NBC Nightly News with Tom Llamas - Here’s the Scoop, Election Edition: Democrats’ Israel Dilemma

Episode Date: September 26, 2026

As Democrats grapple with what their party stands for, one issue continues to divide them: Israel. The first signs of a fissure came after Israel began its invasion of Gaza in response to the Oct. 7 attacks. Some progressive Democrats demanded a more forceful U.S. response to what they saw as war crimes being committed with the help of American weapons and military aid. By the fall of 2024, a larger movement against the war had grown: More than 100,000 Democrats cast uncommitted ballots in the Michigan primary — a harbinger of Kamala Harris’ ultimate loss to Donald Trump. Since then, polls show that voter support for Israel has continued to decline in both parties. But among Democrats, that erosion has been far more dramatic.So how should the party position itself on Israel policy in 2026 — and eventually, 2028? In this episode of "Here’s the Scoop, Election Edition," we ask two Democrats on opposite sides of this debate: Tariq Habash, a co-founder of A New Policy, a political group that advises candidates like Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, and Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., who says he lost his primary because of his position on Israel. swap.fm/l/htsfd Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Hey, Nightly News listeners, we have something a little different for you today. You're about to hear a special election edition of our NBC News podcast. Here's the scoop. In this episode, Chief White House correspondent Garrett Hakes sits down with experts to break down the key issues shaping the upcoming midterms. Take a listen. Democrats are trying to redefine what their party stands for, and one issue continues to divide them. I'm not saying you have to oppose Israel in its entirety, but I'm saying that you have to oppose Israel. the actions that the Israeli government has taken against Palestinian civilians. This issue has really moved away from the actual policy and the substance of what the future of the Middle East should look like. And it has become, I think, dangerously a moral litmus test. Welcome to Here's the Scoop election edition. I'm Garrett Haik. Every Saturday from now until the midterms, I'm going to be talking with the smartest voices to discuss the top issues,

the places, and the players that could ultimately decide control in Washington. This week, we're going to focus on a topic that may be complicating Democrats' path to the majority this November. The first signs of a fissure came after Israel began its invasion of Gaza in response to the October 7th attacks. Israel's payback is underway, with the army carrying out airstrikes across the Gaza Strip this morning, targeting Hamas infrastructure and smuggling tunnels. Israel has been a key U.S. ally for decades, but some progressive Democrats demanded a

more forceful response to what they saw as human rights abuses by Israel in a war being fought with the help of American weapons and American military aid. By the fall of 2024, a larger movement had grown. More than 100,000 Democrats cast uncommitted ballots in the Michigan primary. That was an early warning sign in a state. state that Kamala Harris would ultimately lose to President Trump. You know what? If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I'm speaking. And some Biden administration officials even resigned in protest of what they saw as the free hand

given to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Since then, polls show that voter support for Israel has continued to erode in both parties. But among Democrats, that erosion has been far more dramatic. In March, two-thirds of Democrats told NBC News that their sympathies lie more with Palestinians than with Israelis, while majorities of both Democrats and young voters now view Israel negatively. Support for Israel has become kind of a litmus test in many Democratic primaries, from New York to California to Michigan. You can criticize Israel and not be anti-Semitic. You can be an anti-Zionist and not be anti-Semitic.

So today, I want to get a better sense of where the Democratic Party is headed on this issue, how it's playing on the campaign trail, and whether Democratic divisions could put potential midterm gains at risk, and what policy on Israel could look like in the next Congress and beyond. Coming up, I'll speak to two Democrats on opposite sides of this debate. First is Tarek Habash. He's one of those Biden administration officials who quit his job in protest. He's the co-founder of a new policy, an organization dedicated to changing the way

politicians approach this issue. He's advised and raised money for like-minded lawmakers and candidates, including Abdul-L-Said in Michigan and Brad Lander in New York. Then I'll be joined by Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman of New York, the incumbent that Lander defeated. He was first elected in 2022. He was a rising star in the party. But when Goldman lost that primary, his support for Israel was a major issue in the race. One last thing before we start. Talking about Israel and war in the Middle East is complicated. Even the language we use is fraught.

