Sens. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), who both voted for the first time last week in favor of blocking some U.S. arms sales to Israel, said that their future positions on such votes would be made on a case-by-case basis, determined by the specific sales in question and the circumstances surrounding the votes.

The two were somewhat surprising votes in favor of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) effort to block U.S. arms sales, having generally maintained pro-Israel records while in Congress.

“I was, and am, strongly opposed to the war in Iran, and I couldn’t justify voting against our own supplemental funding bills, which I plan to, and supporting funding for the same war in a JRD,” Schiff told Jewish Insider, referring to the Joint Resolutions of Disapproval to block specific arms sales to Israel. “I’ll evaluate each circumstance as they come.”

Kelly disputed the notion that his vote had flipped, saying, “I make these decisions based on what is the current situation, and what is the vote on — I don’t make these [decisions] in a vacuum.”

“This isn’t ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in any given moment, I’m always going to be looking out for Israel,” Kelly said. “And I think Israel is weaker, and the Israeli people are at further risk because of the current prime minister of Israel. He’s made a lot of mistakes, and he’s not operating in accordance with our values — but nor is our president. So I’ll look at every one of these [votes] based on what it is and what the current situation is.”

Asked whether his calculus would change if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were to lose the next election, he said that the decision is up to the Israeli people, “but I do not think Netanyahu has done Israel as a nation any favors.”

Most of the Democrats in the Senate — 40 in total, including some traditionally pro-Israel lawmakers — voted on Wednesday evening for a measure led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that aimed to block sales of bulldozers to Israel, with 36 of them also voting to advance a second Sanders-backed resolution to block sales of thousands of 1,000-pound bombs.

The votes are a striking statement of the extent to which anti-Israel sentiment has become mainstream in the Democratic Party. Just seven members of the Democratic caucus voted against both measures.

Twenty-seven Democrats supported at least one of two similar measures in July 2025, which was a record at that time.

After having opposed previous similar efforts, Sens. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Mark Warner (D-VA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Alex Padilla (D-CA) and Maggie Hassan (D-NH) all flipped and voted in favor of Sanders’ latest resolutions.

Warner and Peters, along with Sens. Jack Reed (D-RI) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), voted to advance the resolution to block the bulldozer sale but against advancing the one on bombs.

Sens. Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Angus King (I-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Peter Welch (D-VT), all of whom had supported at least one past effort to block arms sales, voted for both measures on Wednesday.

Every Senate Democrat rumored to have presidential ambitions voted to block both arms sales.

Kelly, a moderate Democrat and potential presidential candidate, insisted in a Senate floor speech that he “cannot and will not abandon Israel,” which is “one of our closest partners. They have a right to defend themselves, and I will always support Israel’s right to exist as a successful and prosperous nation.”

But, he said, “Supporting a partner doesn’t mean that we don’t ask tough questions. It doesn’t mean that we always agree. Our support for our allies must always be about what makes us stronger and safer, and we can look at what’s happening in the region right now and understand that this is not business as usual, and it is not making us safer,” referring to the war in Iran, Israel’s war against Hezbollah in Lebanon and violence in the West Bank.

He said that the weapons sales will not “bring us closer to peace and security,” but that he remains “confident” that Israel has the ability to protect its people and that “we’ll be able to do so in the future with our partnership and I will always support that.”

Schiff, who is Jewish and generally a reliable supporter of Israel, and Padilla released a joint statement saying that they voted for the resolutions “to oppose the U.S. sale of specific weapons and equipment to Israel which might be used in Iran or to facilitate further settlement activity, which we believe undermine Israel’s long-term security and our own.”

“We strongly support Israel’s right to defend itself and the right of the people of Israel to live in peace and prosperity in a Jewish state,” they said. “We oppose actions that further deepen the United States in an unauthorized conflict in Iran — one with no clear strategy, no legal authority, and no defined end.”

They said they also intend to oppose any supplemental funding for the war.

