The pro-Israel advocacy group now allows its supporters to donate to 178 Republicans and 72 Democrats running for Congress
Alex Wong/Getty Images
A visitor holds an AIPAC folder in an elevator in Rayburn House Office Building on March 12, 2024 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.
Days after 104 members of Congress voted in favor of a measure that sought to end U.S. aid to Israel, AIPAC will no longer allow donations through its political action committee to 18 lawmakers it endorsed who voted in favor of the legislation.
The group did not announce the change. But the endorsement page on AIPAC’s political giving portal — where supporters can donate to candidates who have been endorsed by AIPAC — removed the option for individuals to route money to those lawmakers.
AIPAC now allows its supporters to donate to 72 Democratic candidates in the House and Senate, compared to 178 Republican candidates — meaning 71% of the candidates the group is now actively supporting are Republicans, and just 29% are Democrats.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), an anti-Israel Republican who was defeated this year in a GOP primary, introduced the amendment to a State Department funding bill knowing it would fail, which it did: 314 members voted against it.
He was the only Republican to support it, along with 103 Democrats. Ten Democrats voted present on the amendment, which would have eliminated the $3.3 billion in annual foreign military financing provided by the U.S. to Israel, according to the terms of the 2016 memorandum of understanding between the two countries.
The 18 AIPAC endorsees who voted in favor of the measure were Reps. Gabe Amo (D-RI), Jake Auchincloss (D-MA), Julia Brownley (D-CA), Katherine Clark (D-MA), Laura Friedman (D-CA), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Josh Harder (D-CA), Steven Horsford (D-NV), Glenn Ivey (D-MD), Julie Johnson (D-TX), Bill Keating (D-MA), Seth Magaziner (D-RI), Richard Neal (D-MA), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Brittany Pettersen (D-CO), Pat Ryan (D-NY) and Adam Smith (D-WA).
On its website, AIPAC delineates retiring lawmakers, who are no longer raising money, with a brief explanation thanking them for their “ongoing support for the U.S.-Israel relationship.” On the profiles of retiring Reps. Brownley, Pelosi and Johnson, AIPAC removed the line expressing thanks.
Three AIPAC-endorsed lawmakers — Reps. Shontel Brown (D-OH), Sarah Elfreth (D-MD) and Chris Pappas (D-NH) — voted “present” on the measure. AIPAC is still supporting them.
The group did not formally rescind its endorsement of any lawmakers after the vote, according to an AIPAC source, even though they are no longer going to receive financial support from the organization.
An AIPAC spokesperson declined to comment.
Even as the amendment was overwhelmingly rejected, the vote underscores the anti-Israel mood within the Democratic Party is growing
Kevin Carter/Getty Images
U.S. Capitol building on July 12, 2026 in Washington, DC.
The House voted 314-104 on Wednesday to reject an amendment to the 2027 State Department appropriations bill that would have cut all $3.3 billion in annual U.S. aid to Israel. However, 103 Democrats, a near-majority of the caucus, voted in favor of the measure, with 98 others voting no and 10 voting present.
The record number of Democrats voting in favor of cutting off U.S. aid to Israel highlights the extent to which Democratic support for the Jewish state has eroded, and comes months after a vote in which 40 Senate Democrats backed blocking some weapons sales to Israel.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced the amendment last month to eliminate the $3.3 billion in annual foreign military financing provided by the U.S. to Israel as laid out in the 2016 memorandum of understanding between the two countries. The Kentucky lawmaker, who was defeated in his GOP primary this year, was the only Republican member to support the amendment.
Some Democratic officials — on both sides of the issue — described Massie’s amendment as poorly drafted and overly broad, warning that it would also impact non-military aid as well as U.S. Embassy operations in Israel. Democratic leadership ultimately did not whip members for or against the vote.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said in a letter on Tuesday that he planned to oppose the amendment and efforts to strip all U.S. aid to Israel, despite also noting that the relationship between the two countries requires “urgent change.”
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA) also voted no on the amendment. Aguilar told Jewish Insider last month that support for Israel’s right to exist in safety and security should continue to be a policy position of the Democratic Party, but cautioned that support for Israeli government policies would not be unconditional.
Meanwhile, House Minority Whip Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA), in announcing she would vote yes, noted that the measure was “overly broad” and “not an attempt to have a serious and necessary debate about offensive military aid to Israel.” Despite her criticisms, she said her vote was a signal that the relationship needs to change.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), once a reliable supporter of Israel, supported the Massie amendment, but called it an “unfortunate choice.”
“The United States must be a force for security and stability. The American people are rightly demanding an end to a perpetual cycle of war, and the Netanyahu government cannot maintain its current course,” Pelosi said. “Therefore, while this amendment is ill-conceived, I vote yes for the message that it sends.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), a critic of Israel who is a potential Democratic candidate for president in 2028, called the vote a “very important moment.”
“A majority of Democrats voted in favor of this Massie amendment. To me what this says is that the majority of the Democratic party is most in touch with the American electorate writ large … and the Republicans are not,” Cortez said. “This has been an issue where both parties have been resistant to change.”
Ocasio-Cortez said lawmakers who voted against the amendment are “stuck in the past.”
Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX), who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in a statement on Tuesday that he would support the amendment because the “American people are crying out for an end to U.S. tax dollars subsidizing Israel’s military.” Casar and the CPC whipped Democrats to support the amendment.
