Breaking News from Pod Save America - On Gaza: What Does an Anti-War Coalition Look Like?

Episode Date: August 1, 2025

Tommy speaks with The Nation’s David Klion about how the left should navigate the tension between building the broadest possible anti-war coalition and holding politicians accountable for their silence and inaction on Gaza. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Not loving your AT&T or T mobile bill? Yeah, we've been hearing that a lot. Good news. Bring your AT&T or T mobile bill to Verizon and we'll give you a better deal. So get away from that unfortunate phone bill and get to Verizon. Run, ride, canoe. Whatever it takes, we'll be here. Bring your AT&T or T mobile bill to a Verizon store today

and we'll give you a better deal on the best network. A better deal. No surprises. That's Verizon. Best Network based on Route Metrics, Best Overall Mobile Network Performing to U.S. Second Half 2025. All rights reserved. It must provide a recent consumer mobile bill in the name of the person

for giving me the deal. Additional Terms, Conditions, and Restrictions, After 21 months of war, the world is finally paying attention to what's happening in Gaza. The photos of starving children have shocked the conscience of people all over the globe, and people who supported the war or those who weren't paying attention are calling for an end to this nightmare. This is also kick-started an important conversation about how to build a coalition to get Donald Trump to put pressure on Netanyahu to stop the war, how to pressure Netanyahu directly, while also ensuring accountability for political leaders who enable this war and let it go on. so long. Joining me today to discuss all of this is David Cleon. He's a columnist for the nation

contributing editor at Jewish Currents and a Twitter, a fellow Twitter addicts. Is that fair to say? Yeah, I think that's fair to say. David, great to see you. Thank you for doing this. Yeah, thanks so much for having me. It's my first time in the crooked media universe. Well, hopefully not the last. I think it's a really important time to really talk about this issue. I also hope folks will check out a debate I did or hosted between Medi Hassan from Citeo News and Jeremy Benamy, the president of J Street, about how the Democratic Party should change and evolve its position towards Israel going forward.

But our conversation, like all the great political debates in history, was preceded by a Twitter argument. I wouldn't even call it a fight. It was more of just a constructive back and forth. So I'll just kind of give listeners the gist of what we were saying over the weekend and we can go from there. So I tweeted rather obnoxiously, tweeting, I told you so, at people who changed their minds.

about what's happening in Gaza does nothing to help the kids who are being starved to death, welcome people into the tent, build a bigger coalition, and use it to force political change. And you responded, the problem is that tweeting, welcome to the tent, does nothing either. It's too late for the kids who are being starved to death. If anyone can help them now, it's not suddenly repentant liberals. On the other hand, accountability for such opportunists is a live possibility. We went on from there. You talked about lessons from the Bush administration.

So, you know, as with all things on Twitter, I think kind of the, the, the brevity leads to a lack of specificity, and there may be more than less than meets the eye in terms of where we disagree about what to do in the short term, but there's a really important conversation about the long term and what accountability looks like. So let's just start it off there. I mean, last night, 27 Democrats in the Senate voted to block weapon sales to Israel. I would argue that that's like kind of a stunning change from five years ago, but also woefully insufficient, right, and shows just how far elected officials are behind where I believe the voters are. But what was your take on that vote?

I mean, I completely agree with you on your basic assessment. This is both a kind of a stunning sea change compared to what I would have expected a week ago or at any point before that. And at the same time, you're right, it's not enough. I mean, first of all, there's a long list of Democratic senators who haven't made that shift. Second of all, obviously, even if they all did, you know, they still don't control the Senate. it. And I think that gets to part of why I'm so irritable right now about this issue. Because you're right that we basically do agree. Of course, I want to build a broader coalition. Of course, I think it's ultimately good, better late than never that people are coming around.

