that are currently being undermined by Washington. It is hard to imagine a better representative of the efforts to defend human rights through international law. Among many prominent roles, the Harvard-educated Pillay has served as a judge of the International Criminal Court (ICC), as UN high commissioner for human rights, as president of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and as a jurist on the International Court of Justice investigating charges of genocide in Myanmar. The reaction from Washington was swift. President Donald Trump (https://www.denvergazette.com/2026/10/11/trump-denounces-norway-after-nobel-prize-decision-2/) called the decision by the Norwegian committee “an indelible stain on the country of Norway” and said that the Nobel Peace Prize “has been forever discredited by a handful of radical ideologues who are anti-democracy, and really enemies of civilization.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio then announced punitive sanctions against the ICC (https://www.reuters.com/world/us-imposes-sanctions-international-criminal-court-hours-after-former-judge-wins-2026-10-09/), prohibiting any Americans or US businesses from working with the court and punishing anyone in banking, technology transfers, commercial services, or other professional engagement. Perhaps not surprisingly, in reference to Pillay, Trump initially acknowledged (https://www.denvergazette.com/2026/10/11/trump-denounces-norway-after-nobel-prize-decision-2/) he had “never heard of the person,” but went on to declare that, despite her arguably being the world’s most prominent advocate of human rights and international law, “Nobody did. It’s a mystery person.” Pillay, however, is actually well-known in Washington and has for years been the subject of bipartisan attacks, with leading Democrats joining Republicans in targeting her over her refusal to exempt US allies like Israel from investigations and accountability. Pillay is perhaps best known for her role as the United Nations high commissioner for human rights between 2008 and 2014, the UN’s leading entity dedicated to advancing and protecting the full range of human rights and freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (https://www.ohchr.org/en/universal-declaration-of-human-rights). While the UN Human Rights Council, made up of 47 states, can sometimes be politicized, the Office of the High Commissioner (https://www.ohchr.org/en/ohchr_homepage) has traditionally been led by independent-minded professionals like Pillay who are willing to stand up for human rights regardless of the violator. Despite this, in 2012, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and ranking Democrat Representative Eliot Engel (D-NY) wrote an angry letter (https://unwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Bipartisan-Letter-on-Navi-PillayS-anti-Israel-bias-May-24-2012-1.pdf) calling on the Obama administration to “publicly and strongly oppose” Pillay’s reelection, falsely claiming that she had not condemned Syria, China, and other human rights violators and that she had “repeatedly demonstrated bias against the State of Israel,” despite her consistent law-based approach to human rights, which has led her to denounce human rights abuses in many countries. The Obama administration agreed (https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/05/24/u-s-reps-snub-navi-pillay/) with the bipartisan opposition in Washington, joining Syria’s Assad regime (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rights-un/u-n-rights-chief-to-stay-two-more-years-u-s-syria-arent-fans-idUSBRE84N1O720120524/) and other authoritarian states in attempting to block Pillay’s reelection. Because she had strong support from prominent US allies, however, Obama agreed to allow her to stay on, but only for an abbreviated second term of two years instead of the customary four. It is noteworthy that while Obama (https://x.com/BarackObama/status/1976689421069009235) and Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer (https://www.facebook.com/senschumer/posts/it-was-an-honor-to-meet-with-the-leader-of-the-venezuelan-democratic-movement-an/1477173137100618/) publicly congratulated last year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner, right-wing Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, prominent Democrats have been conspicuously silent about Pillay’s receiving the award. In March 2022, 68 senators (https://www.timesofisrael.com/68-us-senators-press-blinken-to-quash-open-ended-un-probe-into-israel/) signed a letter to President Biden calling on him to quash an investigative panel chaired by Pillay into war crimes by both Israel and Hamas. The United States was one of only eight members of the 193-member General Assembly to vote against funding the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory led by Pillay and two other highly respected international jurists. In its report (https://www.un.org/unispal/document/report-of-coi-14aug25/) issued last year, it confirmed findings by international human rights organizations (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/), genocide scholars (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cde3eyzdr63o), and others that Israel had violated the 1948 Genocide Convention (https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide) and called on both Israel and Hamas to fully comply with international humanitarian and human rights law and to hold those accountable for violations. Also in 2022, a bipartisan group of 42 House members (https://gottheimer.house.gov/posts/release-bipartisan-group-of-42-members-urge-secretary-of-state-to-defund-united-nations-committee-of-inquiry-on-israel) condemned Pillay for having “repeatedly and unjustly accused Israel of committing war crimes” and for her acknowledging the Israeli government’s disdain for international legal principles, claiming that Israel actually “respects and complies with international law.” They similarly falsely accused her of saying “nothing at all about egregious human rights abuses” in other countries. While there are certainly some who do unfairly single out Israel for ideological or even antisemitic reasons, Pillay is not among them. As with similar criticisms out of Washington of international judicial bodies, human rights organizations, and international jurists, the problem is not that Pillay singles out Israel or other US allies but that she fails to exempt them from the same rigorous standards she applies to all nations. And this is why Navi Pillay’s receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is so important and US opposition is so dangerous. Pillay has worked to build up institutions and principles the United States wants to tear down. She believes that human rights and international law are universal principles that must be enforced regardless of the violator’s ideology, ethnicity, or geostrategic alignment. And that is what Washington finds so objectionable. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit stephenzunes962006.substack.com/subscribe (https://stephenzunes962006.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2)