“At a time when millions are struggling to make ends meet, we are sending billions of dollars to a military that has killed tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon,” Casar wrote. “I am aware House Democratic leadership has a different position on this amendment … I respect their leadership.”
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the former No. 2 House Democrat and a staunch supporter of Israel, opposed the amendment and argued it would “dangerously undermine America’s national security,” limit the U.S.’ ability to counter terrorist organizations and make it harder to leverage the U.S. relationship with Israel toward peace.
“I understand the frustration many members feel with some of the policies and actions of the current Israeli government — as well as their concerns about its commitment to the peace process and a two-state solution,” Hoyer said. “However, this amendment would embolden the enemies of peace, those who seek the complete elimination of Israel, and those looking for an excuse to murder Jews. It is a vote to weaken our ability to engage in the region, and it is a vote against American security, against American interests, and against Americans’ safety.”
Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), who voted no, lambasted the amendment as having no legislative impact or role in helping the prospects for Middle East peace.
“This cynical Republican amendment was put forward to stoke division and divide people here in the United States, not end the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians or provide a path forward,” Schneider said. “I will seek to understand how such a flawed legislative proposal — one that would hurt Israelis and Palestinians, as well as America’s standing in the world — generated support.”
He said that supporters of Israel must work to “rebuild a bipartisan consensus” in support of Israel as well as Palestinian self-determination.
Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA), who ultimately voted against the amendment, said that under Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “Israel has lost its way,” suggesting that Netanyahu had undermined Israeli security and damaged the U.S.-Israel alliance.
“Yet, as a Jewish refugee who fled oppression in the Soviet Union, I have long believed that Israel is a refuge for many families like mine,” Vindman said. “These convictions made this one of the most difficult votes I’ve cast because Israel needs to change course. However, I could not support an amendment as poorly written as this one that would eliminate key funding provisions that support Palestinian security forces, humanitarian aid, and defensive systems to protect innocent civilians.”
Key Democratic committee leaders, including the ranking members of the Appropriations, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees, all voted against the amendment, while Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, voted in favor.
Several pro-Israel House Democrats who are facing contentious primary challenges in which Israel has become a key issue — including Reps. Wesley Bell (D-MO), Shri Thanedar (D-MI) and Ed Case (D-HI) — voted against the amendment.
Reps. Haley Stevens (D-MI) and Angie Craig (D-MN) also voted against the amendment, while Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH) voted present. All three are running for the Senate.
But Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA), who is running against Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) in Massachusetts and has tried to tack to the progressive Markey’s left, said in a statement released prior to the vote that he would support the amendment, writing, “We simply cannot continue to condone Netanyahu’s actions that are against our moral conscience and our own national security interests by perpetuating the status quo.”
Other lawmakers who have generally been reliable supporters of Israel — including Reps. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA), Glenn Ivey (D-MD), Pat Ryan (D-NY), Laura Friedman (D-CA) and Brittany Pettersen (D-CO) — voted for the amendment.
“I just voted to block sending $3.3 billion of our taxpayer dollars to Netanyahu’s government. It’s wrong on every level,” Ryan said. “I expect groups like AIPAC will not support me in my future elections and frankly, I don’t want their support. Hardline stances that refuse to stand up to a corrupt and increasingly dangerous Netanyahu regime have no place in our politics.”
Auchincloss said that his vote to cut funding to Israel was designed to send a message to both President Donald Trump and Netanyahu.
“With their disastrous war against Iran, their empowerment of settler violence in the West Bank, and their strategic incoherence against Islamist terrorism, both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu have sacrificed [Congress’] trust,” Auchincloss said.
He said that the amendment is “not the ideal mechanism of action,” and raised concerns about Massie’s use of antisemitic tropes in his reelection campaign.
“I have weighed these problems against the central thrust of the amendment: there must be consequences for Trump and Netanyahu,” Auchincloss continued. “Those consequences should not impair the State of Israel’s right to defend itself against the atrocities of the terrorist regimes that threaten it. Israel and the United States have common interests, shared values, and a long history. Israel and the United States are allies.”
He also said that upcoming Israeli elections, the next memorandum of understanding with Israel and the long-term impacts of the Iran war offer “an opportunity to renew the U.S.-Israel alliance on shared principles and a bipartisan basis going into the 2027 appropriations process.”
Groups including AIPAC, J Street, the Jewish Democratic Council of America, Democratic Majority for Israel and the American Jewish Committee all opposed the amendment, though J Street said the result sent a “strong message” that Democrats agree that the party should pursue a “fundamentally different American approach to the U.S.-Israel relationship and the region.”
Over a dozen Democrats previously endorsed by AIPAC, including Auchincloss, Clark, Friedman, Pelosi, Pettersen, Ryan, Smith and Reps. Gabe Amo (D-RI), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Julia Brownley (D-CA), Josh Harder (D-CA), Steven Horsford (D-NV), Julie Johnson (D-TX), Bill Keating (D-MA), Seth Magaziner (D-RI), Richard Neal (D-MA) and Joe Neguse (D-CO), voted for the amendment.
In an interview on CNBC, the Israeli premier said ending U.S. aid to Israel will ‘take away the myth that Israel is depleting America's coffers’
Ilia YEFIMOVICH / POOL / AFP via Getty Images
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a ceremony commemorating Israel's Remembrance Day on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem on April 21, 2026.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday that he wants to start the process of winding down U.S. aid to Israel in the final two years of the Trump administration, as both countries work on a new memorandum of understanding.