And it's vindicating of those of us who've been speaking out against this war from the beginning, which I have very publicly. And I think you and your colleagues that Pod Save the World and Pod Save America have been too, to the best of my understanding, which good for you for doing that, by the way, not nearly enough people in the Democratic firmament have. I think that part of why I'm so irritated right now is I know some people are sincerely being moved by, I'm sure many people are sincerely being moved by these images of starving children and by, you know, new analyses that are coming out, calling it a famine, calling it a genocide,

putting the blame squarely on the Israeli government where it belongs. I don't doubt that there are people, especially just regular people, who are sincerely moving in that direction. And at the same time, I think there's a lot of, for lack of a better word, ass covering going on. A lot of people who have sort of determined that it's no longer tenable to just unquestionable. unquestioningly support Israel. And now they want to sort of whitewash their reputations. They want to, you know, make it seem that there's a title of a book and kind of a polemic

that came out months ago called One Day Everyone Will Have Been Against This, referring specifically to the war in Gaza. And of course, we're starting to see that. We're starting to see a whole lot of people who, in hindsight, were always against it. But if it were just a matter, as you said in your original tweet, of saying, I told you so, then I agree, people like me should probably suck it up and just, you know, take quiet pride in having been right or whatever. I mean, it's not like I've always been right about everything. The reason why I think it matters is because, you know, when there is no accountability, when there is no honesty about who did what, when, you know, the same people stay in power, the same people repeat the same mistakes.

and I find it particularly grating in the context of this because, you know, we're 21 months into a war in which well-documented atrocities and crimes against civilians have been present from the very beginning, in which genocidal rhetoric and warnings from credible experts of genocide have been present from the very beginning. And for the first, you know, half of that period, Joe Biden was president and was not only directly complicit himself, but when it comes to any number of, you know, liberal pundits or Democratic electives or, you know, just anyone with any kind of platform in the democratic space, you know, who deferred to Biden and deferred to the sort of, you know, Washington pro-Israel consensus for that entire time. I mean, I think I actually predicted on Twitter at some point, maybe after Trump won during the transition period. I don't remember exactly what. But I think I predicted that some people, liberals, were going to start moving more against the war now that it was Trump's war. And of course, that, I mean,

that wasn't a super brilliant prediction of mine. Of course that was going to happen. It seems like this is the week when it's really starting to happen in earnest. But I wonder, you know, could actual good have been done and could actual lives have been saved back when we had a Democratic administration with the power to call up, Bibi Netanyahu and tell him to, you know, that this was unacceptable, which I fully believe, and I think you believe Joe Biden and his administration, you know, I'm not saying they could

have stopped everything. I understand Israeli society was out for blood after October 7th. But I'm sure you agree there was so much more that the United States could have done to rein this in and prevent it from spiraling into the genocidal war it is. Yeah, look, a few thoughts on what you're going to do. said first of all on the Biden point like I totally agreed with you I was enormously frustrated with the Biden policy um I remain frustrated with Biden's policy um I would have just what what drove me crazy with this there just was never a shift to putting what I believe was real pressure on him um a real carrot and stick approach saying look we are going to cut off these weapon shipments or

whatever if you don't make changes now I got a call from a former Biden person yesterday was said, I think you are, I think you are missing something important, which is that Biden was far more effective than Trump has been in terms of just forcing Netanyahu to get aid in, and that the transition to the GHF, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, aid distribution method happened under Trump, and that has been catastrophic, and that got us to this point, which is fair, but I still think, like, the broader issue was stopping the war and getting a permanent ceasefire, and I wanted Biden to try to do that. What does accountability mean for you in terms of a lawmaker?

Because for me it's like elections, primary campaigns, losing in the general. But how are you thinking about it? I think that's exactly right. And I think I saw you have an interchange with Felix Biederman of Chappo Trap House, where he was asking you about Dan Goldman, who represents a swath of affluent neighborhoods in New York City. I live in New York City. They're not in his district. But I know a lot of people in his district who are very angry to be represented by him.

He's very, very pro-Israel. It's definitely a district where you could imagine a more progressive Democrat, especially on this issue, maybe not perfect, but better than Dan Goldman. And I think I may be misremembering this, but I think the summary of your point on that was that maybe Dan Goldman should be primaried, but in the meantime, the fact that he's moving in the right direction should be congratulated, and Felix's retort was kind of like, well, how do you, how do you do? Like, if you're going to primary him, if he's wrong, you know, you don't like,

back off on that. And I mean, you build the drumbeat for that now. I think I tend to agree, although maybe I'm misrepresenting what you said slightly. Yeah, I mean, I don't think, I don't think I said congratulate him. I mean, I guess what I'm just sort of thinking is like there's an urgency of the moment and like, how do we build the biggest coalition? And if that includes Marjorie, Taylor Green, like, fuck yeah, let's go, Marge. Like, you're in the tent now. Let's all push to end this war. I think what I'm sort of getting at is just sort of thinking about incentive structures and politics because APAC has clear incentive structures, incentive structures. If you do what they want, they'll get you resources and support you. And if you don't,

