Gaza Genocide25 March, 20263 min read
Newsom says he regrets using 'apartheid' to describe Israel.
This article is an automated aggregation of coverage from news outlets. Our editorials offer in-depth analysis curated by the NewsCord team.
Newsom regrets using the word apartheid to describe Israel. Remarks were made in a Politico interview.
Newsom's Regret Clarification
California Governor Gavin Newsom faced significant political backlash after he publicly regretted his earlier comments suggesting Israel could be described as an 'apartheid state.'
“California Gov. Gavin Newsom is facing criticism for saying in a recent interview that he 'reveres' Israel, just weeks after he labeled it as an apartheid state. 'I revere the state of Israel. I'm proud to support the state of Israel,' Newsom said in an interview with Politico released on Tuesday, when asked whether he considers himself a Zionist.”
Newsom made the regretful clarification in a Politico interview released on Tuesday, stating 'I do' regret using the word 'apartheid' when asked about his previous remarks.
The Democratic governor, considered a potential 2028 presidential candidate, attempted to walk back his earlier statement by claiming he was merely referencing a New York Times column by Thomas Friedman that warned Israel could be heading toward apartheid in the future, not that apartheid currently exists.
Newsom emphasized that his objections are specifically to Netanyahu's government, not Israel as a state, saying 'I revere the state of Israel. I'm proud to support the state of Israel.'
He criticized Netanyahu for 'indulging the far right as it relates to what's going on in the West Bank' - an apparent reference to Israeli settlement expansion and violence against Palestinians.
Apartheid Context & Claims
International legal and human rights experts have long documented Israel's apartheid system against Palestinians, with the UN human rights office and International Court of Justice affirming that Israel has built a system of systematic discrimination against Palestinians. Newsom garnered headlines earlier in March when he told Pod Save America that 'Friedman and others are talking about it appropriately as sort of an apartheid state,' referencing a March 2 New York Times column by Thomas Friedman.
However, Friedman's op-ed actually supported U.S. and Israel's illegal war on Iran while warning that if the war enables Netanyahu to win Israeli elections, it would be a 'major propellant to his efforts to annex the West Bank, cripple the Israeli Supreme Court and make Israel an apartheid state.' Legal and human rights experts have consistently documented how Israel's apartheid system makes Palestinian lives 'hell,' with ongoing genocide in Gaza and de facto annexation of the West Bank already committed by Israeli authorities.
Political Implications
Newsom's comments are being closely monitored by political observers and Jewish groups as he emerges as a potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, particularly at a time when Democratic voters' support for Israel has fallen sharply. The governor ignited alarm among Jewish groups in California and beyond with his initial apartheid comments, leading to immediate meetings where Jewish leaders came away convinced that he did not believe Israel was currently an apartheid state. Newsom has also emphasized that he has never and would never take money from AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby that has grown increasingly toxic among Democrats.
“Newsom's comments are being closely watched because he is seen as a likely 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, at a time when Democratic voters' support for Israel has fallen sharply.”
He stated that the current Israeli leadership is 'walking us down that path' while ignoring the ongoing Gaza genocide and West Bank annexation. His balancing act reflects the complex political landscape Democratic candidates must navigate when addressing Israeli government policies and Palestinian rights.
Political Calculations
Newsom's clarification attempt reveals the political tightrope Democratic officials must walk when addressing Israeli government policies while maintaining support for Israel as a state. The governor attempted to create distance between his criticism of Netanyahu and his stated reverence for Israel, saying he 'deeply, deeply opposes Bibi Netanyahu's leadership, his opposition to the two-state solution and deeply opposes how he is indulging the far-right as it relates to what's going on in the West Bank.' However, this position ignores Netanyahu's outright support for West Bank annexation policies and the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza.
Newsom's regret and clarification highlight how even mild criticism of Israeli government policies can trigger significant political backlash. Forcing Democratic politicians to carefully calibrate their language on issues related to Israeli occupation and Palestinian rights.