Slotkin said she would “continue to assess U.S.-funded offensive weapons to Israel on a case-by-case basis” but would continue to support missile-defense systems. She said that she had “struggled with these [measures] as much as any vote since I joined Congress.”

“My entire life, I have been — and continue to be — a strong supporter of a Jewish and democratic State of Israel,” she said. “The people of Israel, like all people throughout the region, deserve long-term security and peace. But being pro-Israel today is not about simply supporting the political or military agenda of Prime Minister Netanyahu, just like being pro-American should not be equated with loyalty to President Trump.”

Slotkin said she is also “deeply skeptical” of providing additional funding for the war in Iran.

Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told Jewish Insider in a statement that he did not want to provide equipment to enable displacements of Palestinians in the West Bank or “escalatory military actions in southern Lebanon,” which he called contrary to both Israel and the United States’ interests.

“The United States can and must hold two truths at once: we can stand firmly with Israel’s security while also speaking out against actions that jeopardize peace and stability in the region,” Warner said. “Israel has an unequivocal right to defend itself, but it does not have the right to unilaterally displace Palestinians in the West Bank and torpedo any chance of ever achieving a two-state solution.”

“The United States should ensure that Israel has the tools it needs to protect its people and deter its adversaries while opposing transfers of equipment that are used to demolish homes, expand settlements, and further entrench a reality that weakens the already fragile prospects for a durable peace,” he continued.

Sanders, who has called for the U.S. to “end US military aid to the extremist Netanyahu government,” had described these votes as a referendum on the war in Iran, as well as Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon and violence by settlers and Israeli military forces in the West Bank.

J Street, the progressive Israel advocacy group that last week called for the U.S. to end financial support for Israel’s missile-defense systems after the current U.S.-Israel memorandum of understanding expires in 2028, supported the Sanders-led resolutions.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), John Fetterman (D-PA) and Chris Coons (D-DE) were the only Democrats to oppose both resolutions.

Gillibrand, who this week introduced a war powers resolution to halt the war in Iran, told JI on Wednesday morning that she sees the resolutions on weapons sales to Israel and the resolutions on the Iran war “very differently.”

“I oppose the war in Iran, but I do not believe we should leave an ally [Israel] who is being attacked without support,” Gillibrand said during a press conference.

AIPAC said in a statement, “We appreciate the senators who opposed these misguided and dangerous resolutions. Letting our democratic ally buy American-made equipment to protect its families from Iran and terrorist groups is clearly in America’s national interest. Congress must continue to stand with Israel as it confronts multiple ongoing threats.”

The Senate is set to hold another round of votes on blocking U.S. arms transfers to Israel, as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) filed three new joint resolutions of disapproval against $658.8 million in sales of 500- and 1,000-pound bombs to Israel and “defense articles” for 250-pound bombs.

“Given the horrific destruction that Israel’s extremist government has wrought on Gaza, Iran and Lebanon, the last thing in the world that American taxpayers need to do right now is to provide 22,000 new bombs to the Netanyahu government,” Sanders said. “No more weapons to support an illegal war.”

The effort is being co-sponsored by Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Peter Welch (D-VT).

Sanders emphasized that the administration had sidestepped normal congressional review procedures using emergency authorities in advancing the arms sales earlier this month.

Sanders and other progressive Democrats have forced votes on similar efforts to block arms sales to Israel on three previous occasions since the war in Gaza began, with a majority of the Democratic caucus — 27 lawmakers — voting to block at least one arms sale in July of last year, a significant jump in support from similar efforts in November 2024 and April 2025.

Israel’s standing among Democrats has worsened since last July, with even some Democrats who supported continued arms sales at that time blaming Israel for dragging the U.S. into the war in Iran. Polls show registered voters now see Israel more negatively than positively.

Some senators have argued the U.S. should have threatened to cut off military support to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran.

Van Hollen, Merkley and Welch, in statements, all framed the bomb sales as proxy votes on the war in Iran, and a vote to block the sales as a step toward ending the war. Senate Democrats have voted nearly unanimously as recently as yesterday to bring an immediate end to the war in Iran.

