Caabu: five Palestine policy pledges for Labour leadership contenders

Featured image: Palestine Flag. Photo credit: Makbula Nassar under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

22nd June 2026Leave a Commenton Caabu: five Palestine policy pledges for Labour leadership contenders

“We ask any candidates for the leadership of the Labour Party to take the Pledge on Palestine.”

The Council for Arab-British Understanding (CAABU) has launched Five UK Policy Pledges on Palestine for candidates for the leadership of the Labour Party. You can read about it in the statement below.

This pledge card, drafted jointly by Caabu and the Britain Palestine Project, outlines five measures that would build on the Government’s recognition of Palestine through immediate policy changes and apply the same principles of International Law Labour has defended in Ukraine: no acquisition of territory by force, no impunity for attacks on civilians, and no selective respect for

International Law. We ask any candidates for the leadership of the Labour Party to take the Pledge on Palestine. They will be joining an overwhelming majority of Labour Party members who, according to a June 2026 Survation poll, want more action to support peace between Palestinians and Israelis:

• 87% support banning trade with illegal settlements
• 78% support suspending all UK arms exports to Israel
• 68% support suspending the UK-Israel Trade and Partnership Agreement
• 62% are dissatisfied with the Government’s current approach
• 58% say that approach matters when choosing Labour’s leader

The Pledges on Palestine:

1. Ban all UK trade with illegal Israeli settlement goods and services

Settlement expansion is central to the annexation, displacement and fragmentation of the State of Palestine. The E1 plan is particularly significant because it would further sever East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank and undermine territorial contiguity. In July 2024, the International Court of Justice found Israel’s continued presence in the territory of the State of Palestine to be unlawful and determined that other states must neither recognise nor assist the occupation, and must distinguish in their dealings between Israel and the territories occupied since 1967. A credible ban must therefore cover services and finance as well as goods, preventing British companies, charities, investors and professionals from sustaining or profiting from settlement activity.

This is not a ban on trade with Israel, but a legally required distinction between Israel and occupied territory of Palestine.

Immediate UK action:

• Ban the import of settlement goods and services, including financial, legal, insurance, tourism, digital and other professional services. Legislation has been introduced by Norway to introduce such a ban.
• Make it a criminal offence for British nationals, residents and legal entities to buy, market, finance or facilitate the purchase of settlement property.
• Penalise any bidder (including financial institutions) for E1 tenders or other settlement projects

2. Enforce International Law

Recognition of Palestine must have a practical effect: Palestinian jurisdiction over Gaza, East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank;

freedom of movement throughout the state; full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and an end to the blockade. UK policy must not contribute to annexation, apartheid, forcible transfer or ethnic cleansing. International Law requires action, not expressions of concern. The State of Palestine should be treated on the basis of parity of esteem with the State of Israel. The UK should publish a cross-Government plan to implement the ICJ’s July 2024 Advisory Opinion, comply with the Court’s Provisional Measures in the Genocide Convention case to prevent complicity in further genocidal acts, give effect to the ICJ’s October 2025 Opinion on humanitarian and UN operations, and cooperate fully with ICC arrest warrants.

Immediate UK action:

• Suspend all arms transfers to and from Israel, including through multinational programmes, and suspend military, intelligence, training and security cooperation pending compliance with international law.
• Suspend the UK–Israel Trade and Partnership Agreement while its human rights clause remains breached, and audit all bilateral cooperation in defence, trade, research, procurement and finance.
• Introduce targeted sanctions, modelled on the Russia sanctions regime, against individuals and entities responsible for occupation, annexation or grave violations of international law, and press for an end to the military detention of Palestinian children.

3. Ensure full humanitarian and reconstruction access:

Humanitarian access must be continuous, safe and at the scale required – not temporary, selective or controlled as a political lever.

All crossings and routes should be opened for food, fuel, medicines, shelter, water, sanitation equipment, communications, medical supplies and reconstruction materials. UNRWA has an indispensable mandated role, but the response must also enable other UN bodies, the ICRC (in line with judgements of the Israeli Supreme Court), and international and Palestinian NGOs to operate

freely. The ICJ addressed these obligations directly in its October 2025 Advisory Opinion. The UK has supported the full resumption of aid, Israeli withdrawal, Palestinian governance and Palestinian-led recovery in statements at the UN.