they'll crush you and maybe even try to primary you. And we on the left, sometimes it feels like we don't have those incentive structures. Like if you're, if you're with us, good, you should be here. And if you're late to the party, fuck you, where have you been? Right. And I think that's kind of the tone and tenor that I worried about. Yeah. I mean, part of this is, you know, I think we're having and we'll continue to have a civilized conversation here. But this is a this is an extremely emotional issue for good reason. I mean, children are starving. Children have been, you know, murdered on camera. I mean, we, I bring this up because, you know, as, as you know, I mean, we've spent 21 months watching the most, you know, detailed documented on the ground

atrocities really in history, right? I mean, no one had smartphones at Auschwitz. You couldn't, you couldn't see this stuff in real time in the detail that we're seeing it. And that means, and it's been an additional trauma of the moment, one that constantly reminds me of the very good film zone of interest that came out in the last two years, that, you know, you're basically seeing, like part of the additional trauma is seeing an entire society, including people you think of as liberals, including, yeah, I mean, you have in-laws, I have in-laws, I'm Jewish, I know, I know many, many Jews and with a, you know, wide range of views on Israel, but, but, but, Certainly a lot of them have been to varying degrees supportive of Israel or are, you know, coming around more recently.

And privately, I feel like that's kind of every Jewish or mixed families, you know, internal struggle to sort of talk these things through the people they love and meet them where they are. And I think we, I think most of us, every Jew I know, has had some version of that experience in the last two years and often longer. when it comes to electeds to a certain extent, I mean, you know, what they do does matter more than what they say. And of course, if, you know, half the Democrats in the Senate are suddenly voting to block military aid to Israel, of course, we can welcome that as a sea change. I mean, that's huge, huge progress. And it is a vindication of our position. It isn't doing anything yet, but it's a clear sign that things are moving a certain way. And a clear reflection, as I think you suggested, of shifts in.

in public opinion and especially among Democratic voters, which tells us a lot about what, you know, I think everyone everyone in New York must have just watched Mamdani win on one of the most pro-Palestinian platforms anyone's ever run on against people who were calling him an anti-Semite at every turn with a huge amount of money behind that. And he won, he won Jews incredibly, according to the exep balls, I think. So I think everyone in New York is kind of on notice. now that maybe the politics of this aren't what they thought they were. And that's obviously good. Of course, I think the left can claim some credit in spite of people

warning about our abrasive or off-putting manner that things have in fact moved in that direction because ultimately, yeah, I mean, there are tactics that I think are questionable that some people in the left engage in. I'm not going to name any names or specifics, but any large, any large broad-based movement is going to have some voices you think are more or less constructive. But the bottom line is I think that we've been righteous. I think a lot of people who actually, I think were quite divided over the Ukraine war. I was broadly supportive of Biden's support for Ukraine, and that was a really divisive issue

for a lot of the anti-war left, for I think understandable reasons on both sides. Palestine, I've seen people who were really at loggerheads over Ukraine, like, come together on this. I mean, there was a real, like, fundamental moral righteousness. There were disagreements about how you should talk about Hamas or, you know, whether there was anything to celebrate. I mean, I was not in the camp that got overjoyed to see. Well, by the time I woke up, things already were very, very bad on October 7th. But I also was not of the camp that thought, if you don't foreground the suffering of Israelis on October 7th. then you're a monster too. I mean, the very first reaction I had, and there's a public record of

this, the morning eastern time of October 7th, was to say that Israel was likely to launch a genocidal war because the people running Israel, the Netanyahu coalition, were genocidal. So the part of the trauma that comes from all this is knowing just how many liberals, including very smart, well-informed liberals with good records on other things, including people like Bernie Sanders, frankly, watched all these images and did not have the reactions we had and knowing that they could live with a certain amount of this until they couldn't. It's Mushrooms with me, Maddie Matheson. You know what's better than thinking about dinner too hard?

Not. Stop that. And just choose Mushrooms. Five minutes. Done. Dinner's that easy and you feel like a genius. It's not magic. It's Mushrooms.