“With the bombs already provided to Israel by American taxpayers, Israeli forces are unleashing a campaign of total war in Iran with the clear and deliberate intention to eviscerate Iran’s economy and society,” Welch said in a statement. “I support these joint resolutions to make sure that we do not send another 20,000 bombs to Israel that will result in further destruction in Iran and Lebanon. We must end this war, and we must not send these bombs.”

On the other hand, some Democrats who had voted in favor of previous arms sales flipped in the July 2025 vote to express frustration with the ongoing war and humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

With the war in Gaza now in a ceasefire, humanitarian aid restored and efforts toward reconstruction slowly starting, that motivation for blocking arms sales may no longer be salient for some Democrats.

A divide is emerging in the Democratic Senate primary in Illinois over resolutions the Senate voted on earlier this week to block certain arms sales to Israel.

Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton’s campaign and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi told Jewish Insider on Friday that they wouldn’t have supported the resolutions led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), even as they condemned the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. 

But Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL) announced earlier in the day that she would have voted for the resolutions if she’d been in the Senate.

The split could help shape the potentially crucial Jewish community vote in the upcoming Senate primary.

“As a mother, it’s heartwrenching to see images of children forced to go without food. Israel and the United States need to take every possible step to end the humanitarian crisis and ensure aid is immediately and widely made available,” Stratton said in a statement to JI. “I continue to pray for a ceasefire that ends the suffering in Gaza, for the return of the hostages still held by Hamas to their families in Israel, and for lasting peace in the region.”

Stratton’s campaign elaborated that the lieutenant governor believes, “[w]e should all be speaking with a clear voice that the Netanyahu administration must be doing more to get food and aid to the citizens of Gaza right away, but Juliana believes that cutting off U.S. military aid to Israel could risk standing in the way of the ultimate goals of a true ceasefire and sustained peace.”

The campaign also said that Stratton believes in Israel’s “right to defend itself as one of the United States’ closest allies and the only democracy in the Middle East.”

The campaign said Stratton “strongly disagrees” with how the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has executed the war in Gaza, but she “has been vocal in her support of Israel in the wake of the horrific terrorist attacks by Hamas on October 7th.”

Krishnamoorthi — who, in an interview with JI earlier this year, said he did not support efforts to cut off or condition U.S. aid to Israel — said Friday that the Sanders resolutions would not have solved the humanitarian crisis.

“We need an immediate ceasefire brokered by the U.S. and regional partners and that is swiftly accepted by Hamas, along with the release of the remaining hostages and the emergency provision of humanitarian aid,” Krishnamoorthi said in a statement to JI. “The U.S. must use all of its diplomatic influence to make that happen as quickly as possible. Ultimately, the only path to a lasting peace is a two-state solution. The first step and my focus today is ending the current humanitarian disaster and getting food in as quickly as possible. Wednesday’s resolutions did not right that wrong.”

He said that he has “long been a steadfast supporter of our nation’s alliance with Israel” and that it “had every right to defend itself,” but said that “[w]hat we see going on today in Gaza is a moral catastrophe.”

“As Americans, we can never sit by and allow widespread starvation and disease among a civilian population that includes the elderly, the disabled, women, and children,” Krishnamoorthi continued. 

He highlighted that he wrote to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on Friday, urging them to surge aid into the strip and to ensure accountability that it reaches its intended recipients. 

He said in the letter that, despite acknowledging the starvation in Gaza, the administration has not done enough to remedy the situation. Krishnamoorthi also urged others in the region, including Hamas, to cooperate in the proper delivery of aid.

Kelly, meanwhile, said in a statement Friday that she would have voted for the resolutions.

“Israelis and Palestinians must work to secure a path forward where both peoples can live in peace, safety and security,” Kelly said in a statement. “I have supported Israel, but in this moment, I cannot in good conscience defend starving young children and prolonging the suffering of innocent families. Now is the time for moral leadership in the U.S. Senate.”