This now needs to be followed up with actions.

Immediate UK action:

• Build a coalition of willing allies around measurable access benchmarks, deadlines and automatic diplomatic, trade and sanctions consequences for continued obstruction.
• Fund Palestinian-led recovery through Palestinian institutions, municipalities and civil society, while sustaining UNRWA, other UN agencies and international NGOs and supporting free and fair elections in Palestine.
• Create family-reunification and medical evacuation routes, enabling Palestinians to study, work and receive specialist medical treatment in the UK while health and education services are rebuilt.

4. Open occupied Palestine, including Gaza, to journalists, politicians and investigators:

Independent scrutiny protects civilians by deterring abuse, preserving evidence of war crimes, crimes against humanity, sexual violence and genocide, and enabling governments and the public to test official claims. The UN Human Rights Office has documented Israel’s ban on independent international media access to Gaza alongside severe pressure on Palestinian journalists.

Military-organised visits, curated footage and remote briefings cannot substitute for free reporting. Access must also extend beyond the media. UK Parliamentarians, diplomats, humanitarian monitors, UN bodies, ICC investigators, forensic experts and independent human-rights organisations should be able to enter and move safely throughout Gaza, East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank.

All authorities and armed groups, including the Palestinian Authority and the current de facto authorities in Gaza, must protect journalists and investigators and refrain from censorship, intimidation, detention or retaliation. The targeted killing of journalists must cease.

Immediate UK action:

• Demand safe, sustained and independent access for accredited international journalists, with guaranteed communications equipment and freedom of movement.
• Secure access for Parliamentarians, investigators and monitors, and ensure the preservation of sites, records and other potential evidence.
• Treat obstruction of access, attacks on journalists or retaliation against witnesses as grounds for diplomatic measures and targeted sanctions.

5. Act with allies to end unlawful regional occupations

Palestine cannot be separated from the wider regional crisis. Israeli forces have entered and continue to operate in parts of Lebanon and Syria beyond Israel’s internationally recognised borders. In June 2026, a senior UN official described Israel’s presence north of the Blue Line as a violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. In Syria, the occupied Golan Heights and Israeli military activity beyond the 1974 Disengagement Agreement lines remain sources of instability and repeated international concern. The UK should work with the UN, European and Arab partners to secure withdrawal from occupied Palestinian territory, including Gaza, East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank; from occupied Syrian territory, including the Golan and areas entered beyond the 1974 lines; and from Lebanese territory. Security arrangements must not become a pathway to permanent occupation or annexation. Jerusalem also requires urgent protection. Amid growing pressure on Muslim and Christian holy sites and challenges to Jordan’s essential role, the UK should uphold the historic and legal status quo. Jordan’s special responsibility was recognised in the 1994 Israel–Jordan Peace Treaty and reaffirmed in the 2013 Jordan–Palestine agreement on Hashemite custodianship of Islamic and Christian holy sites.

Immediate UK action:

• Press for clear withdrawal timetables, support the UN Interim Force in Lebanon and United Nations Disengagement Observer Force in Syria, and concrete diplomatic, economic and legal measures against occupation or annexation.
• Oppose further invasions, military strikes and unilateral territorial changes in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, while supporting effective security guarantees for all states and peoples in the region.
• Defend Jordan’s custodianship, the historic status quo, freedom of worship and access to Jerusalem’s holy sites, and reject any unilateral attempt to alter established arrangements.

---

• You can follow CAABU on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter/X.
• This statement was taken from a newsletter sent by Caabu on 21 June 2026.
• If you support Labour Outlook’s work amplifying the voices of left movements and struggles here and internationally, please consider becoming a supporter on Patreon.

Type your email…

Opinion

Keir Starmer was complicit in genocide. The next PM must end this.

'The next occupant of 10 Downing Street should heed that warning and end Britain’s complicity in these crimes, starting by imposing comprehensive sanctions on Israel, including a full arms embargo.'