3. 

   4 Sept 2026

   Democratic Voters Say They Want Change, But the Party Just Elevated More Hawks

   Truthout has just posted my latest article about how, despite growing dissatisfaction among Democratic voters with the war on Iran and with ongoing military support for Israel and Arab dictatorships, the House Democratic leadership has picked two prominent hawks to join the House Foreign Affairs Committee while also promoting an even worse militarist to become a the ranking member (and likely next chair) of the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee. You can find links to both the article as well as an audio version below.......... Exactly one year ago, I wrote an article on a similar theme regarding the Democratic National Committee’s decision to block resolutions calling on the Democratic Party to oppose any additional offensive military aid to Israel and to join the vast majority of the world’s nations in recognizing the State of Palestine. This left the party on record supporting the position stated in its 2024 platform that maintaining high levels of military aid was “ironclad” and that the U.S. would only support Palestinian statehood on terms agreed to by Israel through direct bilateral negotiations, despite the fact that Israel opposes any Palestinian statehood and there haven’t been negotiations for more than a decade. https://inthesetimes.com/article/dnc-israel-gaza-palestine-democrats-ceasefire-genocide (https://inthesetimes.com/article/dnc-israel-gaza-palestine-democrats-ceasefire-genocide) I ended the article on a hopeful note, pointing out how the DNC chair had promised to form a committee to re-evaluate the party’s position on Israel/Palestine. That committee was never formed, however. The good news is that at their meeting a few weeks ago, the DNC adopted a resolution calling for the consistent enforcement of the Leahy Law, which prohibits U.S. arms transfers to governments engaged in war crimes. Unfortunately, given that the last Democratic administration denied Israel was engaged in war crimes, it’s unclear as to whether this will make a difference. Here’s the article. Democratic Voters Say They Want Change, But the Party Just Elevated More Hawks (https://truthout.org/articles/democratic-voters-say-they-want-change-but-the-party-just-elevated-more-hawks/) Party leaders are ignoring the three-quarters of registered Democrats who oppose providing military aid to Israel. By Stephen Zunes (https://truthout.org/authors/stephen-zunes/) First published in Truthout (https://truthout.org/articles/democratic-voters-say-they-want-change-but-the-party-just-elevated-more-hawks/), September 3, 2026. Despite growing dissatisfaction among Democratic voters with the U.S.’s ongoing military support for Israel, the House Democratic leadership has picked two foreign policy hawks — Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Florida) and Wesley Bell (D-Missouri) — to join the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC), while also promoting an even worse hawk, Jared Moskowitz (D-Florida), to become a ranking member of the Middle East and North Africa subcommittee. Moskowitz is among the most right-wing Democrats in the House regarding Israel. He opposes any conditions on U.S. military aid to the Netanyahu government and was one of only a dozen Democrats who voted (https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-aid-irs-cuts-tax-cheats) for a 2023 Republican supplemental aid package to Israel during the height of the Gaza genocide. He has conflated (https://podscripts.co/podcasts/the-bulwark-podcast/jared-moskowitz-and-zeke-faux-scams-galore) criticism of Israeli war crimes with antisemitism and he authored (https://www.commondreams.org/news/genocide-denial-congress) an amendment to ban the use of State Department funds to cite official Gaza casualty figures. He opposes Palestinian statehood except on terms agreed to by Israel, despite the fact that Israel’s current government opposes any kind of Palestinian state. And he was among the small minority of Democrats to vote against the War Powers Resolution (https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/83) targeting U.S. support for Israel’s war on Lebanon and supported sanctioning (https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/23) members of the