A United Nations commission concluded last year that Israeli authorities and security forces committed genocide in Gaza. Both Israel and the U.S. strongly dispute those findings. This topic will elicit strong opinions and emotions, including from our guests. I will check their facts, but I try to. trust this audience to make up your own mind when it comes to their opinions. We'll do that after a quick break. Welcome back to Here's the Scoop election edition. I'm Garrett Haake. And we're back with our first guest, who is in many ways helping to define this conversation inside the Democratic Party. Tarah Kabash is a Palestinian American who grew up in Ohio and spent most of his

career in education policy. He was a fairly high-level political appointee in the Biden Department of education. But in January of 2024, he quit, writing in his resignation letter that he, quote, cannot stay silent as this administration turns a blind eye to the atrocities committed against innocent Palestinian lives. Tark then founded a political and lobbying organization called a new policy to push for exactly that, a new policy when it comes to the U.S. relationship with Israel. Now, he's advising lawmakers and candidates, mostly Democrats, on how to promote that policy, talk about these issues and to win elections. This cycle, he's worked closely with candidates, including Abdul al-Sayed in Michigan and Brad Lander in New York. Full disclosure, he's also a close

friend of mine, which had nothing to do with politics. We actually started out as buddies in the gym. Tartar, thanks for joining me. Thanks for having me, Garrett. Talk a little bit about how you got into this work and why you feel so passionate in this space. As a Palestinian-American, this has been an issue that's been, you know, it's a lived experience. You hear stories about how your family was uprooted from their homes in 1948 during the Nekba. You know, my aunts and uncles would tell me about how they lost everything, they lost loved ones. And at the same time, they instilled in me the values of ensuring that we could give back to not just our community, to people who are less fortunate than us. That's what I did in my work in government for many years. It was about

creating an education system for people who looked like me and looked very different from me and making it accessible and affordable to millions of Americans. And that was something I cared very deeply about. But working in politics also means that sometimes you're going to work for people who you don't always agree with on issues. And you have to figure out where your lines are. And for me, yeah, how did you come to the decision to where that line was when it came to quitting? It was many conversations. It was understanding that there was a diametric. opposing position on this issue within not just the party, but within the whole of government while I was there representing the Biden administration. And for me, as an American, I felt like

our work was not actually doing what was in the best interest of millions of Americans around the country. Our tax dollars were being used to undermine our national security, to undermine our credibility on a global stage as a world power and undermining the safety and security of Americans abroad and at home. And if we were going to turn a blind eye to those violations, then we were going to see this crumbling of the very fabric of what America was all about. And I felt like we had to do something to change that. So the work you're doing now, we've already seen over the last couple of years, public opinion has shifted pretty dramatically towards support for the Palestinians and skepticism of Israel.

How do you take advantage of that public sentiment and try to turn that sentiment into actual policy changes? It's less about taking advantage of the reality that people are seeing and actually clarifying that for politicians. I think we've had dozens of conversations with elected officials over the course of many years now where they recognize that there is an imbalance in our politics and an imbalance in our policies with respect to American foreign policy

in the Middle East. It is extremely Israel-centric, which on its face is not necessarily a bad thing. Right, I mean, Israel supporters will say this is the lone democracy in the Middle East. But when you look on paper, it's not really democratic when a certain ethnic group does not have equal rights, does not have the same rights to be able to vote,

does not have the same freedom to move when there are hundreds of checkpoints and miles of walls that are perpetuating limitations for the Palestinian people when they can't control their own natural resources. I wouldn't argue that's a democracy. I would argue that the occupation creates circumstances by which Israeli Jews have different and more rights than Israeli Arabs. and Palestinians living, in particular, in the West Bank and in Gaza, have even fewer rights when you talk about the military rule, when you talk about the fact that Palestinians don't have the same access to civil courts when there are disputes. They actually are investigated and tried under a different set of laws. And that's really problematic.

That is effectively what black people in America dealt with during Jim Crow and what we saw in South African apartheid. in the 80s and prior. So we're a podcast about politics. Absolutely. Talk about the way in which this has manifested in Democratic primaries. You worked on two very high-profile races. Brad Landers in New York, Abdul-Aid in Michigan. You talk a little bit about the way in which those candidates highlighted this issue

or made it a big part of their campaigns. Absolutely. Voters see this issue, American foreign policy toward Israel and Palestine, as a credibility question. It's a proxy for how. credible a political candidate might be on other issues. And I think we've seen Bradlander talk about this really effectively. We've seen Abdul al-Sayed talk about this effectively. Abdul, the level of discipline that he has to talk about how Michiganders are actually affected in their pocketbooks. He wants to put money back in people's wallets. He wants to make health care more affordable.

And you can't do that if you're prioritizing the interests of Benjamin Netanyahu and an Israeli government over the interests of people in Michigan. And I think that is something that voters are really yearning for. Lander is Jewish. He ran in a very progressive, very heavily Jewish district. Abdul al-Sayed is Muslim. Michigan has a significant Muslim population compared to other states.