Dan Iley-Williamson ·

LEFT FOOT FORWARD

JUNE 24, 2026

Dan Williamson is political organiser at Palestine Solidarity Campaign

Keir Starmer will depart 10 Downing Street having been the most unpopular Prime Minister since records began. There are many causes for the antipathy: From his purge of the Labour left and abandonment of his professed principles and pledges, to his slashing of Winter Fuel Payments and indulgence for freebies. But since October 2023, one issue has defined the moral character of Starmer’s leadership above all others: His unrepentant complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

In the first weeks of the genocide, as Israel’s annihilation of Gaza began, Starmer was insistent: Israel had the right to act as it did, even as the world witnessed the obliteration of Gaza and its people. He went so far as to say it had a “right” to cut off water and power from the besieged enclave. In the House of Commons, he whipped Labour MPs against supporting a ceasefire, provoking the biggest rebellion his leadership had faced.

Once in office, he set a record for arms exports to Israel, surpassing what even the Conservative government had allowed. He continued spy flights over Gaza, providing Israel with real-time information of its slaughter. He weaponised his background as a human rights lawyer to deny the facts, telling the Commons: “I am well aware of the definition of genocide, and that is why I have never described [Israel’s genocide] as a genocide.” His government proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation and passed new laws to give the police further powers to restrict the right to protest, explicitly targeting Palestine solidarity demonstrations.

Throughout this, the movement for Palestine has remained undaunted. The national marches in London have become the biggest sustained mobilisation Britain has witnessed since the suffragettes and amongst the largest demonstrations for Palestine in the Global North.

Last month, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), alongside our partners in the Vote Palestine coalition, brought this movement into the local elections, asking council candidates to “Pledge for Palestine”. More than 2,200 candidates did so, with more than 600 subsequently getting elected. That is more than 10% of all newly elected councillors.

In Wales, PSC asked candidates for the Senedd to make a pledge too, explicitly supporting the Palestinian-led call for Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment (BDS). The commitment was made by almost 40% of the newly elected Senedd Members, including the majority of the new Welsh government’s Cabinet.

The movement was taken to the heart of the Labour Party, with Labour members and trade union affiliates voting at its 2025 annual conference to accept that Israel has committed genocide and demanding comprehensive sanctions, including a full arms embargo. Having failed to block the efforts on procedural grounds, Starmer ignored the vote and continued his government’s complicity in Israel’s crimes.

Although he has strained every sinew to stand foursquare behind his genocidal ally, the movement has finally caught up with Starmer. The May elections put the final nails in Starmer’s authority, and we know Palestine was a major factor in the vote.

With Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland, PSC commissioned polling of voters who have stopped voting Labour under Starmer’s leadership and now support other parties of the centre and left. Despite the focus on Reform, Labour has lost far more voters to centre and left parties. In England, four-in-five voters have gone to the Greens, the Liberal Democrats or independents and local parties. The largest group – accounting for 40% of all voters Labour has lost since the 2024 General Election – went to the Greens.

Respondents to the poll were asked if Labour’s policy on Palestine was a factor in them abandoning the party. The results were emphatic. More than half (53%) said Palestine was a factor, with two-thirds of voters who have switched from Labour to the Greens saying it was.

These other parties – the Greens most of all, and also Plaid Cymru and the SNP – have gone much further than Labour in demanding action against Israel. Our polling shows such this stance is hugely popular amongst these lost-Labour voters: 82% said they support the government doing more to prevent Israel’s genocide in Gaza, such as imposing sanctions on Israel; 80% said they support a ban on all arms sales to Israel; and 75% want a ban on trade that is linked to Israel’s illegal occupation and settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory.

The British establishment – still wedded to its alliance with Israel – has done its best to ignore this reality, but this polling demonstrates that the next Labour leader would be foolhardy to do so. It showed that 70% of the voters Labour has lost to centre and left parties would have a more favourable view of the party if it was more supportive of Palestinian rights, with 82% of Labour-to-Green switchers having this view.

Separate polling of Labour members has also shown that Palestine could be decisive in a contest to replace Starmer: Like the lost-Labour voters, Labour members demand much stronger action against Israel: 87% support a ban on trade with illegal settlements; 78% support suspending all arms exports to Israel; and 68% support a suspension of the UK-Israel Trade and Partnership agreement. Three-in-five say Palestine will be a major factor in their decision about who should be the next Labour leader.

