The Dictatorship

Rahm Emanuel just told Israelis some tough truths. Will they listen?

Published

59 minutes ago

July 9, 2026

Christmas. 9, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

Rahm Emanuel’s speech Wednesday at Tel Aviv University is exactly the kind of message Israelis — and U.S. supporters of Israel — need to hear.

Immanuel—a”https://www.ms.now/chris-jansing-reports/watch/rahm-emanuel-teases-2028-run-attempts-to-pull-democrats-to-the-center-240384069706″>likely 2028 Democratic presidential contender whose father was born in Jerusalem and fought as a member of the Irgun (an underground paramilitary faction) during Israel’s 1948 War of Independence — has been a staunch supporter of Israel through a distinguished political career that includes stints as a senior adviser, chief of staff and ambassador in, respectively, the Clinton, Obama and Biden administrations. He is about the furthest you can get from the anti-Israel activist left ascendant in the Democratic Party.

He said what should be obvious to everyone: that the era of the U.S. government’s tacit rubber stamp on Israeli aid and policy is over.

But unlike many “pro-Israel” U.S. figures that are really just pro-Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right, land-grabbing, atrocity-committing governmentEmanuel is trying to stake out both a moral and strategic position: that a true friend doesn’t have to agree with everything you say and do. Rather, a loyal ally tries to dissuade you from making terrible, irreversible mistakes — like annexing the West Bank to placate racist, religious fanatics dreaming of a “Greater Israel” with no Palestinians on the land at all.

In his speechEmanuel empathized with Israelis’ cynicism about peace efforts, given the fact that past Israeli governments offered sovereignty for security deals that were rejected three times in the 1990s and 2000s by what Emanuel characterized as “corrupt” Palestinian leadership. He also said he understands why Israelis felt isolated and besieged after Hamas sparked a war with its rapes, murders and kidnappings of civilians and military personnel on Oct. 7, 2023 — atrocities that were celebrated as righteous resistance by many left-wing advocates.

But Emanuel also made it clear that Netanyahu’s government prosecuted its war of vengeance in indefensible ways, “leaving the world to conclude that Israelis not only want to kill Palestinians but they are completely indifferent to their death, to their destruction, and completely indifferent to their suffering.” Citing Israel’s plummeting approval ratings — especially among young people — in the U.S. and Europe, Emanuel warned his audience, “You’re less safe today, not more, and the problem isn’t the lack of military strength but something more fundamental,” which is isolation from the rest of the world in diplomacy, science, economics and the arts, among other things. He also said what should be obvious to everyone: that the long era of the U.S. government’s tacit rubber stamp on Israeli aid and policy is over.

Emanuel aptly noted that Israelis who want to annex the West Bank to create a “Greater Israel” are ideological cousins of the anti-Israel activists who chant, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” Neither side leaves any room for the other, which can only result in bloodshed.

The one novel idea Emanuel put forth was a “23 state solution” — one in which the Palestinians are finally granted sovereignty, and the 21 Arab states recognize Israel’s legitimacy. This might be as fantastical in reality as reviving the seemingly-dead “two state solution,” but credit to Emanuel for thinking outside the box in a way that calls for all the players in the region to stake a claim in a possible future peace process.

Emanuel’s speech comes at a time when the Democratic Party faces a reckoning on Israel/Palestine, with leftist candidates breaking the firewall that once held near-universal support for U.S. aid to Israel. It also comes at a moment when a lot of anti-Zionist activism has given itself tacit permission to engage in rank antisemitism — a growing, disquieting problem mainstream Democrats and liberals have yet to adequately address.

Take the recent harassment of California state Sen. Scott Wiener, who was accosted and essentially chased away from San Francisco’s Trans March by pro-Palestinian activists who accused him of having “Zionist handlers.” Wiener, who is Jewish, has been a vocal critic of the Netanyahu government and described its war in Gaza as genocide. But because he has said the state of Israel has the right to exist and defend itself as any other nation in the world would, Weiner was smeared as “genocidal” and menaced into retreat.

Emanuel aptly noted that Israelis who want to annex the West Bank to create a “Greater Israel” are ideological cousins to the anti-Israel activists who chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

Some of Israel’s supporters like to indulge in the 19th century Zionist fantasy that Palestine was “a land without a people for a people without a land.” In fact, Israel’s 1948 War of Independence was, as many wars are, replete with war crimes committed on both sides and concluded with the forced displacement of more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs (known as the Nakba, “catastrophe” in Arabic). These circumstances of Israel’s birth are considered by many pro-Palestinian advocates to be Israel’s original, unforgivable sin.

And yet, another Middle East nation-state was born around the same time, also out of the ashes of the crumbling British Empire, in a devastating war where civilians were deliberately slaughtered, millions were displaced in ethnic cleansing campaigns and a new state favoring one religious group over others was created. That nation is Pakistan. While the conduct of Israel and Pakistan’s governments cannot be directly conflated, no U.S. politician risks being chased out of a Pride march for saying Pakistan has the right to exist.