Stop stressing at Mushroomcouncil.com. Let's talk about Bernie. I want to play you a clip of Bernie Sanders from CNN, I believe, yesterday or the day before. Do you at the point yet where you would call what's happening in Gaza genocide? You can use whatever word you want. But Marjorie Taylor-Green is saying that. She's the first public to go there.

I'm sorry. Yeah. Look, genocide is a legal term. What is going on now, clearly, is absolutely horrific. 60,000 people dead and 140,000 who have been wounded. But the important point is not what you call it. It is horror. And I think the whole world knows that. The answer is what the hell do we do about it?

Should the United States taxpayer? Should your taxpayer dollars go to support a government that is doing it? That is the most important issue. So, you know, I talked about this with Medi and Jeremy Benamy yesterday. I mean, I think part of where we're kind of viewing this differently is, like, I'm thinking about this in terms of like a political strategist and coalition building and right and persuading people. And I think you are understandably and rightly reacting on. not just a factual level and saying like what is true,

but also just sort of the emotion of what we're seeing as well. I guess I'm wondering how you think about this. Again, I'm sure you know a million people in your life who you love or who you just, you know, know well who think, you know, the word genocide means the Holocaust and it's this horrifying, you know, foundational trauma in their lives, in their community's lives. And they feel like using the term genocide is comparing or a, the two. And I think you and I both know that's not the case here, but that it might make them

feel like, okay, I don't want to be a part of this movement to stop this war because these people are more extreme than me. I just wonder how you think about it. Yeah, I mean, I have limited sympathy for it. I've certainly gotten into those kinds of arguments. I do think there's an opportunity to patiently with people who are sincerely interested to patiently discuss what genocide is because it's becoming increasingly obvious to me that a lot of people have no idea what genocide is. I think that's right, yeah. And seem to think that unless it is literally the Holocaust down to every last detail, then, you know, I mean, I think people have some, like, theoretical knowledge that, you know, one or two other genocides have existed, but they

often don't know them with any degree of specificity. And so you see ridiculous arguments from people like Brett Stevens, who I don't really think is arguing in good faith, but saying things like, well, why aren't all the Palestinians dead then, right? Right. You could say about, literally any genocide in history, including the Holocaust. But I mean, there's still Jews, right? Not every Jew in Europe was killed. So maybe it wasn't, no. I mean, it's such a silly, like, it's worse than silly. It's such an offensive and small-minded way to think about genocide. Agreed. You know, or similarly, like, you know, Hitler wasn't trying to kill all the Jews in the United States. I mean, that was kind of off, you know, he might have some rhetoric about them, but he was never in a position to do that. He was trying to kill the Jews where there were Jews under his control. And, but forget the Holocaust. I mean, don't forget the Holocaust, but there's... Setting aside, yeah.

Setting aside the Holocaust. I mean, the Armenian genocide was, you know, which I'm by no means an expert on, but as I understand it was basically forced marches of ethnic Armenians out of Turkish territory during which enormous numbers of them died, sometimes because they were killed, other times because they were in the desert and, you know, not being fed or didn't have water or whatever. And they died in enormous numbers. There were still Armenians after that, but the Turkish goal of depopulating Armenian areas of Turkey to consolidate the modern Turkish nation state, which to this day that Turkish government does not acknowledge was a genocide, you know, that's a genocide. That's frankly a more typical genocide in a lot of ways than the Holocaust. And of course, American history, as many Americans have trouble coming to terms with, I think it gets talked about less than slavery does these days. But American history is. is a series of settler colonial genocides, among other things, that are, you know, the trail of tears that are basically indigenous populations being marched out of their land so it could be seized and settled by white Europeans.

And that is the history of America. It's the history of Canada. It's the history of Australia. And I think it is a pretty good guide, not just to what's been happening in Gaza lately. but, and I know this is a hard pill for many, many Jews and others to swallow, but really for the entire modern history of the state of Israel. I think, you know, if you're familiar with the history of the Nakhpa, you understand that Israel began with displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes. And, you know, this is still, I think, unspeakable in a lot of contexts, even though Israeli historians, even Israeli historians who defend it, acknowledge that that is what happened. So I think with the specific Bernie clip you just played, I mean, I can certainly imagine worse answers to that question,

especially from a sitting U.S. Senator. He certainly, I appreciate that he didn't deny that it's a genocide or say it's inappropriate to call it that. So, I mean, that is in fact a big tent approach, right? He's saying, you know, we can table this semantic issue. And from a politician's perspective, I can understand why he would be saying that and focusing on what can we do right now. You're right that you are approaching this more from, you know, the perspective of a former political staffer and in your current, you know, media occupation. In your current media occupation, you're still, yeah, are kind of a para-democratic political professional.