It is little surprise, therefore, that the likes of Wes Streeting have tried to rebrand themselves as champions of Palestinian rights, even though in Streeting’s case he spent almost two years in a government complicit in the attempted erasure of the Palestinian people. Before that, Streeting opposed a ceasefire and dismissed South Africa’s attempt to hold Israel to account for genocide at the International Court of Justice.

Now that Streeting has ruled himself out of the leadership contest, the path seems clear for Andy Burnham to take the helm. Although Burnham called for a ceasefire early in the genocide, he has avoided the topic in recent months, except to say that he cannot judge if Israel has committed a genocide. Even if the crime hadn’t been livestreamed across the globe, he might have consulted the likes of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, Al-Haq, Oxfam, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, all of whom have concluded that Israel is guilty of the crime of crimes.

The next Prime Minister would do well to learn the lessons from Starmer. Palestine isn’t just a question of foreign policy. It is a question of the world we want to build. Starmer has sided with genocide and barbarism – and voters punished him. The next occupant of 10 Downing Street should heed that warning and end Britain’s complicity in these crimes, starting by imposing comprehensive sanctions on Israel, including a full arms embargo. That isn’t just the right thing to do. It is also Labour’s best hope of winning back voters and defeating Reform.

Image credit: Alisdare Hickson – Creative Commons

Continue to fight for a world where Palestine is free – Peter Leary

24th June 2026Leave a Commenton Continue to fight for a world where Palestine is free – Peter Leary

“Palestine is not just a foreign policy question. It is a question of the world we want to build.”

Featured image: Thousands take to the streets of London for Palestine and against the far right! Nakba 78 demonstration. Photo credit: Palestine Solidarity Campaign on Twitter/X

Peter Leary of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign spoke at Stop the War’s recent International Anti-War Conference. You can read his speech below.

Thank you, chair

I don’t need to remind this audience that we are now approaching three years since the start of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Indeed, one of the calls that I hope will be endorsed by this important conference is for coordinated actions on 10 October as we reach that horrific milestone. More than 73,000 Palestinians killed, millions displaced, the deliberate destruction of hospitals, schools, homes and universities. A genocide that continues despite the so-called ceasefire, almost 1,000 Palestinians have been violently killed since it supposedly took effect.

In the West Bank, Palestinians continue to confront violence and forced displacement. Throughout their homeland and as refugees in exile, Palestinians are subjected to a cruel system of apartheid.

Now clearly, in their decades-long struggle against oppression, dispossession, occupation and apartheid, our global solidarity matters to Palestinians. But one thing that the last three years have taught us is that the Palestinian struggle also matters to us all.

Because what is at stake today are two very different visions of the future.

Israel is only able to carry out its atrocities because of the support that it receives from Western governments and institutions.

Just last week, the British government allowed stolen Palestinian land in illegally occupied territory to be openly sold here in London.

And what happens to those who oppose these crimes? They are demonised, criminalised and subject to attacks on our democratic rights. And it is those same governments, whose moral bankruptcy has been exposed by their support for Israel’s crimes, that are dragging us all towards disaster.

From Venezuela and Cuba, to Iran, Lebanon and across the world, the US is increasingly trying to use military might to bolster and maintain its declining economic position. This is what it means to live in a world of impunity

They want to use Palestine as the testing ground for what Palestinians have described as a ‘might-makes-right order that threatens humanity at large.’

But for that very reason, the struggle and determination of the Palestinian people can inspire our resistance too, because the paradox of this moment is that the global movement for Palestinian rights is stronger than it has ever been before.

In the past few years, we have built the most sustained protest movement since the struggle for women’s suffrage.

From weekly shopping baskets to Town Halls throughout the country, the campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions is growing.

Across Britain, dozens of local councils have now endorsed divestment of pension funds from companies that are implicated in Israel’s crimes.

Consumers are refusing to buy Israeli apartheid products, and students are demanding an end to complicity on their campuses.