The vast majority of U.S. Jews — 88% according to a Jewish Federations of North America survey released in February 2026 — say “Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish, Democratic state.” (That same poll found only 37% identified as “Zionist,” which speaks to both the toxicity surrounding the label and a misunderstanding of its meaning.)

Much of the anti-Zionist activist left appears to be uninterested in addressing the reality that if supporting Israel’s right to exist marks a person as “genocidal” and worthy of total ostracization, then nearly 9 in 10 U.S. Jews fit that label — making accusations of antisemitism difficult to dismiss.

This is why Emanuel’s speech, flawed though it may be, is important. Here is a proud Zionist, a potential future U.S. president, telling Israelis that if he has anything to say about it, sanctions are coming for Israeli settlers who attack Palestinians and steal or destroy their property, as well as for the politicians who back those crimes and the companies facilitating and profiting from such illegal land grabs.

The broad strokes of Emanuel’s speech may provide the groundwork of a viable path forward for Democrats who support Israel’s continued existence — beseeching Israelis to hold their own government accountable for its myriad alleged war crimes in Gaza, its active ethnic cleansing campaign in the West Bank and the genocidal threats issued by senior ministers of Netanyahu’s cabinet. To reject this advice from a friend would be a conscious choice to turn Israel into a pariah state and betray its own stated values.

Anthony L. Fisher is a senior editor and opinion columnist for MS NOW.

The Dictatorship

Trump wants a Supreme Court do-over on birthright citizenship, but he won’t get one

Published

59 minutes ago

July 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump wants a Supreme Court do-over on birthright citizenship, but he won’t get one

For months, Donald Trump made clear that he expected the Supreme Court to rule against him on birthright citizenship, and his expectations were correct: Last week, a narrow majority of the high court ruled that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment means what it says.

Hours after the decision came down, the president downplayed the importance of his defeat, saying that he would pursue a legislative solution through Congress, but eight days later, the Republican published a very different kind of message to his social media platform that approached the issue in a more hysterical way. The missive read, in its entirety:

Signs and Billboards are being put up all over our Southern Border, and Mexico, advertising BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, with “Deliveries starting at $4000.” Likewise, similar signs going up all over our Country. Billions of Dollars will be illegally made by this SCAM, with Citizenship going to anyone willing to pay. It will be, by far, the number one way of becoming a citizen, and then the entire family will be allowed to follow. Not sustainable.

NOBODY SAW THIS COMING!!! AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IS NOT FOR SALE! In fact, that is a crime, and therefore, the Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong. I will be asking for a Rehearing by the United States Supreme Court, IMMEDIATELY. This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don’t change their absolutely insane decision. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Even by Trump standards, this one’s a doozy.

The New York Times reported“The president appeared to be referring to a Fox News report that identified a hospital in Texas that had advertised paying for ‘Birth Packages in South Texas’ on billboards in Mexico. The outlet reported that Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican, had ordered an investigation into the hospital, which told Fox News that “marketing materials regarding maternity services are no longer in use due to any unintended misunderstanding.”

Trump apparently took this report and ran with it, inventing various other details, including the amusing idea that cross-border birth tourism will somehow become “the number one way of becoming a citizen” (“by far,” the president added), as opposed to simply being born on U.S. soil to American parents.

But even if such an advertising campaign existed, it wouldn’t generate a rehearing from the Supreme Court. There is no scenario in which justices would say, “Sure, we ruled last week that the unambiguous language of the 14th Amendment means what it says, but if there are billboards going up, that changes everything.”

For good measure, let’s not forget that, according to Trump, his administration has effectively ended illegal border crossings, so as a practical matter, he really shouldn’t be that concerned.

The president’s online rant said he intends to ask for an immediate rehearing. If he orders administration lawyers to go through with such a pointless exercise and they bother to do the paperwork, they should keep their collective expectations low.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

Democrats’ scramble to replace Graham Platner ramps up in Maine

Published

59 minutes ago

July 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats’ scramble to replace Graham Platner ramps up in Maine

Christmas. 9, 2026, 9:46 AM EDT

Maine Democrats are scrambling to replace Graham Platner a day after their nominee for U.S. Senate ended his bid following an allegation of sexual assault.

There’s a July 27 deadline set by state law for the party faithful to pick a new standard bearer in a race that is expected to be instrumental when it comes to whether Republicans can keep control of the Senate in this fall’s midterms.

Incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins may be vulnerable, but she has won five straight races for the seat dating back to 1996, and trying to defeat her was likely to carry challenges for Democrats even in the best case scenario.

Their new candidate will have to essentially start from nothing in the race, mend the divisions sown by Platner, introduce (or reintroduce) themselves to the broader electorate and corral support from the ex-candidate’s outsider-minded current and former followers, all in less than four months.

That amounts to a daunting task with massive implications not only for Maine Democrats, but potentially for the final two years of President Donald Trump’s time in the White House. Democrats need to flip at least four GOP-held Senate seats, and maintain all their current ones from several competitive states, to vault themselves into the majority in the midterms. A loss in Maine would be a significant setback.