How much does a candidate's religion and or their lived experience matter in how they approach this issue politically? I think lived experience, of course, matters. But it's about being in touch with the people that you're representing. And I think in every district across the country, in every state across the country, there are people who are directly affected by this because they see themselves in the conflict, but there are also people who are affected by this simply because they are Americans.

And this is an American problem that we are directly part of. It is American weapons that have largely caused the destruction in Gaza. It is American tax dollars that continue to finance a lot of these issues. So yes, lived experience and knowing people or knowing people who look like the people who are being harmed on either side of the conflict certainly plays a role, but it's not the only thing that matters here. Americans are affected regardless of what their background is. The fact that Brad Lander has a pretty large Jewish population, but one that is, you know, fairly progressive and democratic and is very aware of this issue, I think Brad and his values being able to say that this issue does not represent my Jewish values is extremely powerful. And yet, that is not something

that an Abdul al-Sayed or Donovan McKinney in Michigan or a William Lawrence in East Lansing can say, because that's not their background. That's not who they are and where they come from. And so it's about allowing the candidates to speak for themselves on an issue where they can have credibility. I've covered campaigns for a long time. And this seems like the first campaign cycle that I can remember where sort of less engaged voters are starting to talk about APAC, the American-American Israeli Political Action Committee. It has played a much larger role in these primaries than certainly any that I can remember. How do you see the role of APAC in these races? Is it support helping its candidates or is it support backfiring against some of these candidates in different places?

I think it can be both. Let's be honest. Money and politics matters, right? You can't really run campaigns. if you don't have the resources to be effective. But what I will say is that for APAC and the rest of the Israel first apparatus, there is a rising cost of doing business, especially when it is becoming increasingly clear that their interests are ensuring unconditional military support for the Israeli government above whatever the interests are of American citizens. And they would argue that it's not the case

and that actually a strong Israel is good for American. national security, I think what we have seen with the Iran War, it is a money in politics issue because we are seeing more and more money getting spent by organizations like APEC in Abdul's race, for example, over $60 million in outside spending alone. And half of that, half of that, approximately, about 30, 32 million, I think, what the estimates are coming from APEC. Do you encourage your candidates to point out when APEC spending is coming into the race? It definitely helps mobilize people who understand who APAC is.

I think it's still very inside baseball, right? I think more it is becoming a lot more mainstream. And let's be very clear, APAC's favorables are about as low as you can possibly get in American politics. Also, APAC isn't always spending. I think one thing that we want to be really careful of is attributing a level of influence and power that is not actually happening. You can put money in, but it doesn't necessarily mean you control the outcome. Absolutely. When we talk about support for Israel, accusations of anti-Semitism basically always come up.

And there are white supremacists and anti-Semites who align with many of the same things you're trying to accomplish. There are white supremacists who chant free Palestine. How do you keep what you're trying to do separate from people who have similar goals but are driven by hate? Yeah, listen, I think it is very important to call out hate anytime it arises. I worked at the Department of Education and I worked on these issues. I think it's extremely important to identify when there is a co-opting of a movement and also to be very vigilant about saying hate is not acceptable and that includes hate against Jewish people. But I want to be very clear. Anyone who pretends to care about a Palestinian human rights movement and simultaneously uses that to oppress another group is not actually doing the movement any favors. I also want to be very clear that when it comes to the issue of

anti-Semitism, we have seen the extreme weaponization of the safety of Jewish Americans to make excuses for a foreign government that does not care about the interests or safety of those Jewish Americans, and we have to equally call that out. It is extremely dangerous. for anyone in the United States or anywhere else around the world to say that Israel is the only place where Jewish people can be safe because it undermines the safety of Jewish people here in the United States. And it also essentially ties Jewish people here in America to every action the Israeli government takes, regardless of whether it's in the collective interests of Jewish people. We have to protect the ability for people to be able to speak.

about complicated issues, I don't think war crimes are complicated to talk about. I don't think that it should be unacceptable to criticize a foreign government regardless of that government. The language around all this is particularly fraught. I mean, you talk about war crimes. The defenders of Israel say this is a country that's defending itself that's responding to an attack. How important is clarity of language around things like war crimes or genocide or occupation? I think clarity of language is extremely important, but I would also argue that no one can dispute that there is an Israeli military occupation that persists and has persisted for many years far before October 7th in the West Bank and, you know, a full siege in Gaza for over 19 years. At the same time, many people do dispute that language, though. I mean, I would point to the over 100 checkpoints throughout the West Bank.

