Congress Votes Force Democrats to Make a Stand on the Future of U.S.-Israel Relations - U.S. News
For the second week running, Democrats are taking steps that could fundamentally alter their party's stance on the U.S.-Israel relationship. Rather than unfolding in Israel and the West Bank, this week's battles are occurring on Capitol Hill and concern two pieces of appropriations legislation that have been mired in controversy over language regarding U.S. assistance to Israel.
While not as eye-popping as presidential hopefuls finding themselves detained by extremist Israeli settlers or delivering landmark addresses on Israel's diplomatic dead-ends, the votes could be the death knell for unconditional U.S. support for Israel.
It is the first major opportunity for Democrats to formally voice their discontent with the Israeli government. While largely symbolic, it will mark a line in the sand for the party's future approach to opposing offensive weapons sales to Israel. It will also create the scaffolding for the Democratic Party's position on Israel moving forward – particularly regarding West Bank settlements and Israel's role in destabilizing the Middle East.
Rep. Ro Khanna to Haaretz: ‘I’m more disturbed by Israel’s lies’ than being detained in West Bank
Senate Democrats on Tuesday took rare unified action to block the upcoming fiscal year's National Defense Authorization Act (commonly referred to as the NDAA). Most Democratic senators have cited the Iran war and concerns about the financial terms of the proposed budget as their reason for opposition. However, several Senate Democrats including Sens. Bernie Sanders, Chris Van Hollen and Peter Welch have said the proposed plan would remove congressional oversight on military assistance, by shifting to a less transparent model where the Pentagon manages thousands of separate private agreements between the U.S. military and Israeli weapons manufacturers.
- Record number of Democratic Senators vote to block Israel arms sales Etan Nechin
- Opposing weapons sales to Israel is the new Democratic norm Joshua Leifer
- Rahm Emanuel's surprising remarks on Israel: What he left unsaid is just as big Joshua Leifer
- The week the Democrats defined the Israel-Palestine debate for 2028 Ben Samuels
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has attempted to frame the NDAA as Israel weaning itself off of U.S. military assistance, but in reality the new model of aid would further entrench cooperation between the two counties while decreasing transparency and limiting U.S. ability to to use military assistance to pressure Israeli policy.
Even if one assumes that the unanimous stance against the NDAA by Senate Democrats was primarily informed by opposition to the Iran war, it also goes to show that Democratic senators are united in opposition to U.S. policy as the Israeli government hopes to see it.
Up until the Senate Democrats' move on Tuesday, the debate on the NDAA was largely steered by the House – particularly by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), recently detained by Israeli settlers and soldiers while in the West Bank. The two co-sponsored an effort to strip the bill of Section 219 (formerly Section 224) that would have more deeply integrated U.S.-Israeli military and intelligence cooperation.
Meanwhile, the House on Wednesday will take a hotly anticipated floor vote on this year's National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs (or the NSRP) appropriations bill. This year's bill contains an amendment, drafted by Rep. Massie, that would halt all U.S. assistance to Israel, notably including non-military assistance.
Behind the scenes, Democrats have been engaging in an increasingly contentious debate about the NSRP, which has reached near fever-pitch over the past 48 hours. Talk among Capitol Hill staffers and experts in pro-Israel organizations across the political spectrum is that anywhere between 80 and 150 Democrats – 70 percent of the House Democratic caucus – could vote in favor of the amendment.
Given the mostly unified pro-Israel Republican voting bloc, the House vote is largely symbolic. But some Democrats believe Republicans allowed the amendment to advance to a floor vote as a trap for Democrats. By forcing a vote on the matter, Republicans would be provided with a political cudgel to attack Democrats as being insufficiently pro-Israel and even accuse them of which they would then turn as a tool to accuse Democrats of antisemitism.
Still, many House Democrats feel compelled to support it, in order to signal that the status quo of unconditional military assistance to Israel, which uses U.S. taxpayer funds to advance policies they see as antithetical to desired U.S. policy outcomes, is no longer acceptable.
The House vote comes as Democrat lawmakers are growing more mindful of the larger role U.S.-Israel relations have been playing in primary races across the country, including in several upsets by progressive candidates, prompting them to take a stance against Israel on actions they deem unacceptable.
Some Jewish House Democrats in particular have found themselves between a rock and a hard place – wanting to make their opposition to Netanyahu and his far-right government clear and on-record but wary that voting to halt U.S. assistance to Israel could be perceived as a symbolic vote against the U.S.-Israel relationship itself.
After weeks of hearing out members of his caucus, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told fellow Democrats on Tuesday that party leadership is opposed to the bill. Jeffries told lawmakers that "there are more decisive ways to achieve the urgent change necessary when it comes to the far-right Netanyahu government."
However, Jeffries also noted that "a meaningful change in direction is needed" concerning any future U.S.-Israel agreements on military assistance after the current 10-year memorandum expires next year.
"Israel has an advanced economy and is capable of paying for its own sophisticated weapons, as the prime minister acknowledged," he said, adding that any deal should guarantee Israel's qualitative military edge against Iran and other malign actors in the region.
Despite Jeffries' statement, dozens of Democrats are considering voting in favor of Massie's amendment.
Jeffries' statement explicitly cited the pro-Israel left-wing lobby J Street as an authoritative voice on the matter, underscoring how far the Democratic Party's center has shifted toward the left in recent years.
J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami noted that his organization opposed the amendment, calling it "poorly drafted, overly broad and being used by Republican leadership to divide Democrats rather than advance a serious debate about U.S. policy." But he also said that his organization would support Democrats who vote yes to "signal their opposition to unconditional [foreign military financing] and support for stronger oversight of how U.S. security assistance is used."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Tex.), the Congressional Progressive Caucus chair, said he would vote in favor of the amendment despite leadership opposition. "The American people are crying out for an end to U.S. tax dollars subsidizing Israel's military," Casar said. "We cannot continue to subsidize this."
Both pieces of legislation – and the heated debate about them in the Democratic Party – are parting shots from Rep. Massie. After losing his primary following record outside spending by pro-Israel PACs, the Kentucky Republican has used his remaining months in office to challenge the pro-Israel organizations that strenuously lobby to maintain the status quo in Congress. Most importantly, the votes may effectively mark the end of the Democratic Party's unconditional support for Israel, which would have been unimaginable just a few years ago.