A striking number of House Democrats — 103 — voted Wednesday to cut off military aid to Israel for the next fiscal year, in a sign of the growing disconnect between the Democratic leadership’s long-standing support for the Jewish state and the party’s left wing.
The vote was on a largely symbolic amendment introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R., Ky.) to an appropriations package for the State Department and other national security agencies.
Despite the considerable Democratic support, the amendment failed in the House. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) voted against it. Massie was the only Republican to vote for the amendment. Ten Democrats voted present.
Still, the large support for the amendment comes amid a sharp shift among Democratic voters on Israel. A number of Democrats who have voiced support for Israel voted for the amendment, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and Katherine Clark (D., Mass.), the minority whip.
In a statement, Clark — the No. 2 House Democrat — said, “the status quo is not tenable.”
She added: “We should not provide a blank check for military aid to any country that does not comply with U.S. law, interests, and values. The Netanyahu government has failed to meet that standard.”
Public support for Israel has plummeted over the country’s military campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon, particularly among Democrats. Nearly three-quarters of Democrats want to reduce or end military support for Israel, according to a Washington Post-Ipsos poll conducted July 8-13. Forty percent of Democrats want to eliminate military support to Israel entirely, including 58% of “very liberal” Democrats.
Views have shifted dramatically in recent years. Shortly after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel, 28% of Democratic registered voters felt the U.S. was too supportive of Israel, according to polling by Quinnipiac University. That rose to 41% by early 2024 and to 66% last month, including clear majorities of older and younger Democrats.
Rahm Emanuel, a potential Democratic presidential candidate and former top adviser to Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, recently traveled to Tel Aviv to warn Israelis that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had led the country toward dangerous diplomatic isolation.
Emanuel said U.S. support for Israel was “plummeting around the world” and argued that the United States should end “the American taxpayer’s subsidy of Israel’s defense budget.”
Jeffries has resisted calls from the base to end all aid to Israel’s government, balancing the priorities of his Democratic members who have stood by the U.S.-Israel relationship. He wrote in a Monday letter to his fellow Democrats that he would be voting against the measure, saying it is too broad.
But Jeffries said “given the strongly held views throughout the Caucus,” he would let members vote their conscience on the measure.
A progressive campaign push
Progressive candidates have cast the divide as evidence that the Democratic establishment is misaligned with its own voters — not only on the war in Gaza, but also on money in politics and the use of U.S. tax dollars abroad.
“The Democratic Party has been out of step with its own base on Gaza and Palestinian human rights for years. People in this country can’t afford rent, groceries, or a doctor’s visit — and instead of fighting for them, our politicians are sending billions to fund a genocide,” said Darializa Avila Chevalier, a democratic socialist candidate who won a competitive New York primary last month.
The strategy has had several notable successes.
In New York, three vocal leftist critics of Israel including Avila Chevalier handily won their primaries, including one in which support for Israel became a central distinction with the moderate incumbent. Candidates making similar arguments also won primaries in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Colorado.
The trend continues in competitive primary races this summer, including in Michigan’s highly watched Senate race where criticism of Israel forms a pillar to progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed’s message.
In a statement for this story, Jeffries said the party “must recommit to a two-state solution that prioritizes a safe and secure Israel as a Jewish and Democratic state living side by side in peace and prosperity with a Palestinian state that provides dignity, respect, and self-determination for the Palestinian people.”
He continued, “It is also imperative that we support the complete reconstruction of Gaza, aggressively surge humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians and strongly oppose the reprehensible conduct of the far-right Netanyahu government in the West Bank.”
He added in his letter to fellow Democrats that Israel has reached a point where it should be able to pay for its own defense and that the U.S. should reassess future aid agreements with the country.
The call for a reset was a significant move for the leader given his past firm support for the U.S.-Israel alliance, said Jeremy Ben-Ami, president and CEO of the liberal pro-Israel group J Street.
But several progressives have still demanded a stronger stance on the issue than Jeffries’s attempts to balance the positions of the caucus.