I would point to the fact that there are Israeli security and defense forces throughout the region. That is not, there's no Palestinian sovereignty and is not a recognized state. So, yes, I would call that an occupation at the same time when we talk about war crimes. I think you can point to the fact that weapons of war have been used against civilian infrastructure, against places of worship, against hospitals, Israeli institutions leading. Genocide Scholars, numerous nations, Amnesty International, and dozens of others have called this a genocide. And so I'm very careful about the language I use, and I'm also pointing to the experts who have made determinations that these are the right words to use.

We're still some time out, obviously, from the actual election. We don't know how many of your candidates are going to be going to Congress, but some of these folks have won in pretty safe Democratic districts. You will have new Democrats in Congress who feel, as you do, on these issues. What do you think is realistic? What would you like to see them achieve in a new Congress next year on policy? First and foremost, and you know this, you're on the Hill for a long time. Freshmen don't have as much power as people think they do. You're one of 435. And, you know, if there are 10 or 12 new freshmen who are good on this issue, that's adding to that coalition. I think what we are seeing that is already happening on the hill is that there is a trend of people

who are speaking out more explicitly on this issue, who recognize that the current American policy towards the region is actually problematic for their own constituents. It's problematic for their own political careers. And even in the context of some of these joint resolutions for disapproval, for a lot of the recent votes, Tom Massey had an amendment to cut $3.3 billion. in military funding to the Israeli government, we had 100 Democrats supporting that amendment. Now, that is not nearly enough to actually...

It's still fewer than half the caucus. But it's also far more than anyone have ever anticipated. I think what we have also seen is that there's a crisis of democratic leadership where the Democratic Party doesn't actually know what direction it's going to go, whether it's going to stick with the establishment position when it comes to U.S. foreign policy on Israel, or if they're going to start being a little bit more accountable to the reality on the ground,

the fact that we have been complicit in a lot of these war crimes, that is where the message needs to actually be very clear because we can't have a 2024 all over again where we create a situation where base voters do not feel compelled to go to the ballot box and don't feel compelled to vote. That is a massive problem for Democrats. Democrats still have a brand problem.

It's about whether you are going to be pushed by special interests, by corporate interests, or if you're going to listen to your base. What position on Israel will the 2028 Democratic candidate need to have to get nominated? We're not even through the midterm, so I don't want to speak exactly where things are. Let's just say that this issue has been moving with lightning speed within American politics. I've been around for many years now, unfortunately, and I've never seen an issue. And I was at the center of the student debt debate. And I saw that move at lightning speed, and this is moving 10 times faster. And so the goalposts keep moving. I do suspect that at a minimum, anyone who does not

take a position that there needs to be real accountability for what has happened over the last three years. I do expect that anyone who doesn't say that there needs to be an aggressive winding down of U.S. military funding to the state of Israel and anyone who doesn't say that there must be full compliance with U.S. law and probably some sort of end to offensive weapons, that is at a minimum. At some point, this election will be over. There will be a new Democratic caucus in Washington. How does the Democratic Party reunite? How do they come back together around an issue that has been and probably will remain so divisive. I think that's happening right now. I think we're seeing a lot of efforts to unify the party. I think that's a good thing. And I think it's a good thing that

you have a big tent within a party. But I also want to be very clear that if the tent is so big that you don't stand for anything, voters question your integrity. They question your credibility. And that is something that I'm doing my best to make the case that Democrats have to stand for something when it comes to this issue. I'm not saying you have to oppose Israel in its entirety, but I'm saying that you have to oppose the actions that the Israeli government has taken against Palestinian civilians, and American complicity in that is unacceptable to American voters. That is essential going into the general election in 2006 and November, and it is absolutely unacceptable going into 2028 where everything is at stake. This conversation isn't ending anytime soon. No, it's not. Tartarck, thank you.

Thanks, Garrett. Okay, we're going to take a quick break, and when we're back, we'll talk to Congressman Dan Goldman, the man whose support for Israel may have cost him re-election. So Tark and I talked about how he worked for former New York City coptroller Brad Lander, who beat two-term incumbent incumbent Congressman Dan Goldman in his primary in New York's 10th district. Goldman was first elected in 2022. He had made a political name for himself as the lead counsel in President Trump's first impeachment. And truth be told, Goldman and Lander have a lot in common politically. They're both critics of President Trump. They both describe themselves as liberal Zionists, representing one of the most Jewish and most progressive districts in the country.