Both Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) — who is retiring — and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) supported the resolutions.

Durbin has supported every similar effort Sanders has made since November to block various arms sales to Israel, but Duckworth had voted against them in the past and, in fact, argued forcefully against them in a letter to constituents.

The votes on Sanders’ proposal to cut Israel aid are also proving to be a dividing line in Michigan’s Senate primary: Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) announced Friday that she would have opposed them, while state Sen. Mallory McMorrow said she supported them.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said that she voted, for the first time, for resolutions blocking U.S. arms sales to Israel this week to send a message to the Israeli government of disapproval for the humanitarian situation in Gaza, even as she acknowledged that the vote might not make much of an impact.

“I just think it’s really important for people to speak out when they can, even if it’s on a vote that isn’t probably going to make all the difference right now. And it doesn’t mean I’m going to be hard-stop against aid for Israel in the future,” Klobuchar told Punchbowl News.

“At some point, you’ve got to seek change. And I think this is one way you can do it,” she continued. “I have supported Israel’s right to defend itself, I always will. But they aren’t changing.”

She said that she’d tried to communicate her disapproval of the humanitarian situation in Gaza to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his recent visit to Washington, D.C. but said it “didn’t work very well when I said it.”

Klobuchar said in a Senate floor speech several days before the votes that she attended the meeting with Netanyahu “for one reason: in my capacity as No. 3 in the Democratic leadership, and that was to raise the issue of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”

 “I say to my colleagues you can support the people of Israel. You can be horrified and condemn, as all of us did, the terrorist attack. But we cannot continue to allow people to starve,” Klobuchar said. “Lives are being lost on a daily basis, kids, innocents, and the government of Israel must change course.”

She said that U.S. policy must focus on returning to a ceasefire, increasing humanitarian aid, freeing the hostages and security a two-state solution.

The Minnesota Democrat, a moderate, has historically been a quiet but reliable supporter of Israel. She’s also the No. 3 Senate Democrat, seen as a potential successor to Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

Of the 11 members of Democratic leadership, seven voted for the resolutions on Wednesday.

Klobuchar is running for the No. 2 Senate Democratic leadership slot, competing against Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI), a consistent supporter of prior efforts to halt weapons sales, and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), who, like Klobuchar, flipped her vote to support the Sanders resolutions after previously opposing them.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) indicated in an interview on the “Breaking Points” podcast on Tuesday that she’s open to considering cutting off offensive weapons sales to Israel — comments that came a day before the Senate is set to vote on blocking two arms sales to Israel — as well as distanced herself from “Jewish group[s]” like AIPAC and J Street.

At the same time, while offering criticisms of Israel and its operations in Gaza, Slotkin refused to embrace and pushed back on some of the more heated anti-Israel rhetoric offered by the podcast’s hosts. The podcast, which brings together a progressive and a libertarian host, generally takes an isolationist view toward U.S. foreign policy and is opposed to the close U.S.-Israel relationship.

Asked about cutting off offensive aid, Slokin said, “That certainly, to me, would be a place to look, but I’m not going to cut off a blanket next sale on a defensive weapon that comes through, no.”

One of the hosts, the progressive Krystal Ball, pressed Slotkin over the distinction between offensive and defensive systems, arguing that the U.S. does not provide defensive weapons systems to Russia or Iran — malign global actors and longstanding adversaries. 

Slotkin responded by noting her support for the U.S.-Israel relationship in the long term, and argued allies should be treated differently than adversaries even in times of disagreement between the two countries. 

“Sometimes we have big breaks with allies, right? Sometimes we have difficult moments with allies. Sometimes it goes the wrong way with allies. But an allied relationship is a long-term relationship,” Slotkin told the duo. 