This week, PSC launched a new campaign – Delete Genocide Tech – targeting corporations such as Cisco Systems, Palantir and Oracle that provide Israel with technology used to monitor and target Palestinians.  

And even the government is starting to feel the effects of the demand for sanctions. For millions of voters, Palestine is now on the ballot when they go to the polls, and it is in no small part down to this issue that Keir Starmer’s Prime Ministership has come to such an ignoble end.

In our workplaces and trade unions, universities and communities, our movement brings together people from all backgrounds and every walk of life. 

So, Palestine is not just a foreign policy question. It is a question of the world we want to build.

Because Palestine matters to the progressive majority. To the labour movement, climate campaigners, anti-racists, LGBT activists, and all those who believe in freedom and justice, stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people

And so, our solidarity with Palestine is central to the wider battle – against the warmongers and the rising fascist right both at home and abroad. So if we want to live in a world without war, a world built on justice, founded on freedom, we must continue to fight for a world in which Palestine is free.

---

• Peter Leary is Deputy Director of Campaigns at the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) – you can follow him on X/Twitter and follow PSC on X/Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
• If you support Labour Outlook’s work amplifying the voices of left movements and struggles here and internationally, please consider becoming a supporter on Patreon.

Type your email…

‘HUMILIATING Loss ’: Rania Khalek Unpacks How Trump, Israel Got Played in Iran MoU

By Rania Khalek

June 20, 2026

Source: Breakthrough News

“These concessions reflect the actual balance of power after a US-Israeli defeat. This is what losing looks like.”

BT Live’s Rania Khalek breaks down the details of the Memorandum of Understanding signed Thursday by Trump and Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian: Total reversal of Trump’s “maximum pressure” sanctions; Hezbollah hails the deal as a “big victory”; Israeli officials are melting down over U.S. capitulation; and warhawk Democrats are attacking from the right at home. Meanwhile crickets from the Lebanese government as Israel insists it won’t leave the south, where news of the MoU is bolstering support for Iran.

---

This article was originally published by Breakthrough News; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.Email

Rania Khalek

Rania Khalek is an independent journalist reporting on the underclass and marginalized. For more of her work check out her website Dispatches from the Underclass and follow her on Twitter @RaniaKhalek.

Trump, the Iran Memorandum, and the “World’s Greatest Authority”

By Bill Fletcher Jr

June 22, 2026

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

Image by Diane Krauthamer/Wikimediacommons, licensed via CC BY 4.0

The announcement of the US/Iran Memorandum of Understanding allegedly ending the war between Iran and the USA/Israeli axis has brought forth more confusion than I can remember in the aftermath of any crisis.  And, how can we even use the word “aftermath” when, shortly after the “signing” of the Memorandum, Israel continued its relentless war against Lebanon, and Iran–as a result–announced another blockade of the Straits of Hormuz!  And then, on June 21st, Trump, once again, threatened Iran and specifically threatened to kill the Iranian negotiating team!  We will get back to this in a moment.  First some background.

Though the mainstream media and liberal commentators have consistently referred to the USA/Israeli assault as Trump’s supposed “war of choice,” such a designation entirely misses the mark.  Would one call Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939 a war of choice?  Perhaps in a very technical sense since it was not a defensive war, but the reality was that it was a war of naked aggression.  History has identified it as such and there has been no ambiguity, except among a certain ring of fascists.

Additionally, consider that Trump twice engaged in what were supposed to be good-faith negotiations with the Iranian government, only to launch military actions against them during the negotiations.  The Japanese did exactly the same thing in the leadup to Pearl Harbor and, in fact, Japanese negotiators were in Washington, DC at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack.  History has been very unkind to the Japanese for such duplicity.  Why should it be anything different with Trump?

Let us be clear that this has been a war of aggression on the part of the USA and Israel, countries which had similar and different reasons to attack Iran.   They carried out the attack with a high level of hubris, poor intelligence, an irrational view of air power replacing soldiers on the ground, and an overall lack of preparation.  In fact, they could not even define the objectives of the war.