And when I say one of the most Jewish, nearly one and four voters in this district identifies as Jewish. And when it comes to Israel, both back a two-state solution and have said they don't support the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And yet, Goldman's support for Israel became one of the key differentiating factors between him and Lander in this summer's primary. And many experts agree it may have lost him the race. So what does he think happen? And where does the party go from here? Congressman Goldman, thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me, Garrett.

So we're here to talk about how the issue of Israel has become so divisive in democratic politics. You've talked very openly about your Jewish faith. You talk about being raised to treasure Israel. Why is this issue so important to you personally? Well, it's important to me personally and so many Jews because of the horrific history over millennia of anti-Semitism and Jews being kicked out of so many different countries, so many different territories,

and being the sort of persistent conspiracy theory that it's because of the Jews, that all problems happen. That culminated, of course, in the Holocaust. The worst genocide in history, six million Jews were murdered. My grandmother escaped anti-Semitism, the pogroms, and the former Soviet Union came to the United States. And that's a story that so many Jews have. After the Holocaust, even despite that horrific genocide, many countries did not allow Jews to come in, including the United States. In fact, our asylum laws were actually created. because Jews were denied access and entry into the United States. Shortly after the Holocaust,

of course, Israel was created. And it was created really as a safe haven for Jews where Jews could always go. It is the only Jewish country in the world. It is the only safe haven. And because of that, it is not just a country. It is very much rapid. up in the identity of Jews. I grew up as a Zionist, which means that Jews have the right to have a Jewish state of their own in their ancestral homeland, but not to the exclusion of anyone else. And when you look at the history, and we don't need to go through the whole history, right from the get-go, Israel was willing to accept the divide in a Palestinian state. And the Arabs and Palestinians just never accepted that.

Fast forward to where we are today, the Israeli government, I think, is a disaster, is horrific, has done really terrible things. The Prime Minister Netanyahu and his far-right coalition are incredibly destructive to Israel's safety and security, Israel's future, as well, of course, even more so to those around them, including so many Palestinian civilians in Gaza. It has now, though, become bastardized in a way that is completely unfamiliar to me, and not just unfamiliar, a historical. You mean the Israeli government? Well, I wish it were just the Israeli government. And I think ultimately that's where I draw the line.

just like I oppose vehemently the government of Donald Trump. I oppose vehemently the government of Prime Minister Netanyahu, but he is not the embodiment of the state of Israel or of the Israeli people. And I tried to make that point during my race, because I think it's really, really important. Israel will have democratic, elections next month where their people will have an opportunity to choose a new government. There are no other democracies in the Middle East. And I certainly hope that the Israeli people

make the right decision and remove Prime Minister Netanyahu. How much of a factor was your position on Israel in losing your race? It was far and away the central factor, although I would say APAC was probably a bigger factor. You know, APAC, I think, has done many, many things that I don't like and don't agree with. But I did not disavow APAC because there are many special interest groups. There are many, many different outside money groups that play in elections. And for some reason, A-PAC is demonized as, you know, the devil, whereas the others are, okay, we don't like them, but it's not the same. But ultimately, my opponent played very much into the APAC issue, even though I was also endorsed by J-Street, very much opposite on the spectrum. He played very much into some of the terminology that has become a litmus test on the left. What do you mean by that? Most importantly, the word genocide. And although there were, you're correct, fairly minor differences

between us, this issue has really moved away from the actual policy and the substance of what the future of the Middle East should look like. And it has become, I think, dangerously, a moral litmus test as to not whether you know you support a Palestinian state or not, but whether you are a quote unquote Zionist or you believe that what is going on in Gaza is a genocide or not. And even though I have been very critical of a lot of what Israel has done in Gaza, even though I myself am very pro-Palestinian, I am anti-Hamas, but I am pro-Palestinian and believe strongly that the Palestinian people deserve a country and an entity of their own. Just that word has become a litmus test and it has become a moral litmus test.