Netanyahu made the comments in an interview with CNBC’s Sara Eisen after being asked about his political future and when Israel would be ready for new leadership. The prime minister responded by noting that while the Israeli people could decide at “any time” to remove him from power, he is currently focused on achieving four objectives: “finish[ing] the security envelope that we have to make vis-à-vis Iran and its proxies”; securing more investments globally to expand Israel’s AI and tech sectors; normalizing relations with several countries in the Middle East; and ending Israel’s reliance on U.S. aid.
“The other thing I want to do is move away, in America, from aid to partnership. We’re now working on a memorandum of understanding, which will bring down the aid,” Netanyahu said. “I want it to start now, I want it to start in the last two years of the Trump administration and I want it to keep going down, coming to zero, because I think we’ve come of age.”
The current MOU, which provides Israel with $3.8 billion in U.S. military aid annually, runs through FY 2028. Netanyahu did not clarify whether he would like to see aid begin to wind down through changes to the current agreement, or whether he is focused on ongoing negotiations for the next one.
“Israel has a robust economy, and I want us to go from aid to a partnership where we both invest equal amounts and both share equally in the fruits of our innovators and technologies,” he continued. “I think that’s very, very important. It will also take away the myth that Israel is depleting America’s coffers.”
Netanyahu has said on multiple occasions since January that he hopes to wean Israel off of U.S. aid, initially suggesting in January that Israel would work to end U.S. aid within the next ten years. He pitched the aid drawdown to President Donald Trump in late December, an idea the president was initially bewildered by and not supportive of.
Netanyahu also downplayed reports that Trump told him he is “f***ing crazy” in a phone call on Monday about Israel’s military escalation in Lebanon and rejected the notion that his relationship with the president had shifted, noting that the two speak as frequently as “every two days.”
Still, he did not deny that the conversation occurred as reported.
“Sometimes we have, as in the best of families, you have these tactical disagreements. We always find a way to work them out and we do so as great friends,” Netanyahu said. “We can disagree in the morning, and by the afternoon we have common action.”
Leiter: ‘The tent, as we call it, should be wide and as inclusive as possible, but it cannot be inclusive to those who are contributing to the efforts of those seeking to collapse the tent’
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter
A week after describing J Street as “a cancer within the Jewish community” for calling for the United States to restrict aid to Israel, Yechiel Leiter, Israel’s envoy to Washington, doubled down on his critique of the organization, stating that the liberal advocacy group’s recent actions are “decidedly not pro-Israel.”
The remarks came during Leiter’s broader address on Thursday at the Re-Charging Reform Judaism conference on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, during which he argued to the audience of over 300 Reform rabbis, lay leaders and teachers that American Jews need to respond to rising anti-Zionism and post-Oct. 7 hostility toward Israel with a stronger, more unapologetic form of Zionism and Jewish solidarity.
“J Street does incalculable amount of damage to the interests of Israel,” Israeli Amb. Yechiel Leiter said at the Re-Charging Reform Judaism conference, expanding on his previous critique of the liberal advocacy group.”
— Jewish Insider (@jewishinsider) May 27, 2026
Watch more of what he said below or read our full story: https://ji.news/55×33
While Leiter expanded on his critique of J Street, receiving applause and a standing ovation at the end of his speech, his remarks were more measured than in previous appearances, focusing on what he described as the group’s role in supporting arms embargoes and amplifying accusations against Israel, rather than attacking the organization wholesale. His past comments — including describing J Street as “duplicitous” and “two-faced” — drew ire from many progressive Jews.
“I believe the tent, as we call it, should be wide and as inclusive as possible, but it cannot be inclusive to those who are contributing to the efforts of those seeking to collapse the tent. J Street does incalculable amount of damage to the interests of Israel,” he said.
He continued, arguing that support for arms embargoes against Israel “endanger Israel” and that “supporting such embargoes is not pro-Israel,” He also denounced the organization’s call for Leiter to investigate the allegations of sexual abuse of Palestinians outlined in a controversial opinion piece by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof earlier this month.
“It is certainly not pro-Israel to push the canards peddled by Nick Kristof in The New York Times. Jewish dogs don’t commit rape. That was the last straw for me….It’s perfectly fine to have a different vision than the majority of Israelis as to what that peace should look like… but it’s unethical to undermine Israel’s democratically elected government. Friends, please understand, I did not call out J Street because I disagree with their vision of Israel. I call them out because their actions are endangering Israel,” he said.
Leiter also said that senators he meets with on Capitol Hill have accused Israel of “genocide and starvation” and said lawmakers cite J Street as a source for those claims.
“Ask anyone in the know in Washington who is lobbying alongside [Sen.] Bernie Sanders [I-VT], who is responsible for 40 of 47 Democratic senators voting in favor of the arms embargo in Israel,” Leiter said. “They will tell you J Street.”
Blake, challenging Rep. Ritchie Torres in the Democratic primary, had said just months ago that he would support Iron Dome funding
AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
Michael Blake speaks at a "Souls to the Polls" drive-in rally at Sharon Baptist Church, Sunday, Nov. 1, 2020 in Philadelphia.