During the course of the war there have been liberal commentators who have criticized Trump for failing to enter the war with a set of clear objectives, including but not limited to the failure to overthrow the Iranian theocracy or definitively crippling their military.  This point of view is astounding since it suggests that had Trump been clearer about destroying the Iranian military and overthrowing the Iranian regime the war might have been justified!  As any student of international law can attest, an unprovoked military assault against a country that offers no evidence of an imminent attack is in violation of international law and such actions have, since World War II, been condemned, with the exception of the “pass” regularly provided to Israel.

The contempt for international law demonstrated by Trump, et al, went hand in hand with a dismissal of human rights.  On the first day of the war of aggression, US aircraft killed 175 Iranian civilians, mainly children, in a missile attack on a school.  The attack at first appeared inexplicable except when it was later revealed that the US intelligence assessment of that area was completely out of date.  Trump’s response?  According to the New York Times, Trump replied most recently, “Mistakes are made.  War is nasty.”  

Trump’s contempt for the victims of US atrocities matches his contempt for people from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean unless, of course, they are Afrikaners from South Africa.  It is in Trump’s contemptuous view of the global majority that we see the parallels between the Trump administration on foreign and domestic policy.  The ethnic cleansing and atrocious treatment of immigrants in the USA – documented and undocumented – who have been warehoused and denied humane treatment displays the same attitude the Administration has taken towards the Iranians, including attacking civilian targets and attacking non-military Iranian targets on the high seas.  The basic principle that applies is that no principle applies!  This is what so many people failed to understand when they classified Trump as a supposed isolationist.  He and his administration are not isolationists!  Instead they are a regime that believes that no law, foreign or domestic, should constrain a US administration from undertaking policies driven by perceived self-interest, however avaricious.

The Memorandum signed by Trump is as odd as a four legged duck.  Despite the denunciations of the Obama administration’s  Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – the Iran nuclear deal of 2015 – by Trump and MAGA and their insistence that it be obliterated, Trump has won nothing of substance for the US ruling elite.  As has been acknowledged in both Left and Right circles, the Strait of Hormuz was open before the war; the price of oil was down; the global economy was not teetering on the brink of recession;  billions of dollars per day were not being thrown into war; and Iranian civilians, neighboring Arabian/Persian Gulf nation-states, along with US personnel in western Asia, were not facing war and terror.  Trump has won nothing for the US elite or his MAGgot millions.  And, as should be obvious, the people of the United States have won nothing through the pirate assault on Iran.

How should we understand this situation?  First, these are the steps of a 15 year old encased in the body of an 80 year old who displays serious cognitive issues.  Second, these are the actions of a segment of the US political elite that wishes to reshape the world in the interest of transnational capital, particularly the fossil fuel and tech sectors.  Third, these are the actions of an Administration that exists in both unity and tension with Israel wherein it, for ideological and strategic reasons, wishes to reinforce Israel, while at the same time Trump does not particularly value chaos in western Asia (the latter appearing to be a major objective of the Israeli government).

This war and settlement are an abomination.  The entire process of engaging in this war of aggression must be denounced, if not ridiculed.  The stand of people of good will must be that there was never any justification for this war and, indeed, the USA and Israel need to supply Iran with reconstruction assistance.  They cannot afford to walk away and shrug.

There is one more critical lesson.  Our fight against rightwing authoritarianism and neofascism at home is not now and has never been separate from our duty to oppose wars of aggression and acts of tyranny on the global stage (the latter including standing with the Iranian people not only against the USA/Israeli aggression but, separately, against the repressive Iranian theocracy).  Trump and MAGA have a global vision which includes domination of the Western Hemisphere; transactional relationships with other countries insofar as it benefits transnational capital and US political elites; and strong relationships with other tyrannical powers under a 21st century version of spheres of influence.  The global majority has no interest in such a vision.  And such a vision will not succeed to the extent to which we succeed in taking down rightwing authoritarianism and neofascism in our respective countries.

