Palestinian journalist and professor Rula Jebreal is facing fierce backlash after referring to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., as an “AIPAC monkey” during a podcast discussion about Israel and Democratic politics.
Jebreal made the remarks while appearing on progressive podcaster Wajahat Ali’s “The Left Hook,” where she attacked Jeffries over his support for Israel and his relationship with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC.
“By the way, his name is Hakeem. Hakeem is an Arabic name which means healer. “He’s not a healer, he’s a divider,” Jebreal told Ali.
“He is a bought and paid by AIPAC monkey,” she continued. “With all due respect and I don’t mean it in a racist way.”
Jebreal then added, “He is just basically an errand boy, and we’re done and tired.”
When people show you who they are, believe them the first time. pic.twitter.com/HpigAsiO1m
— greg (@mistergeezy) September 4, 2026
The comments immediately ignited controversy because Jeffries is Black and because the terms “monkey” and “errand boy” have a long history of being used as racial insults against Black Americans.
The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) rejected Jebreal’s explanation that she did not intend the remark to be racist.
“To be clear, there isn’t a non-racist way to call Leader Jeffries a Black man a “monkey” or “errand boy,” the caucus said.
The CBC also criticized Ali for providing a platform for the remarks, saying political disagreements should not become an excuse for anti-Black rhetoric.
The controversy also drew condemnation from other Democratic lawmakers. Rep. Ayanna Pressley said calling Jeffries or any Black man a “monkey” or “errand boy” was “absolutely disgusting and unacceptable under any circumstances.”
Jebreal eventually apologized on social media, although she continued to attack Jeffries over his relationship with AIPAC.
“I am disgusted and horrified that Hakeem Jeffries is taking money from AIPAC amidst Israel’s genocide in Palestine. That said, a term that I used to describe him was inappropriate and offensive and should never have been used. I apologize unconditionally.”
Her apology came after the Congressional Black Caucus and other Democratic figures publicly condemned the language. Jeffries himself has not publicly responded to the controversy, according to reports.
The episode exposes a growing contradiction in political discourse. Accusations of racism and bigotry are frequently used against political opponents, yet some of the same standards appear to become less clear when the target belongs to an opposing faction.
Jebreal’s criticism of Jeffries and AIPAC is a political argument that can be debated. But attacking a Black elected official with language carrying an unmistakable racial history crosses a separate line.
Political disagreement does not require personal degradation. And an apology does not erase the words that prompted the controversy.
As the Democratic Party continues to wrestle with deep divisions over Israel, AIPAC and the war in Gaza, the incident involving Jebreal and Jeffries adds another layer to an already bitter political debate.
Opinion: When Political Anger Crosses the Line
There is nothing wrong with criticizing Hakeem Jeffries. There is nothing wrong with criticizing AIPAC.
There is nothing wrong with arguing that Democratic lawmakers should reconsider their relationships with pro-Israel organizations or questioning their positions on Israel and Gaza.
That is called political debate.
But political debate becomes something very different when criticism turns into racialized personal insults.