“I think about this from the mirror image way because I do not support the things that Donald Trump is doing, right? But I’m an American. So, do I want other countries to look at America and be like, ‘We can’t stand Donald Trump so we’re going to end the long-standing relationship we have with the American people. We’re going to cut off any support we give them on information sharing or intelligence sharing,’” she continued.

Slotkin also distanced herself from “Jewish group[s],” mentioning that she’d declined to seek endorsements from AIPAC and J Street specifically.

Asked if AIPAC should be forced to register as a foreign lobbying organization, Slotkin said she did not have an answer beyond that she knew “plenty of people who think they should” but would “have to look at the definition.”

Accusations from both political fringes that AIPAC — whose members are American citizens — constitutes a foreign influence operation, have often invoked antisemitic dual loyalty tropes.

After being accused of providing a “cop-out answer,” Slotkin replied by saying that she had stopped accepting money from the group over disagreements about policy and overall strategy in 2021, after having support from AIPAC members when she first ran for Congress in 2018. The group did not officially endorse or fundraise for candidates until the 2022 election cycle.

“You’ve got to get your facts straight. I have not been endorsed by AIPAC. I have not, I’m sorry. I was the first Jew elected to the Senate that was not endorsed by any Jewish group — AIPAC, J Street. In 2018, when I first ran [I was endorsed by] people who were [AIPAC] members, yes, but I’ve not been endorsed since then,” Slotkin said. “And I’ve just got to be honest, like I think that this is where facts really matter. I’ve had very, very difficult conversations with my colleagues in that organization and made a choice back in 2021.” 

“2021, so that was the first time I was up for reelection. So I understand that there’s a sort of like, again, cornered position, but to me like I call balls and strikes as someone who served in the Middle East,” she added.

Slotkin was endorsed by one Jewish group, the Jewish Democratic Council of America, which maintains a pro-Israel stance, in 2024.

Slotkin, pressed by Ball on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, said she had signed onto a letter accusing Israel of pursuing a “policy of starvation,” adding that, as an “occupying power,” it has a responsibility to ensure food is supplied to Gaza. But she stopped short of endorsing Ball’s framing of Israel’s actions as a “crime against humanity.”

She also did not embrace Ball’s claims that Israel is pursuing “ethnic cleansing” in Gaza, while criticizing plans from the Israeli government for relocating people within or out of Gaza as illegal.

“I’ve been clear about that,” Slotkin said. “So I would ask for a little bit of an open mind.”

Ball responded by accusing Slotkin of failing to take meaningful action on the issue and criticizing her for voting for aid to Israel, for the Antisemitism Awareness Act, for legislation describing anti-Zionism as antisemitic and for sanctioning the International Criminal Court.

Ball told the Michigan senator that her progressive positions on domestic issues like health care and housing policy were irrelevant to her if she was “still supporting a genocide in Gaza.” 

“I’m speaking for myself, but I know there are millions of other people who feel the same, that you have to at least cross this sort of moral threshold,” Ball said.

While Ball framed the conflict in the Middle East as a central issue in the New York City mayoral race, Slotkin, looking to her own senatorial race in 2024, argued that its political significance has been overplayed.

“This issue is motivating people in a very visceral and personal way. But it’s not the only issue that my voters in Michigan care about,” she said. “The online world is extremely, extremely focused on this, but that doesn’t always represent the majority.”

She said it’s the top issue in some areas, but outside of the Detroit area, “it’s not in the top 40.”

Slotkin also said she was proud that she had won a majority of both Jewish voters and the three cities with the largest Muslim populations in Michigan during her Senate campaign, which she attributed to “calling balls and strikes” and leaning on her background in Middle East policy.

The Michigan senator also appeared to argue that the pace of anti-Israel protests has dropped off significantly since the end of the Biden administration 

“I just think it’s interesting that there were a ton of protests when Democrats were in charge” against the war in Gaza, adding that it’s “fair to say, just to be honest, that … the number of protests that go on now, versus before,” though she was cut off by the show’s hosts.