We moved far too slowly in responding to the Iran war.  We sit awaiting a possible US strike against Cuba, not to mention other possible Trump targets.  Those of us standing against rightwing authoritarianism and neofascism simply cannot sit out the global struggle.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is coordinator and cofounder of standing4democracy.org.  He is a longtime trade unionist, international solidarity activist, and writer of fiction and nonfiction.Email

Bill Fletcher Jr

Bill Fletcher Jr (born 1954) has been an activist since his teen years. Upon graduating from college he went to work as a welder in a shipyard, thereby entering the labor movement. Over the years he has been active in workplace and community struggles as well as electoral campaigns. He has worked for several labor unions in addition to serving as a senior staffperson in the national AFL-CIO. Fletcher is the former president of TransAfrica Forum; a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies; and in the leadership of several other projects. Fletcher is the co-author (with Peter Agard) of “The Indispensable Ally: Black Workers and the Formation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, 1934-1941”; the co-author (with Dr. Fernando Gapasin) of “Solidarity Divided: The crisis in organized labor and a new path toward social justice“; and the author of “‘They’re Bankrupting Us’ – And Twenty other myths about unions.” Fletcher is a syndicated columnist and a regular media commentator on television, radio and the Web.

NYC’s Democratic Primary: 

Socialists Vs. Pro-israel Oligarchs

By Branko Marcetic

June 21, 2026

Source: Jacobin

Assemblymember and NYC-DSA–endorsed congressional candidate Claire Valdez is cosponsoring the “Not on Our Dime” Act in the New York State Assembly. She attended Friday’s reintroduction press conference in Long Island City, New York. (Courtesy Roman Broszkowski)

Next week’s elections in New York have typically been talked about as contests between candidates, often Democratic party centrists and socialist insurgents. But given the large sums of money flooding these races, it’s more accurate to see them as contests of people-powered campaigns versus a collection of corporate interests and pro-Israel oligarchs.

This year has seen pro-Israel groups once more repeat the strategy they have carried out in previous state-level and municipal elections in New York, of having pro-Israel donors give individually to a slate of candidates who are either soft on Israel or at least stand to keep its left-wing critics out of power. Many of the centrist candidates fighting it out against socialist critics of Israel have overlapping donors who also happen to be affiliated with two closely related entities: the New York Solidarity Network (NYSN), which styles itself as a kind of state-level version of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and the similarly named Solidarity PAC. The two organizations share a frequently revolving door of personnel.

According to NYSN’s most recent 990 form, filed for 2024, at least three members of its board of directors have donated money to largely the same candidates competing against challengers backed by the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (NYC-DSA).

For instance, NYSN president Gary Ginsberg has given a total of just over $1,860 to four state assembly incumbents: Erik Dilan, the state assembly member facing a Working Families Party–backed challenger; Jenifer Rajkumar, an ally of former mayor Eric Adams; Jordan Wright, the son of a former Manhattan Democratic Party boss being challenged by a union organizer; and Stefani Zinerman, who is backed by House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries and facing a challenger she beat by 6 points in the 2024 primary. All four of their challengers — Christian Celeste Tate, David Orkin, Conrad Blackburn, and Eon Huntley, respectively — have been outspoken critics of Israel and its genocide in Gaza.

Board member Alice Tisch — part of the wealthy Tisch family and wife of retired investor Thomas Tisch, who also sits on NYSN’s board — has given a total of $13,500 to these same four candidates being backed by Ginsberg. Adeena Rosen — who is listed as partly serving as NYSN’s treasurer and who exerted operational control of Solidarity PAC upon its founding — and her husband David have similarly given a total of $9,748 apiece to the same slate, only sans Zinerman. Asset management firm executive David Kroin and his wife Michelle — who were identified by New York Focus as being part of last year’s Solidarity PAC–directed political spending spree — have donated $8,727 each to this same trio.

The largest common donor between the candidates is health care executive Daniel Lowy, who has previously donated to AIPAC and whose grandfather chairs an Israeli national security think tank. Lowy, who pulled his financial support from the University of Pennsylvania over campus protests against the Gaza genocide, has given to Rajkumar, Wright, Zinerman, and Rep. Adriano Espaillat, who is currently in a primary contest against socialist insurgent Darializa Avila Chevalier, for a total of $22,000. Lowy also donated to Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, who is in a primary battle with socialist labor organizer Claire Valdez, but Reynoso returned the donation in April.