And the reason why that's different is that people believe that if you do not use the term genocide, which has completely lost its legal meaning, then you are immoral. and therefore everything else doesn't matter because you're immoral. And ultimately, I think that fueled a lot of voters in my race. On APAC, I mean, their stated mission is to support Israel to support politicians who support Israel. Has their involvement in races of pro-Israel Democrats become more detrimental to the cause because of that backlash? Well, it depends on where, and I think it varies. But I think in my race,

unquestionably, and I knew this. I mean, this was not a surprise to me. But I refused to sacrifice my morals, my values, and my beliefs. On the pure politics of this, I mean, Israel is bleeding support among Democrats, among younger voters. There's a Pew poll recently had found eight in 10 Democrats had unfavorable views of Israel in this moment, your position is on the losing side of this argument. How do you reverse that trend within the Democratic Party? And is there anyone out there who you think is making this argument particularly well in this moment? Well, I think there's a lot that goes into that. And I think, frankly, a lot of the polling questions are asking the wrong questions. Because it's, do you support more Israel?

or the Palestinians. You know, if I get asked this question, I'm pro-Israeli citizen, hurt people, and I'm pro-Palestinian. So you're asking a question where I'm both. And what I, and this goes back to what I was saying before, which is Democrats almost uniformly oppose the government of Israel. But in my view, it is incorrect to therefore ascribe all of the actions of the government to the country of Israel.

And that's the discussion that we need to have. I also think it's wrong to say, to use Palestinian as opposed to Hamas, which has actually governed Gaza for 20 years and has told. tortured and terrorized the Palestinian civilians. And so I'm not ready to yield that this is an 80-20 issue. It's not an 80-20 issue. The government of Israel versus the Palestinian people is an 80-20 issue, and I agree. But the state of Israel against the government of Gaza, which has been Hamas, is a very different question. We've seen votes on cutting off military aid to Israel that almost exactly split the Democratic caucus. There will be more votes on military aid, I'm sure, whenever the House comes back after the elections.

How do Democrats bridge that divide? Is that possible at this point? Well, I don't think there's any question that a big reason why so many Democrats voted to withhold military assistance from Israel. is a tremendous frustration with our own government. And the Trump administration is not doing enough, frankly not doing much at all, to rein in Israel's military activity,

which has been excessive. Many Democrats felt that this was the opportunity to voice opposition to what Israel is doing because our government, our administration, is not doing. that. I do think that the strategic partnership between the United States and Israel is immensely important. And it goes far beyond the military assistance. It goes into sharing of intelligence. It goes into Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East, and surrounded by terrorist groups led by Iran

that are not only trying to destroy Israel, but that want to destroy the United States. And so our partnership there is working together to fight against terrorism that wants to destroy us. Israel, technologically, we share so much, and they're very advanced. We get a tremendous amount out of that relationship beyond just providing military assistance. And so while I think that's the most tangible way of expressing people's opinion, but I actually don't think that, you know, the $3.3 billion is as essential as so many of the other aspects of this partnership. Obviously, I'm sure Israel would like to have the money. Almost all of that is spent in the U.S. with U.S. companies. So could Israel,

afford it, yes. Is it a big part of our defense budget? No. But it's really, I think, the symbolism. And the United States needs to stand up for a democratic ally in the face of tremendous vitriol, hatred and attacks from non-democratic entities and countries. I talked a little bit earlier about Kamala Harris's experience around this issue and how she sort of, her answers were unsatisfactory to both sides of this debate over Israel. We saw that at the Michigan primary. What position, looking further into the future, do you think the next Democratic nominee for president is going to have to have on this issue? I think the next Democratic nominee.

And, well, let's be also clear about Kamala Harris. And I think that there's some revisionist history going on on the left. It was not the quote-unquote establishment. I don't know what that means. But it was not the establishment that caused her to lose the election. it was many people on the far left who did not vote for her, who either stayed home or even voted for Donald Trump. And they did that for a variety of reasons, but they were clearly motivated and caused the election. I think the future is to support our ally Israel, but to be much more

aggressive in reigning in, if necessary, the Israeli government. And I think that's a very important. And I think there are many ways of doing that. But we need to be much more attuned to how the Israeli government is using our money, how our strategic partnership is operating, and making sure that they are acting consistent with our values and how we act. Congressman Dan Goldman, we got to leave it there. Thank you. Thank you. All right. That's going to do it for us today on Here's the Scoop election edition. Thank you for joining us. Next week on the show.

It has been 30 years since Texas elected a Democrat to the Senate. I know y'all have heard this before, but polls show 2026 could finally be the year. We're heading to Texas, the Democrats' White Whale. And just like every election cycle, everyone is asking, will this be the year? I'll be talking about that next Saturday on Here's the Scoop Election Edition. Our show was produced by Caroline Kenny and Amanda Luellen, Erica Huang, and Bobby Carlisto engineered with support from Jessica Fenton and Jacob Condon. Gatera Yocum is the executive producer of Here's the Scoop,

and Chalini Sharma is the Senior Vice President of Content Development at NBC News. I'm Garrett Hake. See you next time.