International Criminal Court for investigating war crimes by Israel or any other U.S. ally. The HFAC’s ranking member and likely next chair Greg Meeks (https://democrats-foreignaffairs.house.gov/2026/8/meeks-welcomes-new-members-to-hfac) (D-NY) — similarly a hardline supporter of Israel and of autocratic U.S. allies — unsurprisingly praised the new likeminded appointees and expressed positivity about how they will soon “guide the committee as it addresses urgent challenges in national security and diplomacy.” Moskowitz’s appointment in particular should be of concern to supporters of human rights and international law: It puts him in the position to chair the subcommittee in the likely event that Democrats gain a majority in the House of Representatives after the November elections. As chair, Moskowitz would have significant influence over the Middle East policy promoted by the Democratic Party, becoming the party’s de facto spokesperson on the House side and allowing him to shape legislation and oversight involving Israel and the Middle East as a whole. Committee and subcommittee chairs have considerable power in determining who gets to testify, thereby enabling Moskowitz to refuse a fair hearing to human rights advocates and others opposed to U.S. support for the Israeli government and Arab dictatorships. Upon his appointment, Moskowitz — as a sign of his backing of the Trump administration’s support for the Israeli government and autocratic Arab regimes — pledged to use his position “to strengthen America’s relationships with Israel and our Gulf allies.” And he acknowledged the power that he will have, telling Axios (https://www.axios.com/2026/08/25/democrats-israel-moskowitz-house-foreign-affairs), “If Democrats take control of the House, I’ll be in a position to help steer U.S. policy on Israel and the Middle East.” Moskowitz, Wasserman Schultz, and Meeks are grossly out of step with Democratic public opinion. Nearly three-quarters of registered Democrats (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/05/21/polls/times-siena-poll-democrats-crosstabs.html) oppose providing additional military or economic aid to Israel. Indeed, eight out of 10 (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/04/07/negative-views-of-israel-netanyahu-continue-to-rise-among-americans-especially-young-people/) Democrats and Democratic-leading independents view Israel unfavorably and barely 16 percent (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/07/09/americans-views-of-israelis-have-grown-increasingly-negative-but-views-of-palestinians-have-held-fairly-steady/) think favorably of the U.S.-backed Israeli government. Sixty-five percent (https://news.gallup.com/poll/702440/israelis-no-longer-ahead-americans-middle-east-sympathies.aspx) of Democrats now sympathize more with Palestinians than Israelis, as compared with 17 percent who side with Israel. Indeed, there is probably no issue where the policies pursued by the Democratic leadership are so out of step with the views of the rank-and-file. Israel is not the only occupying power supported by Moskowitz. The Florida Congressman is a strong backer of Morocco’s illegal and repressive occupation of the nation of Western Sahara (https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/09/01/western-sahara-conflict-analyzing-the-illegal-occupation-1973-present/), a full member state of the African Union that the kingdom invaded in 1975 in defiance of a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions (https://docs.un.org/en/S/RES/380(1975)) and a landmark ruling (https://www.icj-cij.org/case/61) of the International Court of Justice. He is one of only a handful of Democrats to support a bill to designate the Polisario Front — the secular, democratic, and moderately leftist movement which governs Western Sahara — as a foreign terrorist organization (https://truthout.org/articles/bipartisan-us-push-tries-to-label-democratic-african-government-as-terrorist/), despite the fact that that they have never engaged in terrorism or have ties with any terrorist groups. Moskowitz has pushed to fast-track arms transfers (https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/9322/text) to Morocco to support its increasingly brutal occupation (https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/north-africa/morocco-and-western-sahara/report-morocco-and-western-sahara/), ostensibly