Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How have progressive Democrats and groups like the Squad criticized or aligned with Newsom's Israel-Palestine remarks?
Executive summary
Progressive Democrats and pro-Palestine groups have both criticized and at times welcomed parts of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s statements on Israel and Gaza: critics say his actions—visits to Israel, support for anti-antisemitism bills, and initial pro-Israel rhetoric—left Arab, Muslim and pro‑Palestine Californians feeling unheard and accuse him of chilling pro‑Palestine speech [1] [2]. Newsom has also called for a Gaza ceasefire and pledged humanitarian aid, positions that some organizations and Democratic allies praised as important but insufficient to many grassroots advocates [3] [4].
1. “Caught Between Communities”: Why progressives say Newsom misread the moment
Progressive activists and some Democratic officials say Newsom’s early responses—his trip to Israel after the Oct. 7 attacks and forceful denunciations of Hamas—created the impression he prioritized Israeli suffering and security before addressing Palestinian civilian harm and Islamophobia, leaving California’s Arab and Muslim communities feeling unheard [1]. CalMatters reported that those communities visibly called him out at the state Democratic convention and requested immediate ceasefire calls and greater humanitarian focus in meetings with his office [1].
2. Praise for ceasefire language, but not enough for many on the left
Newsom’s public call for a Gaza ceasefire and his later open letter to Muslim, Palestinian American and Arab American communities were noted as steps toward addressing Palestinian suffering and Islamophobia; advocacy groups like JPAC framed his denunciation of Islamophobia and his alignment with a humanitarian pause as meaningful [4] [3]. But progressive organizers and some pro‑Palestine groups also say those gestures were late, uneven, or overshadowed by other actions—leaving their support conditional rather than wholehearted [1].
3. Legislative moves that widened the rift
Newsom’s signing of bills billed as combating antisemitism and addressing bias in schools has been sharply criticized by pro‑Palestine and civil‑rights groups, who argue the laws (SB 1287, SB 1277, AB 2925 and later related measures) will chill speech supporting Palestine, conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and fail to curb rising Islamophobia, per CAIR‑CA, Jewish Voice for Peace California, and the California Palestine Solidarity Coalition [2]. These groups publicly called his actions a betrayal of earlier commitments to protect Muslim, Arab and Palestinian Californians [2].
4. A split within the Democratic coalition — elected progressives vs. grassroots activists
Coverage shows a realignment: institutional Democratic actors and Jewish advocacy groups (and some centrist Democrats) praised Newsom’s emphasis on combating antisemitism and his relationships with Jewish communities, while grassroots progressive organizations and Arab/Muslim groups focused on his perceived failure to center Palestinian civilian suffering and free expression on campuses [4] [2]. CalMatters noted how those tensions reflect broader shifts in public opinion toward a ceasefire and disagreements over policy levers such as military and humanitarian aid [1].
5. Accusations of speech suppression and the civil‑society backlash
Advocacy groups argued Newsom’s legislative choices would “chill” pro‑Palestine speech and normalize a narrative equating anti‑Zionism with antisemitism; AROC’s executive director said signing the bills amounted to stifling criticism of Israel amid urgent calls for peace and justice [2]. Multiple civil‑society actors framed these moves as aligned with special interests within the state legislature rather than with the demands of impacted communities [2].
6. Newsom’s framing and political calculus: humanitarianism plus security
Newsom’s public statements repeatedly combined calls for humanitarian relief, denouncements of Hamas, and commitments to fight antisemitism and Islamophobia; his office emphasized engagement with both Jewish and Muslim leaders and humanitarian aid efforts to Israel and Gaza [4] [5]. Journalistic reporting situates these choices as political calculations meant to hold a governing coalition together while navigating an electorate whose views shifted toward higher support for a ceasefire [1].
7. What reporting does not settle — and why it matters
Available sources do not mention detailed private conversations between Newsom and the “Squad” members of Congress or a uniform, single “progressive Democratic” stance; reporting instead documents fractures within California’s Democratic base and among statewide advocacy groups [1] [2]. That gap matters because public messaging can differ from private diplomacy, and the balance between punitive vs. protective policies (speech restrictions versus anti‑hate enforcement) remains contested in future policymaking [2] [4].
Bottom line: Newsom’s mix of ceasefire language, humanitarian pledges and support for anti‑hate legislation earned cautious praise from institutional allies but sharp criticism from progressive and pro‑Palestine organizations that view his record as insufficient or even suppressive of pro‑Palestine speech—a split reflecting deeper tensions in the Democratic coalition over how to respond to the Israel‑Gaza war [1] [2] [3] [4].