Michael Blake, a far-left challenger to Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), said at a debate on Tuesday hosted by One NYC Action that he would oppose missile defense aid for the Jewish state — the latest flip-flop on Israel policy issues by a candidate who has reversed numerous of his past stances on the subject over the course of his campaign.
Blake was once a close ally of AIPAC and a champion of the U.S.-Israel relationship, but has repositioned himself as a harsh critic of the Jewish state — and has continued to move left during the course of his campaign.
Blake said this week that he would oppose all aid, including defensive aid, to Israel.
“We need a permanent ceasefire, full stop. We need to absolutely stop the aid that is happening. We need to stop sending money,” Blake said.
Blake expressed the opposite view just months ago in a January event with the Ben Franklin Club, saying that he viewed protecting and supporting Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system as a separate issue than blocking other military aid, and indicated that he would continue to support Iron Dome.
In that same event, Blake asserted his continued support for anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions legislation he helped pass in the state assembly — before going on to reverse that stance in late March.
Blake reiterated his new opposition to the anti-BDS legislation in the debate this week, saying he lacked the proper information about the bill at the time of his previous support.
On Thursday, Blake picked up an endorsement from TrackAIPAC, the virulently anti-Israel group that has attracted accusations of antisemitism from other Democrats, and which requires endorsees to adopt a host of anti-Israel stances, including a full arms embargo on Israel.
He also argued that the war in Iran, and efforts to stop Trump from launching an all-out assault on the country, were proof of why Torres needed to be defeated, without fully explaining that argument. Torres has also opposed the war, condemned Trump’s comments threatening the destruction of Iranian civilization and said the president needs to be removed from office.
“It was reported today that Trump went into [the war] because Netanyahu and the Israeli government lied to him consistently in a February meeting and prior to that,” Blake continued, again asserting that as an “indication on why Ritchie Torres has to go,” without explaining further.
The Oregon lawmaker said the U.S. ‘must send a clear message to Benjamin Netanyahu’ and that his actions ‘have made Jews less safe’
Heather Diehl/Getty Images
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) speaks to reporters following a Senate Democratic policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on December 09, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced legislation on Wednesday to condemn the Israeli government for allegedly withholding aid in Gaza and to potentially impose sanctions on Israeli government officials.
Under the Accountability for Withholding Aid and Relief Essentials (AWARE) Act, any foreign government officials or those acting on their behalf “found to be restricting, diminishing, undermining, or preventing the delivery and distribution of sufficient humanitarian assistance” would be subject to U.S. financial and visa-blocking sanctions.
The legislation includes a presidential waiver, though that, or the removal of sanctions, can be overridden by a joint resolution of disapproval by Congress. Senior lawmakers would also be allowed to request an assessment of whether a foreign official meets the criteria for sanctions.
The policy would apply globally, but is formulated around the situation in Gaza.
The legislation states that the entire population of Gaza is “facing acute levels of hunger” and that “actual levels of humanitarian assistance remain well below what is needed,” though a U.N. report last week stated that 100% of Gaza’s basic food needs, for the first time since 2023, are now being met.
“The United States must send a clear message to [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu and any other leader who would deny food, medicine, and shelter to vulnerable people: If you are complicit in denying humanitarian assistance to Palestinians or others in need, you will face personal consequences,” Wyden said.
Wyden, who is Jewish, has generally not been a prominent critic of Israel in the Senate, and did not vote with a majority of his Democratic colleagues last year to block certain weapons shipments to Israel.
“As Jews, we have a duty to moral leadership. Netanyahu has failed this duty by all counts,” he continued. “As a lifelong champion for Israel’s security, I believe the actions of the Netanyahu government have made Jews less safe and contributed to horrific suffering in Gaza.”
Under the legislation, the administration would also be required to report annually to Congress on any officials violating the policy and justify any case in which sanctions were not imposed — or to explain their reasoning if they fail to add any individuals to the list.
It further states that it will be U.S. policy that “if a government is unable or unwilling to ensure delivery and distribution of sufficient humanitarian assistance to a territory under its control, that government must allow any and all United States and internationally recognized humanitarian organizations to deliver and distribute sufficient humanitarian assistance to the protected persons in that territory.”
Various international NGOs, including Doctors Without Borders (MSF), that are cited in the bill text, as well as the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, have been found by Israel and researchers to have employed members of Hamas and other terrorist groups. Israel recently banned MSF and other international NGOs because they refused to provide information about their staff for vetting.
The legislation condemns both Hamas and Iran, while also condemning Israel for restricting aid flows into Gaza, stating, “actions by the Netanyahu administration that have contributed to the humanitarian crisis and acute suffering of Palestinians are horrifying” and that the Israeli government’s actions are “not consistent with the State of Israel’s core values” and have “eroded the State of Israel’s standing in the world by undermining the rule of law and violating fundamental human rights.”
The legislation is supported by the Friends Committee on National Legislation, New Jewish Narrative, J Street and Refugees International.
“Our Jewish values compel us to stand up against the continued oppressive restrictions on humanitarian aid into Gaza, which exacerbate the destruction inflicted on civilians by two years of war,” J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami said in a statement. “At a time when humanitarian groups are facing increasing obstacles to providing help on the ground, those who intentionally restrict access to humanitarian assistance must face real consequences.
“Humanitarian aid should never be used as a weapon of war. Nor should the suffering of a people be exploited for diplomatic leverage,” NJN CEO Hadar Susskind said. “Unfortunately, the current Israeli government has a demonstrable record of doing just that. Gazans continue to suffer to this day. By introducing this bill, Senator Wyden is reasserting American values, and backing them up with real consequences.”