to counter Iran and Iran-backed groups, even though that northwestern African nation is thousands of miles from Iran or any pro-Iranian militia, and none of them has weapons capable of reaching it. This bill also supported expediting arms to Bahrain, which has brutally suppressed the pro-democracy movement in that island nation, as well as to the United Arab Emirates, which has been supporting the genocidal Rapid Support Forces in Sudan. In addition, Moskowitz serves as co-chair of the Congressional Friends of Egypt Caucus (https://www.legistorm.com/organization/summary/128794/Congressional_Friends_of_Egypt_Caucus.html), which promotes closer ties and billions of dollars’ worth of military aid to the brutal dictatorship of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Indeed, authoritarians throughout the region know they now have a powerful and influential friend in the Democratic leadership. Meanwhile Moskowitz is also one of Congress’s leading Iran hawks. During sensitive negotiations prior to the war, Moskowitz declared (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E4r5XUTbF4) that “now is not the time to appease” Iran, insisting that the Trump administration adopt a tougher stance — even acknowledging (https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/us/2025/05/11/us-democrat-jared-moskowitz-says-now-is-not-the-time-to-appease-iran/) that he was to the right of Vice-President JD Vance and special envoy Steve Witkoff and was more closely aligned with far right senators Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) and the late Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina). Last year, he was one of only two Democrats to oppose an effort to block an incipient war on Iran through enacting the War Powers Resolution (https://khanna.house.gov/media/press-releases/reps-khanna-massie-introduce-bipartisan-war-powers-resolution-prohibit), calling it the “Ayatollah Protection Act.” (https://theintercept.com/2026/02/26/iran-war-powers-vote-democrats-gottheimer-moskowitz/) Perhaps not coincidentally, Moskowitz has bought stock in Lockheed Martin (https://www.instagram.com/reel/DbJ5Z2btvv8/), the world’s largest military contractor, on four occasions since joining the Foreign Relations Committee. In short, the Democratic leadership has chosen an ally of a right-wing Republican administration as the Democratic party’s chief representative of a key subcommittee, despite his views on the Middle East conflicting with those of an overwhelming majority of Democrats. The appointment of Moskowitz in 2026 is essentially the equivalent of the Democratic leadership having in the 1980s appointed a supporter of the Salvadoran death squads, the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua, and the genocidal junta in Guatemala to the leadership of the Western Hemisphere subcommittee. Not surprisingly, right-wing news outlets such as the (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/good-luck-making-jared-moskowitz-into-a-household-name-progressives/) National Review (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/good-luck-making-jared-moskowitz-into-a-household-name-progressives/), Algemeiner (https://www.algemeiner.com/2026/08/26/progressives-slam-appointment-pro-israel-lawmaker-us-house-foreign-affairs-committee/), Washington Examiner (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/4700469/progressives-rage-pro-israel-moskowitz-key-middle-east-post/), and Newsmax (https://www.newsmax.com/politics/democrats-israel-foreign-affairs-posts/2026/08/26/id/1267409/)have defended the selection of Moskowitz and the other hardliners while dismissing concerns from Democratic human rights activists. Democrats and other liberal and progressive critics are pushing back, however. Dylan Williams (https://x.com/dylanotes/status/2092407087762375011), vice president for governmental affairs at the Center for International Policy, noted how “Moskowitz is deeply out of touch with Democratic voters on the very issues the party’s House leadership just entrusted to him.” The Institute for Middle East Understanding (https://x.com/imeupolicy/status/2092388423088632293) sent out a statement saying: Just as the Democratic Party is asking its voters to donate and volunteer for the