For a project devoted to intervening in and influencing Democratic primaries, they also all have conservative ties. Ginsberg was a former News Corp executive and an advisor to its CEO Rupert Murdoch. The Rosens were two of the biggest donors to the Republican candidate who ran for the special election in New Jersey’s open 11th congressional district seat earlier this year. Tisch is a Republican donor who backed Nikki Haley in 2024. NYSN’s board has also featured GOP operative Nathan Parsons-Schwarz, whose firm, Allegiance Strategies — which has a history of lobbying for corporate-funded groups devoted to lowering taxes on the wealthy — paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for fundraising and consulting services.

In that sense, they really are analogous to a state-level version of AIPAC, since AIPAC’s Super PAC has often served as a conduit through which Republican megadonors and other right-wing interests have engaged in Democratic primaries.

As the background of some of these donors hints at, this spending carries over another familiar pattern: much of it is from corporate and wealthy interests that socialist challengers either oppose or will have to regulate if they win office. In New York in the past few years, this big money influx has often manifested in the form of an influx of advertising and mailers churned out by independent expenditure committees funded by these interests.

Take, for instance, New Yorkers for a Balanced Albany, which used to be an instrument for keeping Republicans in power in New York’s state senate, and which got a huge $1.8 million injection earlier this year from former mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg to push forward a pro–charter school agenda. The group dropped over $390,000 at the start of this month on unspecified support for Wright, Rajkumar, and Zinerman, who received nearly half of this total all on her own.

In fact, Wright has been the recipient of an especially generous array of corporate spending. Besides New Yorkers for a Balanced Albany, Wright has also been backed by more than $87,000 worth of spending by a group, Local Economies Forward NY, funded entirely by a nearly million-dollar donation from DoorDash, almost all of which has gone to print and digital advertising backing his campaign.

Meanwhile, the group New York Future has dropped just under $18,000 backing Wright’s campaign, more than 80 percent of which has gone to direct mail and digital ads, on top of another nearly $42,000 it has spent on mailers and digital ads attacking his opponent, Conrad Blackburn. New York Future is the super PAC of mobile sports betting companies like DraftKings and FanDuel, who are its two single biggest funders. On top of this, Wright is also getting a boost from Moving Harlem Forward, which has been funded by $25,000 apiece from Lowy, NYSN’s Rosen, and another pro-Israel donor.

Meanwhile, looking beyond the state level, Espaillat, who has been endorsed by AIPAC, is being backed by the Bold America Super PAC, founded by three former members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and officially focused on defeating Republicans. But the organization gets a significant amount of funding from corporate interests, including $50,000 from cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase and a $150,000 donation from the Texas-based IBC Bank, whose CEO was an early Trump supporter and an enthusiastic proponent of the North American Free Trade Agreement. This is on top of a massive, last-minute surge of donors to AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups pouring money into Espaillat’s coffers.

This year, opponents of socialist candidates have attempted to flip the script on DSA-backed insurgents, owing to the involvement this year of a Super PAC on the left funded partly by pro-Palestinian Texas millionaire Hussein Mahrouq, which has spent more than $2 million on the campaign of Espaillat’s opponent, Darializa Chevalier, and Claire Valdez, the socialist assemblymember running for retiring Rep. Nydia Velázquez’s congressional seat. The pro-Israel press has pointed to the fact that Mahrouq has donated to Texas’s GOP governor and that the group’s other donors include a Bitcoin mining company executive who backs the expansion of AI data centers.

In other words, just as Democrats and progressive activists have complained that pro-Israel groups have served as conduits for Republican donors and corporate interests to sway Democratic primaries, the pro-Israel right is now launching this attack on a group partly funded by a pro-Palestinian donor. It’s a stretch, but may be an effective line of attack in a contest where voters tend to value party loyalty.

It seems that as socialists and pro-Palestinian activists notch victories in New York, the tidal wave of money that attempted to drown the campaign of now-Mayor Zohran Mamdani a year ago has not receded. Next week, we’ll find out what is left standing in its wake.

---

This article was originally published by Jacobin; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.\\\\\Email

Branko Marcetic

Branko Marcetic is a staff writer at Jacobin magazine and a 2019-2020 Leonard C. Goodman Institute for Investigative Reporting fellow. He is the author of Yesterday’s Man: The Case Against Joe Biden.