Prime Minister Netanyahu said he told President Trump that Israel has ‘come of age’ and ‘developed incredible capacity’
Joshua Sukoff/Medill News Service
President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on February 4, 2025.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel is seeking to end the military assistance it receives from the U.S. in the next 10 years, a move that he said is “in the works.”
In an interview with The Economist released Friday, Netanyahu said that during his December visit to President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., he told Trump that Israel “very deeply appreciate[s] the military aid that America has given us over the years.”
But, he said, “we’ve come of age and we’ve developed incredible capacity. And our economy, which will reach, certainly within a decade, will reach about a trillion dollars — it’s not a huge economy, but it’s not a small economy. So I want to taper off military aid within the next 10 years.”
“And that’s not saying that I don’t want to fight for the allegiance and support of the American people — I do, you would have to be crazy not to,” Netanyahu continued.
“You want to taper it off to zero?” Zanny Minton Beddoes, editor-in-chief of The Economist, asked.
“Yes,” Netanyahu said.
“That would be a very dramatic shift,” Beddoes responded.
“Well, it’s in the works,” the prime minister replied.
Israel and the U.S. currently have a 10-year memorandum of understanding that provides Israel with $3.8 billion of security assistance annually, through 2028. Negotiations to establish the next MOU are underway.
The Ohio Democrat said that withholding aid from Israel would 'undermine' the country 'in a way that is really significant'
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH) is interviewed by CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images in his Longworth Building office on Friday, November 3, 2023.
Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH), in a webinar with Democratic Majority for Israel on Tuesday, emphasized that colleagues who push to block aid to Israel or recognize a Palestinian state risk emboldening Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran when they are on their back foot.
Landsman also laid out what he sees as preconditions for rebuilding Democratic support for the Jewish state.
“Saying, ‘We’re going to withhold aid, we’re going to unilaterally call for a Palestinian state’ — which exists where? Is that all of Israel? What are you talking about? — that suggests to Hamas, ‘Maybe we should keep fighting,’” Landsman said. “I don’t think that’s their intent. I think that it’s entirely appropriate to be critical of the government and decisions … without abandoning our ally.”
“Witholding aid does undermine our ally in a way that is really significant,” Landsman continued.
He said he’s trying to push colleagues in that direction. He added later that he believes that the war in Gaza is a “just war,” even if “it needs to come to an end.”
Asked about the longer-term path toward rebuilding Democratic support for Israel, Landsman said that an end to the war and new leadership in Israel would likely be critical steps in that direction.
“Once we get on the other side of this and we have a government that’s really actively pursuing peace, then the path for a lot of these folks who have felt alienated, to come back. I think is pretty clear,” Landsman said.
He added that peace must also come alongside continued efforts to beat back threats. “You do have to take out these terror armies, and you have to marginalize and completely sideline Iran as a threat, which is going to require constant work.”
He said he was encouraged to see the deal put forward by the Trump administration on Monday, arguing that the war “needs to end for a whole host of reasons,” including freeing the hostages and surging aid into Gaza.
“Israel’s standing in the international community has been diminished, which is a key strategy for Hamas. And this is one of the reasons why I think Netanyahu has got to figure out a way to end this war, because Hamas is succeeding at delegitimizing Israel in a way that is really harmful, way more so than anything it could do militarily,” Landsman said. “I think you’ve got to take that off the table, and that means ending the war.”
Landsman also said that “there’s still limited pressure on Hamas to end this war” and called on the Trump administration to employ “maximum leverage, maximum pressure” on the group, including by detaining Hamas leaders in Qatar.
He added that surging aid is “the right thing to do, it’s the Jewish thing to do and it’s also just strategically what has to happen if Israel is going to maintain its standing in the world and continue to get support.”
He said that positive steps are being taken but added that there are “serious issues with UNRWA that the U.N. and the international community have not gotten serious about.”
He also emphasized the need for an Arab-nation compact to bring the war to an end and deradicalize and rebuild Gaza with a new government that seeks peace with Israel.
“Get all 22 of them involved in a very formal and committed, long-term, sustainable way,” Landsman said. “I think that helps achieve the goals that we collectively have for ending this war and getting Gaza to a place where Hamas is gone, the strip is deradicalized and we’re in a position to help them rebuild with a new governing authority that wants peace with the state of Israel.”
Landsman suggested that such an effort could also unlock Arab-Israeli peace.
“An Israel that’s seeking peace is quite popular. I think that’s what [Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman] would support. Once this war is over and there is a pathway to peace because these terror armies have been defeated … I think these folks do come back and say, ‘Okay, let’s be part of something,’” Landsman continued.
He said that the Trump administration needs a larger team, working full-time, on pursuing Middle East peace in the longer term. “You’ve got to get ironclad commitments from all of these countries. It’s got to be formal. They’ve got to come together in a formal, sustainable way.”
Without continuous White House pressure and attention, he warned that any peace that is reached is likely to crumble.
The next U.S.-Israel memorandum of understanding will need to be secured in a political environment much more hostile to Israel than 10 years ago
GETTY IMAGES
A general view of the U.S. Capitol Building from the National Mall, in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, May 29, 2025.