She generally declined to weigh in on the results of the New York City mayoral race, saying primarily that she believes the results reflect concerns about the cost of living and the need for a new generation of leadership.

“I can have plenty of disagreements with what I’ve heard Mr. [Zohran] Mamdani propose, and I do,” she said. “I am here because we lived the American dream through capitalism. A lot of free stuff to me is not the answer. … But I can have those disagreements. I would be thrilled to have that conversation with him or anyone else.”

Asked about her condemnation of Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) for using the phrase “from the river to the sea,” and if she would also condemn Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) for his comments saying Gazans should “starve away,” Slotkin said she did not know who Fine was but had no reservations denouncing such remarks.

“I have no problem condemning Randy Fine, who I don’t know. I don’t, I’m sorry. I don’t know who that person is. I have no problem condemning someone who talks like that,” she told the hosts. 

Slotkin was also asked if she believed that financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein “had any connections to U.S. or Israeli intelligence agencies.” Slotkin, a former CIA analyst, said she would be “very surprised” if that was the case.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee voted on Tuesday to advance legislation that aims to expedite arms sales to U.S. partners that are members of the Abraham Accords, as well as bills to review the U.S.-South Africa relationship and to combat the proliferation of Western-made parts in Iranian drones.

The arms sales bill comes as part of a broader push by House Republicans to speed up military transfers to U.S. allies. It would cut the congressional review period for sales to Abraham Accords partners that work with the U.S. on countering Iran and its proxies from 30 days to 15, in line with the review period for key U.S. defense partners including NATO members.

The bill, led by Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), advanced by a 31-19 vote, with Republican Reps. Scott Perry (R-PA), Tim Burchett (R-TN) and Warren Davidson (R-OH) voting against the bill and Democratic Reps. Ted Lieu (D-CA), Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL), Greg Stanton (D-AZ), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), Jim Costa (D-CA), George Latimer (D-NY) and Brad Schneider (D-IL) supporting it.

Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), the committee chairman, argued that arms sales to the countries in question, which comprise a significant portion of U.S. military sales globally, suffer from “egregious delays,” prompting U.S. partners to consider buying from other countries, despite the U.S.’ interests in supporting its partners and ensuring their systems are compatible with those of the United States.

“There is a clear recognition that it’s simply not enough for our equipment to be the best,” Mast said. “Those procuring U.S.-origin weapons must also have the confidence that our equipment will be delivered on time in a transparent manner. Streamlining the foreign military sales process is critical if the U.S. is to remain the partner of choice, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa.”

Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the committee, and other Democrats argued that the legislation would create “quid pro quo arrangements or enticements” for countries to join the Abraham Accords and would overlook human rights issues and other malign behavior by some Middle East partners, as well as diminish the role of Congress in the arms sales process.

“I don’t believe it is appropriate to equate long-standing allies like the U.K., like France or Canada, all countries with which the United States has detailed comprehensive defensive agreements, to countries who have thus far had inconsistent and checkered records regarding the use of U.S. weapons and conflicts and protections of sensitive defensive technologies,” Meeks said. “We do provide an expedited timeline to our closest allies because of the presumption of approval. I can’t say that we have a presumption of approval, in this case.”

He also described the legislation as an extension of the Trump administration’s business deals with Middle East nations.

By voice votes, the committee approved two amendments by Schneider, one of which would set a 20-year sunset for the bill. The other makes reference to the U.S.’ goal of expanding the Abraham Accords.

The South Africa legislation would require a review of the bilateral relationship between Washington and Pretoria, given South Africa’s deepening ties with authoritarian U.S. adversaries and its genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. It would require the administration to assess whether to impose sanctions on South African officials for corruption or human rights abuses.

The bill advanced by a 34-16 vote, with Democratic Reps. Brad Sherman (D-CA), Bill Keating (D-MA) and Johnny Olszewski (D-MD) joining Lieu, Moskowitz, Costa, Latimer and all Republicans in supporting it. It advanced through the committee by a similar vote in the previous Congress.

