We are sorely disappointed that Mayor de Blasio has endorsed Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison for chairman of the Democratic National Committee, apparently without even a thought about the latter’s deplorable positions on Israel.
Mr. Ellison’s past association with Nation of Islam leader Rev. Louis Farrakhan, his opposition to U.S. funding for Iron Dome, his support for the BDS movement and for efforts to get the Obama administration to force Israel to ease the Gaza blockade – and the fact that Mr. Ellison is the darling of the Bernie Sanders anti-Israel wing of the Democratic Party that made such a strong showing in the primaries – should provide sufficient cause for an elected official representing the largest Jewish population outside Israel to back someone else for the post of party chairman.
Mr. Ellison’s positions on Israel are especially urgent now, with the tremendous level of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish fervor on many college campuses likely to translate, over the coming four years, into even greater numbers of young people identifying with the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.
Yet this is what Mr. de Blasio had to say in his statement endorsing Ellison:
The Democratic Party stands at a crossroads, and needs leadership that will expand our vision to more Americans – while also intensifying our commitment to our core values. Keith Ellison is that leader. A grassroots organizer, he has delivered real results like increased turnout in his native Minnesota. A passionate fighter for economic fairness, he will pursue an opportunity agenda for Americans who have felt left behind.At this critical threshold, Keith Ellison is the leader we need to defend our principles, move the party forward and begin to take our country back from a dangerous right-wing agenda.
So for the mayor of New York, concern for where Mr. Ellison will lead the Democratic Party on Middle East issues merited nary a mention. What he is really excited about – quite bizarrely, given the election of Donald Trump – is that Mr. Ellison can be expected to double down on hard-left progressive principles.
It is ironic that the mayor’s 2013 victory is usually characterized by his supporters as a “landslide” and thus testament to the broad appeal of an ultra-liberal agenda. What they choose to forget or ignore is this salient fact: Mr. de Blasio was elected in an election that saw a turnout of just 27 percent of eligible voters.
So while, yes, many who identify with the mayor’s progressive program came out to vote, their numbers paled in comparison with voters who either supported Mr. de Blasio’s Republican opponent or just stayed home. So even in staunchly liberal New York, his case was not made. But the case for his indifference to the Middle East concerns of vast numbers of New Yorkers has, unfortunately, very much been made.