In September 2016, when President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. and Israel had signed a 10-year deal pledging a total of $38 billion in military assistance to Israel, the news was generally uncontroversial and greeted with bipartisan plaudits — a striking contrast to the nasty presidential campaign playing out across the country at the time.
That deal, known as the U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding, is now close to expiring, and the next one — if there is a next one — will be negotiated in an entirely different political environment. Israel remains deeply enmeshed in a nearly two-year war in Gaza, with little indication of an end in sight, making forward-looking negotiations more difficult.
A new MOU is not a given. U.S. support for Israel has dramatically declined on the left, and it is fracturing in isolationist corners of the right as well. Even some staunchly pro-Israel Republicans have grown wary of foreign aid in general, a shift that could affect U.S. policy toward Israel.
“When many of the threats that have faced Israel in the past have been largely neutralized, Israel will need to figure out how to make the case that it is in need of over half of the U.S. security assistance budget,” a former Biden administration State Department official told Jewish Insider. “They will need to demonstrate the threats that they face in order to warrant this level of funding when Hamas has been decimated, when Hezbollah is a shadow of what it once was, when Iranian air defenses are nonexistent and Israel has proven its ability to be able to infiltrate Iran.”
The conversation about the next U.S.-Israel MOU came to the fore last month, when Pete Buttigieg, the former transportation secretary and a potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, became the first prominent Democrat to say the U.S. should not enact another 10-year military aid deal with Israel.
No other potential Democratic presidential contenders have weighed in on the issue, though it could become a litmus test for a party whose base is steadily turning more hostile to Israel.
The current U.S.-Israel MOU, which expires in 2028, is the countries’ third. President Bill Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak signed the first 10-year MOU in 1999. It was meant as a way to phase out U.S. economic aid to Israel, which Jerusalem no longer needed as an emerging economic and technological powerhouse. Another MOU was negotiated by President George W. Bush and completed in 2007.
“Ten-year MOUs have communicated an ongoing, consistent and bipartisan commitment to support Israel’s security by crossing administrations and demonstrating that it’s an ongoing relationship,” said former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro. “It allows planning for big ticket acquisitions.”
The long-standing commitment allows Israel to plan to make large purchases that could take several years to acquire, such as fighter jets.
The MOU is not actually a binding agreement, it’s a framework. Congress must still approve the $3.3 billion in military financing and $500 million in missile defense laid out in the MOU each year during the annual appropriations process, and could do so even in the absence of an MOU.
“It’s simply a political commitment that Congress and the president can honor or not honor, and not having an MOU does not necessarily mean that we won’t have foreign military financing,” said Brad Bowman, an analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and former national security advisor to Sen. Todd Young (R-IN).
“But if we’ve had MOUs with Israel for so long under presidents of both parties, to not have one, I think, would really be quite a political statement about what’s going on with Israel, and would undermine the efforts of both Americans and Israelis to do necessary planning,” Bowman added.
“Both the left and the right are having deep reservations about the U.S.-Israel relationship, and that could very much have negative consequences for the MOU,” a former Biden administration State Department official said.
Congress has in the past weighed in to signal its support for the MOU. In 2016, Congress voted overwhelmingly to endorse the new MOU, with 405 members of the House voting for the measure. Just four representatives — all Republicans — voted against the bill. Only one of them, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), is still in the House.
Since then, American support for Israel has shifted significantly, particularly since Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks in 2023. A Quinnipiac poll released in August found that 60% of voters oppose sending more military aid to Israel for its war with Hamas, while only about one-third (32%) support it.
Meanwhile, only 13% of Democrats say their sympathies lie more with the Israelis than the Palestinians, a decline from 34% when asked the same question in November 2023. Far more Republicans side with the Israelis — 66% — but that’s down from 80% in November 2023.
“Both the left and the right are having deep reservations about the U.S.-Israel relationship, and that could very much have negative consequences for the MOU,” the former Biden State Department official said.
Congressional efforts to place conditions on American military aid to Israel have gained steam since Oct. 7.
Twenty-seven Senate Democrats voted last month on a resolution to block the shipment of certain weapons to Israel. The measure was largely symbolic and destined to fail in the Republican-led Senate. Still, even with an MOU, Congress would not be prevented from passing a bill further restricting U.S. aid to Israel.
“We continue to have an interest in ensuring that Israel can defend itself. They continue to be an important partner in the Middle East addressing many threats that threaten them, but also threaten us,” said former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro. “If our relationship with Israel were to become far less supportive and far less intimately connected, we would quickly see a decline in our influence much more broadly in the region. That doesn’t mean we can’t also have critical conversations and use our leverage as a provider of assistance when we have concerns about Israeli military actions.”
That’s not considering the leeway given to the State Department, which approves arms sales. Last year, President Joe Biden held up a shipment of 2,000-pound bombs for months over concerns about Israel’s incursion into Rafah.
The Trump administration, which would be the one to negotiate and sign off on a new MOU before its expiration, has not yet indicated any reservations with the process.
Israel is by far the largest recipient of U.S. foreign military financing. The U.S. and Jordan have their own security MOU, though Jordan receives roughly a tenth of the annual military aid that Israel gets. Shapiro, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel, said the reason for the high level of support goes beyond Israel, and deep into the Middle East. He urged the U.S. to raise concerns with Israel about its conduct when issues arise, but not to cut into the aid itself.