Is that kind of fair to say? I think I'm like very, we are very open about our biases, what we believe, and, but also like kind of where we'd like the Democratic Party to go and are overtly trying to influence the opinion of the party about this issue and countless others. Right. I don't mean to imply that you guys like take your orders from the DNC or something. Jamie Harrison calls. He tapped in Hunter Biden. They tell us what the marching orders are. No, I know you guys are like have your own positions and they, but my point was basically that you try to influence the, you try to influence intrademocratic thinking and that means you probably pitch your arguments a certain way. And you're right that I basically, I guess I style myself as some kind of a public intellectual. I basically just try to write what I think is true. And that's, I understand, I think I said online that we operate in slightly different lanes. because of that, where, you know, during the Biden presidency, I mean, I had friends who,

regardless of their exact views on Israel, were sometimes mad at me that I was saying things that made Biden look bad during, you know, an incredibly important election year. And my goal was certainly not to elect Donald Trump. And in fact, I did, you know, however grudgingly endorse Harris or tell people that, especially if they were in swing states, that they should vote. for Harris. But I also found myself saying, look, like, it's pretty hard to ask people who genuinely believe, and we were right, that this is a genocide and genuinely believe that the Biden administration is facilitating a genocide. And that Kamala Harris has certainly gone along with that. It's pretty hard to tell them, but you know, you should vote for this anyway because

Trump genocide will be worse, which is something I literally saw people argue. Or because AOC, who, you know I normally have a lot of respect for, but, you know, at the DNC, when she said they were working tirelessly, I mean, I feel like it kind of insults our intelligence. And especially at a DMC where they would not let the most anodyne Palestinian speakers appear on stage, which was a point at which I found it really, really hard. I mean, I was willing to sort of make the case to people on the left who were furious about Palestine that, you know, Harris should win anyway. But they made it really, really hard to make that case. Look, I agree. I mean, Biden's policy was a, was a disaster in my view. I said as much

at the time. I was hopeful that Kamala Harris would be different because I just think that Joe Biden had this vision of Israel. He literally would talk about gold of my ear all the time. And I think that was the Israel that he believed still existed. And I just think the Netanyahu world is just fundamentally different and they just never adjusted to that. I agree with you. Not letting a Palestinian speaker speak at the DNC was such a silly, just a bizarre unforced error and I don't know why they didn't do that. I think like, you know, I try not to just, I try not to engage on this question, to be honest with you much, because if you are a Muslim American or Arab American in Michigan

and you lost like 10 cousins in Gaza telling you that that Donald Trump will be worse is like insulting, you know what I mean? Or like, I'm sorry, how was that even possible? I do, I do think I did say I thought that Trump would be, I would argue that he is clearly worse. I mean, putting forward a policy of fully ethnic cleansing the Gaza Strip has been catastrophic, not just not because Trump will necessarily follow through on it, but because it has allowed the far right in Israel to adopt that position without any political, you know, friction or hurdles.

I also think the humanitarian situation has gotten worse. Again, like we're talking about like shades of the worst gray, right? The situation has obviously gotten worse. because it's continued unchecked. I don't want to frame that in any way that suggests anything exculpatory, like that the Biden administration was, you know, trying to rein in the worst of it, because I basically don't buy that. And I think as more information comes out, I mean, one thing I know you guys did honorably,

not about Israel per se, but at POTSafe America was you were all out front calling for Biden to step down after the disastrous debate. And we're fully agreed on that. And I was very vocal about that, too. And I actually believe that along with Biden's history with Golda Meyer and Scoop Jackson and his hawkish instincts, like, I kind of wonder how rudderless things were. If his instinct, you know, opinions differ on just how not there he was. And I want to, you know, belabor that here. But I just sort of wonder, like, I mean, I have to believe Barack Obama. Obama, you know, not only was somewhat to Biden's left on this, or, you know, more understanding to an extent of the Palestinian perspective, but also that he wouldn't have just like let this keep happening as passively as Biden did. You know, I just, I have to believe he would have felt energized to do something to rein it in earlier.