“The Democratic voting base and the American voting base have shifted here,” said Brad Lander, who won a competitive New York primary against Rep. Dan Goldman, a longtime supporter of Israel. “I do believe that the Democratic Party leadership is going to have to catch up.” Lander, like Goldman, is Jewish and supports a two-state solution but differed from Goldman in labeling Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the preeminent pro-Israel lobbying group, has become a particular target on the left, held up as an example of what progressives call the corrupting influence of money in politics. Progressive candidates regularly criticize moderate candidates who benefit from spending by AIPAC-affiliated groups, asserting the group’s campaign funding pushes candidates away from the party base’s stance on Israel. AIPAC’s political network supports pro-Israel Democrats and Republicans, including all of the top members of House Democratic leadership.
El-Sayed has accused his opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, of failing to adequately condemn the actions of the Israeli government because of what he says is the influence of the pro-Israel lobby. A super PAC affiliated with AIPAC has poured more than $20 million into boosting Stevens.
“Her entire campaign is bankrolled by outside organizations who know that they’re going to buy a reliable vote to send our tax dollars elsewhere instead of solving actual problems here in Michigan,” El-Sayed said.
On Wednesday, Stevens voted against the House amendment.
Stevens is a longtime supporter of Israel, though she has also criticized the government’s handling of the war in Gaza and said Israel’s actions have made Jews around the world less safe. During a debate this month, she said she was the only candidate who truly advocated for the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Stevens’ campaign responded that El-Sayed was “peddling in conspiracy theories” by asserting she was working at the behest of AIPAC.
“Haley has always believed this race is about the future of Michigan, and that’s why her focus is and has been on promoting policies that will reduce costs, grow the economy and create a strong 21st century manufacturing industry that will carry Michigan forward,” her campaign said in a statement.
Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for AIPAC’s super PAC, said the group has the right to partake in the primary process like any other interest group and noted that super PACs have also been spending heavily to back candidates opposed to the U.S.-Israel relationship.
“The anti-Israel fringe left uses the dark money argument when it suits them and funds super PACs when it’s to their advantage,” Dorton said. “These are red herring arguments to drive pro-Israel Democrats out of the party and out of the primary process.”
Deryn Sousa, a spokesperson for AIPAC, said that the organization’s membership crosses party lines and the group supports candidates based on their alignment with its support for the U.S.-Israel relationship. Hundreds of AIPAC-backed candidates have won their primaries this year, Sousa noted.
Democrats for Israel
Israel still has its ardent defenders among congressional Democrats, several of whom argue that the growing number of vocal Israel critics fails to grasp the reality on the ground.
“War is terrible, and it’s very hard to be successful in an urban war and successful in the public relations war,” said Rep. Brad Sherman (D., Calif.), a longtime supporter of Israel and co-chair of the Israel Allies Caucus.
Sherman said he and most other Democrats have been able to criticize the government of Israel without going after the U.S.-Israel relationship, one of the strongest partnerships in the Middle East. He warned that some of the criticism has amounted to demonization and antisemitism.
And even among the progressive candidates criticizing the party’s stance toward Israel, there is disagreement on the future of the relationship with Jerusalem. While Lander identifies himself as a Zionist, El-Sayed said liberal democracy was incompatible with the idea of a Jewish state.
The next House Democratic Caucus is likely to include an unusually large number of members openly critical of Israel. Still, foundational disagreements over Israel are nothing new to the caucus.
Sherman recalled a pushback on similar criticisms against Israel in the 1980s, when the country invaded Lebanon, though he noted the resistance to Israel is greater now among Democrats than then. He was a founding leader at the time of Democrats for Israel, a grassroots group dedicated to rooting out anti-Israel sentiment in the party.
Avila Chevalier said she would work with anyone “serious about lowering the cost of living working-class people” regardless of their stances on Israel.
Rep. Bradley Schneider (D., Ill.), a moderate who is largely supportive of the U.S.-Israel relationship, noted Israel critics already serve in the Democratic Caucus and that he is still able to work with them on other issues, including healthcare, housing and education.
“Democrats are a big tent,” Schneider said. “We welcome diverse opinions.”