“We continue to have an interest in ensuring that Israel can defend itself. They continue to be an important partner in the Middle East addressing many threats that threaten them, but also threaten us,” he said. “If our relationship with Israel were to become far less supportive and far less intimately connected, we would quickly see a decline in our influence much more broadly in the region. That doesn’t mean we can’t also have critical conversations and use our leverage as a provider of assistance when we have concerns about Israeli military actions.”
It would be tempting for Israel to try to increase its defense production to account for such a turbulent political environment. Israel has grown its military exports substantially in recent years and some Israeli lawmakers have indicated they’d like to phase out reliance on U.S. aid, but it would be very difficult for Israel to domestically produce everything it needs.
“The problem is that’s never going to happen,” Bowman said. “Israel, as impressive as it is, is never going to be completely self-sufficient in producing its own weapon systems. The United States is not. If we’re not, Israel never will be. Israel is a technology superpower. It’s not an industrial superpower.”
The Ohio Democrat, who visited Israel last week, also called for pressure on Qatar to push Hamas officials in Doha to end the war and release the remaining 50 hostages
President Isaac Herzog on X
Israeli President Isaac Herzog meets a delegation of House Democrats in Jerusalem on August 11, 2025.
Following his recent trip to Israel, Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH) says he believes that the Jewish state is “as close as I’ve understood it to be to ending” the war in Gaza.
“The language around aid has changed. [Israel talks] about surging aid and they talk about ending this war quickly,” Landsman, who discussed his trip on Wednesday with Jewish Insider, said. “They talk about getting the hostages back no matter what, and whether there’s a deal or not, they’re getting them home. So, they obviously can’t speak to what that looks like or what that means, but I got the sense that this should and hopefully will be the end.”
He made a similar comment in a statement on his trip shared with JI, which stated: “The end of the war appears close, and G-d willing it ends very soon. With it, rebuilding of Gaza can begin. The first glimpses of this ‘day after’ plan can be seen, and the Arab nations that have declared the end of Hamas must play a huge role in what happens next.” His comments came as Israel weighs the most recent ceasefire proposal, and as the IDF prepares to call up tens of thousands of reservists ahead of plans to take over Gaza City in the coming months.
Regarding next steps, Landsman wrote in the statement, “This is a moment of truth for Qatar, to be sure. With senior Hamas leaders in their midst, detaining them – if negotiations continue to falter – may be necessary. This could hasten the end of the war and the release of the hostages. They must do everything in their power – now.”
Landsman told JI that he believes “everyone should be putting pressure on all parties to end the war. I think it is entirely appropriate to put pressure on the Israeli government to end this war. I also think it is necessary for people to put pressure on Qatar and Egypt to end this war, to use all of the leverage they have, particularly with the senior Hamas leaders that are in Qatar.”
“I believe that’s true to some extent, to a lesser extent, for folks in Egypt to say we’re done, you have to accept a return, a deal that ends this war and returns hostages. The pressure also needs to be placed on these 22 Arab countries, and I believe Egypt and Qatar are on that list, but the other 20 who have said, in an unprecedented move, that Hamas needs to disarm and disband. Now they’ve got to turn that into action and establish a coalition with the United States and Israel and Europe to end this war,” he continued.
The Ohio congressman was one of 14 House Democrats who took part in a delegation to the Jewish state last week. The trip was organized by the AIPAC-affiliated American Israel Education Foundation, which organized a similar visit to Israel for House Republicans the week prior that overlapped for several days with the Democrats’ trip.
Landsman told JI that he viewed the trip as an opportunity to accomplish three main objectives: to be available as a resource to answer questions from Israeli leaders and build relationships with newer members of Congress like himself; to get fully briefed on the work being done to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza; and to engage with stakeholders in the broader peace process in the region. “Going sort of allows me to do all three of those things,” he said.
Landsman said that this trip highlighted the similarities between the American and Israeli people and as citizens of liberal democracies where citizens are free to air frustrations about their respective governments.
“The frustration with the government is something that many Israelis feel. They are frustrated with this government, especially as it relates to Gaza,” Landsman said. “And I appreciate that because it’s a liberal democracy. Israelis are just as critical of this government, if not more, than folks around the world or here in the United States.”
Landsman told JI that the Israeli officials and citizens he spoke with urged him and others on the trip to continue supporting a strong U.S.-Israel relationship during moments when they took issue with some of the actions of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“They remind you that they would never want anyone to abandon them, as we would never want anyone to abandon us. It’s an important reminder that being critical of the government when you disagree is part of democracy, it’s why democracy and freedom are so important,” he said. “There’s a line. In terms of having the strength and courage to both stand up to and criticize your partners, while also having the strength and courage to not abandon them, especially a partnership like this one and in an existential moment such as this.”
The Ohio Democrat offered a similar thought in his official statement, in which he wrote: “Instead of abandonment, many of us have chosen to visit the region, to show up, and to support the Israeli government when we agree and to push back when we don’t. We know that abandonment may be politically expedient, but it is strategically wrong. It will render our country unreliable to those who we need to ensure global security and global prosperity.”
“We must always remain a reliable partner for democracy and peace. The United States of America does not abandon its allies, nor will we do so here,” the statement continued.
Landsman told JI, “We should not abandon Ukraine and our European allies. We should not abandon, and I don’t believe we will, one of our strongest partners in peace and democracy and freedom, and that’s the state of Israel.”