Anyway, this is just to say I blame Biden and Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken and all of them as much as anybody for what has happened. And as for Trump, I mean, yeah, I mean, he has endorsed ethnic cleansing. He has continued to support them. Trump is such an infuriating figure because, you know, on any given day, he or Wickoff might say something surprisingly encouraging about this. And then the next day he said something outrageous and, you know, it's maddening. And even if you could convince me Trump was marginally better on this, I certainly wouldn't want to defend any other part of his record. But no, I mean, I think that there is continuity.

I think though what is maddening and frankly unforgivable and why there does need to be some degree of accountability is that more liberals and Democrats and liberal pundits and so on did not speak out forcefully about what this was and often lied about it or lied to themselves about it or misconstrued or downplayed it. When we had a Democratic administration, who I have to believe,

if there had been the kind of outcry we're seeing now, would have taken a different course. I agree with that. If that had happened at any point when he was still president. I agree with that. I think that people pulled too many punches. They should have been more honest about the horrors of this war. And, yeah, look, I'm not, I agree with you.

I don't think Biden really meaningfully reigned in, you know, at all. The only times, like, there was that first East fire. I do think, you know, when you compare the amount of aid that got in under Biden, with what happened after the GHF, just sort of like the facts show that this, as you said, the situation's gotten worse and the starvation has gotten exponentially worse, but I'm not defending the policy at all. And I also give Trump credit for getting that,

that ceasefire, you know, over the finish line in January or whenever it was. Yeah, I think I actually wrote a piece at the time that it was probably kinder to Trump than it should have been, but the gist of it was less, you know, brilliant deal, Steve Whitcough, and more, this proves that I didn't could have done things. all along that he did not do.

It's like a final, a final brutal verdict on Biden's whole legacy, I think. That's how I hope it. Yeah. Well, so, final question for you. Like, you know, like when I hear some folks on the left, like the Chapo guys, for example, I feel like they, you know, they're, they've talked about how they're very disappointed in AOC, and in Bernie Sanders on Gaza. And I truly believe that is coming from, like, a sincere place where they want them on,

a different policy. But, you know, sometimes they're also like, fuck, these are the best lawmakers we've got, you know what I mean? Like, does that just mean people feel like completely politically homeless in your view? Well, I don't think people feel homeless because for one thing, I think that Zoron has captured a lot of the energy that used to be with Bernie and AOC. Now, of course, you know, if we're talking in the extremely narrow terms of like, who's the next Democratic president. I mean, Zoran is not constitutionally eligible. And I, you know, it seems

plausible, and Bernie's clearly not going to do it again. It seems plausible that AOC could run and it seems not inconceivable that she could win, both the nomination and the presidency. I would personally, I can only speak for myself here. I would, I would be very excited to support her, even though I have some real misgivings about, I mean, I think her Iron Dome vote was wrong. And I think that the tweet she did, kind of getting defensive about it was worse in a lot of ways. I mean, it really just did, you know, if you're going to take a vote like that to sort of insulate yourself so you can run for statewide office in New York or for the presidency, I get it. Like, I get that's how politicians think, but you don't, you don't talk about it afterwards. You know, you're doing it for a pretty

straightforwardly cynical political reason. You don't, you don't like get snippy and imply that, you know, your critics are actually incorrect on the merits. I have my criticisms of AOC, but all to say, if she runs, it is extremely likely I will support her in the Democratic primary. I think it is unlikely someone to her left will run, especially someone with any kind of credible shot. Where I do think Zoron matters, I mean, I already said he's revealing things about the New York electorate and Jews in New York that are surprising people. And I think Brad Lander, who I know a bit and have a ton of admiration for, has also shown that you know, not every Jew follows the APAC line,

or even the J Street line necessarily. And I think that, I think Zoran is probably creating space for politicians in other contexts, including people running for Congress, maybe at some point running for president, to go further than I think AOC and Bernie have been willing to do. I certainly hope that's true. And at the same time, I don't disqualify

agree with you that, you know, in the overall spectrum of Americans with elected office and that level of influence, of course, Bernie and AOC are pretty close to the best we've got so far. Yeah. Well, on this Iron Dome vote, just last question for you. I mean, so AOC voted against an amendment that would have cut, I think, $500 million from funding of the Iron Dome missile defense system. I think six people ultimately voted for this provision. Those before by I'm Archer Taylor Green. Some people vandalize her office, which is obviously stupid. But I do think this fight over whether there's really a distinction between offensive