Maine Democratic Party leaders announced plans “to hold a nominating convention to choose a new nominee,” while stating that “transparency is of the utmost importance.”

Already, several major voices are in the race, including unsuccessful candidate for governor and past Platner supporter Troy Jackson. The former state senate president made his bid clear less than an hour after Platner left the race. One major Bernie Sanders-aligned group, Our Revolution, has quickly rallied around Jackson.

Dan Kleban, co-founder of Maine Beer Company,”https://x.com/mainebeerbrewer/status/2075028234962677872?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet”>is also in the fray, along with former governor candidate Nirav Shah, who worked as Director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention during the pandemic. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows who also ran for governor this summer is among other potential contenders.

Platner’s exit also brings difficulty for Collins and Republicans as well, however. Instead of facing a Democratic rival with a string of alarming controversies even before the sexual assault allegationan accustation Platner has denied, Collins instead will have to try to keep her seat in a blue state against someone far less defined, and potentially with far fewer vulnerabilities, in November.

Across the country this year, Democrats have navigated a political environment rife with divisions over how to sway voters in these strange times, with tension between more entrenched party leaders and an energetic and angered left wing often spilling out into the open.

What happens in Maine over the coming weeks may prove to be no different.

Hunter Woodall covers politics for MS NOW. He’s reported on politics and presidential campaigns for The Associated Press and CBS News and reported on Congress for The Minnesota Star Tribune.

The Dictatorship

Platner’s exit amplifies a key difference between Democrats and Republicans

Published

59 minutes ago

July 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Platner’s exit amplifies a key difference between Democrats and Republicans

It’s been almost three years since Kevin McCarthy became the first sitting House speaker to be ousted in the middle of a congressional sessionbut the California Republican has nevertheless tried to maintain a public profile and has routinely appeared on conservative media to push partisan talking points.

So it wasn’t too surprising to see McCarthy on Fox News on Monday night, responding to the latest sexual assault allegations against Graham Platner, still a candidate for Senate at the time.

As part of an apparent effort to contextualize the scandals surrounding the Maine Democrat, the former GOP leader said, “One thing I know about Republicans is when we had a very bad candidate and found out, we didn’t vote for that person. We walked away.”

Moments later, McCarthy added, “When Matt Gaetz came forward, we got rid of him.”

As is too often the case, the failed former House speaker not only had it backward, but his mistake also offered a timely reminder of details that made him and his party look worse, not better.

Indeed, Gaetz offers a rather extraordinary example. The Justice Department investigated the Florida Republican over allegations of alleged sex trafficking, and while Gaetz repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and the prosecutors’ probe ended without charges, his House GOP colleagues made no effort to “get rid of him” as the scandal intensified.

What’s more, the House Ethics Committee found “substantial evidence” that Gaetz “regularly” paid women for sex, had sex with a 17-year-old during his tenure on Capitol Hill and possessed illegal drugs. Nevertheless, as that evidence came together, he remained a GOP member in good standing; he won re-election in 2024 with the Republican Party’s backing; and President Donald Trump thought it would be a good idea to nominate Gaetz to serve as the U.S. attorney general — a nomination endorsed by Republican senators such as South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham and Alabama’s Tommy Tubervilleeven after they had seen the House Ethics Committee’s findings.

This is what McCarthy cited as an example of the GOP maintaining the highest standards and throwing “very bad candidates” to the curb. That’s ridiculous.

But there’s no reason to stop with Gaetz. Indeed, the list of scandal-plagued Republicans who continued to enjoy the party’s backing long after ugly allegations had reached the public is not short. Trump is obviously the most glaring example, but the list includes other contemporary figures, including Rep. Cory Mills of Florida and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

There’s no reason to limit the list to electoral candidates, either: Former Fox News host Pete Hegseth faced an avalanche of scandals during his confirmation fight early last year, but Senate Republicans decided to ignore the allegations and make him defense secretary anyway.

As the Hegseth fight unfolded, political scientist Jonathan Bernstein published a smart piece that remains relevant: “I do not believe that Republicans or conservatives are any more prone to [scandals] than Democrats. What has changed, however, is the incentive structure. Once upon a time both parties were equally likely to rid themselves of bad actors; now Republicans are far more likely to tolerate, and in some cases even celebrate, behavior they once would have shunned.”

When Democrats learned of serious allegations against then-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the party abandoned him. When then-New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez faced serious criminal charges for which he was later convicted, the party abandoned him, too.

In Maine, the Platner example followed the same path, as evidenced by his decision to withdraw from the Maine race after Democratic officials left him with no other choice.

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, an MS NOW legal analyst, explained this week“The contrast here is hard to ignore. Democrats have shown that when credible allegations of sexual misconduct emerge against one of their own, the conversation turns quickly to accountability. Republicans have made a different choice. That’s not a partisan talking point, it’s a difference in how the two parties have approached questions of character and fitness for office over the last 10 years.”

That’s true, whether McCarthy wants to acknowledge it or not.