“We want people to stick with us. That’s why I used the word ‘reliable’ in my statement. We need people to stick with us for our economic prosperity, for national security. If we’re not sticking with others, people will stop sticking with us, and that is very bad for the United States,” the Democratic lawmaker said.
“This is why we worry about [President Donald] Trump or any president that starts to undermine our relationships with folks across the world. It becomes very, very costly and very dangerous to the United States. We wouldn’t want anyone to look at this government [in the U.S.] and say, ‘Well, we’re gonna back away from our commitment, our investments in America.’ That would be terrible,” he continued.
Landsman said he believed his worldview was shared by the majority of the American people.
“When I come home and have these conversations, I get a very common-sense position. It’s where I believe most people are when I talk to them. They worry about the humanitarian situation. How can you not? They want this war to end. How can you not? They get frustrated with a government that has people like [Israeli National Security Minister Itamar] Ben-Gvir and [Finance Minister Bezalel] Smotrich. Of course, they should,” Landsman explained.
“But they also know that Hamas can’t stay, and Israel has to figure out a way to win this war or end it so that folks can rebuild without a terrorist organization in their way. They know that Iran is the barrier to everything good in the region. They know if you start to undermine the partnership with Israel, the only people who win are folks associated with the regime and the terror networks they fund,” he added.
Elke Scholiers/Getty Images
IDF soldiers prepare tanks on August 18, 2025 near the Gaza Strip's northern borders, Israel.
Good Wednesday morning.
In today’s Daily Kickoff, we talk to DC JCRC head Ron Halber about the “extremely disappointing” decision by Rep. Jamie Raskin to sign onto legislation restricting aid to Israel, and interview Rep. Laura Gillen about her recent trip to Israel alongside 13 other House Democrats. We cover Seb Gorka’s comparison of Tucker Carlson to Pat Buchanan, and report on recent comments by the president of the American Association of University Professors in support of a boycott of Israeli academics. Also in today’s Daily Kickoff: Shari Redstone, Yariv Mozer and Eliya Cohen.
What We’re Watching
- Texas Republicans are expected to move forward today on a mid-decade redistricting effort that would redraw the state’s congressional lines to benefit the GOP. Today’s vote was delayed by several weeks after Democratic legislators left the state to prevent a quorum for the vote to take place.
- Former Boston Red Sox player Kevin Youkilis is speaking about Jewish identity in sports at an Anti-Defamation League web event today kicking off the ADL’s “Game Changers” series.
- Palestinian writer and researcher Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, the director of the Atlantic Council’s Realign for Palestine program, is speaking today at Los Angeles’ Sinai Temple.
- U.S. Ambassador to France Charles Kushner is in Israel today. Last night, he and his wife, Seryl, had dinner in Jerusalem with U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee and his wife, Janet, at the ambassador’s residence.
- Israel is inaugurating its embassy in Zambia today.
What You Should Know
A QUICK WORD WITH JI’S MELISSA WEISS
Israel is finalizing plans this week for a ground offensive into Gaza City, with the goal of having fully evacuated the city by the symbolic date of Oct. 7, 2025. Speaking at his weekly Sunday meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would “complete the victory” over Hamas. Tens of thousands of IDF reservists will begin receiving call-up notices today in preparation for the offensive.
The plans come amid a renewed push for Palestinian statehood, led by France and Saudi Arabia, that has seen a surge in support from global heads of state, including Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
Palestinian statehood efforts also have support in Congress, where Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) is leading a group of House Democrats in calling on President Donald Trump to recognize a Palestinian state.
But both objectives — “total victory” over Hamas and Palestinian statehood — are at present incompatible with the realities on the ground.
Netanyahu has not wavered from his stated objective of “total victory” — even as he has yet to articulate, in practical terms, what that looks like — or how the Gaza City offensive will achieve it.
Outside of Israel, efforts to unilaterally recognize Palestinian statehood have ignored core challenges facing both Palestinian society and government, the former of which was plagued by antisemitic and anti-Israel rhetoric long before Oct. 7, 2023, and the latter of which has for decades been mired in corruption and nepotism and lacks the ground support needed for long-term stability.
JAMIE’S JAM
Top D.C. Jewish official urges Jamie Raskin to withdraw from anti-Israel resolution

Ron Halber, the CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, strongly criticized Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) over his recent decision to support legislation that seeks to severely restrict U.S. aid to Israel. “Jamie’s signing on that legislation was extremely disappointing,” Halber said in an interview with Jewish Insider’s Matthew Kassel on Tuesday, referring to the Block the Bombs Act, a bill led by far-left lawmakers that would place unprecedented new conditions on U.S. weapons transfers to Israel.
Private plea: “It unfortunately follows his signing on to other similar letters and a vote against additional arms to Israel last year, which really raised a lot of people’s eyebrows,” Halber said of Raskin, whom he considers a friend. Halber said he had spoken with Raskin, one the most prominent progressive Jewish lawmakers in Congress, three times over the last two days, asking him to withdraw his name from the bill and instead issue a statement voicing the concerns about the war in Gaza that motivated him to back the legislation. Raskin, who became a co-sponsor of the bill this month, has not issued any statement about his decision.














































































Continue with Google
Continue with Apple