and defensive weapons is kind of a coming attraction for where the policy debate is going to go, at least on the left or at least in the Democratic Party. I genuinely believe that the distinction is kind of made up. Like, first of all, money is fungible. And so if we're giving the Israelis $500 million for Iron Dome, they can spend it on bombs. like it's just obvious. And also, I definitely think that defensive systems like Iron Dome enable more reckless behavior or more militant behavior. But at the same time, putting myself in AOC's shoes, I'm sure she's got donors, supporters, volunteers, friends in the community

that she has talked to about this and she's committed to supporting Iron Dome because it is quite literally used to prevent, you know, Katusha rockets from raining down on civilian heads in Israel. And I can just, I can see why that was a really hard vote for her. I didn't, I don't remember the tweet she said. I'm not defending that. I don't know what it said, but, but, you know, you see it from her shoes. Yeah, I, I, I completely understand the political logic. I'm not saying I agree with it, but, um, but I, but I, but I completely understand why she would do that. I mean, she's trying to avoid a situation where the next time she runs for office in New York or for a national democratic primary, you know, she gets accused of not wanting to defend Jews against

Ketusha rockets. And then she, you know, I mean, I wish that she would refute that and stand up for principle here. But I understand that. But then she did do, I think, a series of tweets and blue sky posts, we're basically just getting very defensive about her many left critics, which made the situation much worse. I mean, there was a real stricent effect here where people got much angry at her after they saw those tweets. I think it's the kind of thing. I mean, you're a political comms professional. You know this well, where if you just kind of take the, questionable vote, you know, keep your head down. A week goes by. Almost everyone has forgotten that it happened. They can't trap you on that when you rent for office in a few years.

And I mean, that's, if I were, if I were her communications director, that's what I would have advised her to do. But she decided, I mean, I think what that incident actually revealed is that is that AOC can be a little thin-skinned. And that, I think, is an actual substantive weakness as a politician. As far as the offensive, defensive distinction, I mean, I think we agree. I forget who I'm stealing this from on social media, but someone made what I thought was a good point. which is, you know, if it's just about defending civilians, why don't we give them to Russia, you know? Why don't we give them to Hamas?

Why don't we give them to, like, to everyone? I mean, no, we don't want civilians to die, right? We give them to Israel because we support Israel militarily, because they're ally and we support the genocide they're committing. And I think, as you said, it enables them, it emboldens them to, it to hit harder knowing that they won't take commensurate civilian casualties. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's absolutely the right analysis.

We gave them Iron Dome because we support them, full stop. On the whether AOC is thin skin or not, I don't know. I think we all can be on Twitter. I certainly can be. Sure. I'm sure also, like, look, I remember there were videos during the pandemic of, like, of anti-Gaza war supporters, like chasing her into a movie theater. And there is a part of this in politics where it's like,

you can choose to spend your time. lobbying, you know, 535 members of Congress to pick her, like, I'm sure she's like, what the fuck? Like, I'm the best, I'm one of the best you got. Why don't you move, like, your two senators, all the other Congresspeople who, you know, you mentioned Dan Goldman, like other people, you could be, you could be lobbying and probably moving them more easily, just politically speaking, but whatever. Yeah, no, I mean, I personally have not expended a lot of energy punishing, AOC and even with Bernie specifically, I've actually written a few times about, including once after October 7th, about basically trying to explain, not trying to justify, but trying to explain,

you know, where a Jewish man of Bernie's generation with, you know, family delos in the Holocaust, like how he thinks about Israel and this sort of, I mean, I think of it as a kind of a left-wing kibbutznik fantasy of Israel that has been, you know, that was never really true and has been totally outpaced by reality at this point. But it, you know, it means that he can be relatively progressive and want a ceasefire and call as he has many times to stop selling arms to them. And at the same time, you know, he is not going to talk about it the way someone of my generation is on the left might. And I mean, I just, that's me kind of approaching it as almost like a historian and just just trying to like talk about. I mean, I don't give Bernie a pass, but I think there's a certain degree of just generational shift happening there that's just kind of baked in.

Yeah, you can see it in the polling. Well, listen, David, thank you so much for doing this and for the conversation. I really appreciate it. I really appreciate you're having me on.