midterms, party leadership in Congress elevated one of its most out-of-step members to block the changes most Democratic voters are demanding. This encapsulates so much about what’s wrong with today’s Democratic Party leadership. Carrie Kharrazian (https://www.demandprogress.org/house-dem-leaders-commit-political-malpractice-by-elevating-moskowitz), a senior policy adviser for Demand Progress, said: By making a hard-line Israel supporter their point person on Middle East policy, House Democratic leaders are doubling down on a failed approach to Israel that shows contempt for the clear and growing majority of Democratic voters who want to stop cutting blank checks for the Israeli government. Donald Trump’s ongoing wars in the Middle East and his commitment to keeping the US joined at the hip to Israel are wildly unpopular and have been a disaster for the nation. Elevating someone who consistently sides with Trump in support of Israel, and who has a long record as an Iran hawk, represents clear political malpractice on behalf of House Democratic leaders. Erik Sperling, executive director at Just Foreign Policy, called (https://x.com/ErikSperling/status/2092329161490645019) the decision to appoint Moskowitz “shocking,” noting that “Meeks and [House Democratic leader Hakeem] Jeffries are apparently intending to signal that the anti-war and pro-Palestinian movements are unwelcome in the [Democratic] Party.” Ben Rhodes (https://x.com/brhodes/status/2092413011948712441), who served as Deputy National Security Advisor during the Obama administration, wrote that the Democratic leadership was “showing zero regard for the vast majority of their own voters,” adding (https://x.com/brhodes/status/2092448296229073290) that their “disregard for war crimes and voter concerns could not be clearer.” He spoke for many by observing (https://x.com/BradSherman/status/2093396747376554321) that it was “a giant ‘f**k you’ from Democratic leadership to Democratic voters.” He continued, (https://x.com/brhodes/status/2092448296229073290) “Dems are counting on people not noticing how they approach governing. Appointments on HFAC are a signal of what the party cares about and the disregard for war crimes and voter concerns could not be clearer.” And he predicted (https://x.com/brhodes/status/2092464820104933668?s=20) that the House leadership’s choices would leave Democratic voters feeling like their concerns were being “completely ignored.” Congressional Democrats have been speaking out as well. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/8/27/pro-israel-democrats-picked-for-top-roles-on-key-us-house-committee) (D-Michigan), argued that, “By elevating a genocide denier who has said he is ‘to the right’ of JD Vance on the war on Iran, Democratic leadership is once again ignoring the base of our party who want the funding of the genocide to end.” And Rep. Ro Khanna (https://x.com/RoKhanna/status/2092668834264080555) (D-California) shared a social media post saying, “Don’t put Israel hawks out of touch with our voters in charge of our Middle East policy.” Congressional committee assignments are not usually the top thing on voters’ minds come Election Day. However, this blatant disregard for the views of the Democratic rank-and-file will only reinforce a growing sense that the Democratic Party leadership simply doesn’t care what their constituents believe. Despite establishment Democratic leaders’ dismissal of peace and human rights advocates’ anger at their support for dictatorship, repression, occupation, apartheid, genocide, colonization, and terror as “single-issue” politics, for many Democratic-leaning voters these are fundamental moral issues that go well beyond the Middle East. As we approach what may be the most critical midterm election in our nation’s history and with so much at stake, the appointments of Moskowitz, Wasserman Schultz, and Bell will only add to the bitterness and cynicism of progressive Democrats. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit stephenzunes962006.substack.com/subscribe (https://stephenzunes962006.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2)

Podcast Authority Score: 1 / 100

A composite of feed quality, social presence, YouTube performance and engagement. Read the methodology.

Quality

3

Social presence

0

YouTube

0

Engagement

0