Mast argued that, given South Africa’s increasing alignment with authoritarian regimes and its posture since the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel, the U.S. needs to “reset the expectations” it has in its relationship with South Africa, but “not sever ties.”

“This bill is not anti-South Africa, it is pro-accountability. For too long, we’ve watched a key partner drift closer to authoritarian regimes,” Mast said, adding that South Africa’s “actions raise serious questions about the ANC’s alignment with the democratic values and U.S. interests.”

Other Republicans, including the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), said that “South Africa has abandoned America and our allies and increasingly aligned itself with our adversaries,” and is working to undermine U.S. interests and partners, particularly Israel.

Meeks argued that the bill would set the U.S. and South Africa, which are longtime partners, on the wrong path, and that the U.S. should prioritize “diplomacy and dialogue” to address concerns, rather than punitive action.

“I do not believe Congress should further enable or double down on President [Donald] Trump’s misguided approach when we disagree with our partners, including on the continent of Africa. We should handle that responsibly by using diplomacy and presenting convincing arguments,” Meeks said. “Unfortunately, this bill fails to do that, so I strongly oppose this legislation and urge all of us to look for future opportunities to steer United States-South Africa relations in a more productive direction.”

Other Democrats said that the bill would undermine U.S. interests on the African continent and globally.

The committee rejected, along party lines, a series of amendments introduced by Democrats focused on issues including refugee resettlement, refuting claims of white genocide and persecution of white farmers in South Africa, the history of aparthied in South Africa and the results of U.S. AIDS prevention funding to South Africa.

Republicans largely dismissed those amendments as unnecessary or attacks on Trump and his administration’s policies.

An amendment specifying that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was “illegal” — language included in last year’s version of the bill — was approved by a 48-2 vote, with only Rep. Keith Self (R-TX) and Davidson voting no.
The Iranian drone bill, which requires the administration to develop a strategy to prevent Iran from obtaining sensitive American and other Western-made technologies for use in Iran’s attack drones, passed the committee unanimously.

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) introduced bipartisan legislation on Thursday that would expedite arms sales to U.S. partners that normalize relations with Israel and work with the U.S. in its efforts to counter Iran and its terrorist proxies. 

The Abraham Accords Defense Against Terror Act would “narrow the timeline for congressional consideration after arms sales are accepted, while maintaining existing eligibility criteria for arms sales themselves,” according to a press release on the bill. The legislation would provide “the same preferential treatment that our NATO allies receive” to eligible countries.  

Reps. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), Ryan Zinke (R-MT), Don Davis (D-NC), Bryan Steil (R-WI), Don Bacon (R-NE), Michael Baumgartner (R-WA), Buddy Carter (R-GA), Jeff Crank (R-CO), Chuck Edwards (R-NC), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Brad Finstad (R-MN), Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN), Andrew Garbarino (R-NY), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ), Dave Kustoff (R-TN), Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), Michael McCaul (R-TX), Mark Messmer (R-IN), Zach Nunn (R-IA), John Rose (R-TN), Maria Salazar (R-FL), Pete Stauber (R-MN), Elise Stefanik (R-NY) and Joe Wilson (R-SC) signed on to the bill as co-sponsors.

“This legislation will … [provide]  greater benefits to our Abraham Accords and counterterrorism partners. It represents a key step toward implementation of the Abraham Accords and turning shared diplomatic commitments into real-world cooperation. Lastly, it sends a strong message to adversaries: the United States and its allies will not allow Iran’s proxies to destabilize the region unchecked,” Lawler, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, said in a statement.

He continued, “I am committed to strengthening our relationships with regional partners and putting our ally Israel in the best position possible to do the same. There is no question that fostering deeper security relationships is key here.”

“The Abraham Accords have been a historic model for peace between Israel and its neighbors, and we should be doing everything we can to expand it and bring more states into the fold,” Moskowitz said. 

“This common-sense bill builds on the progress of the Abraham Accords to incentivize others to normalize relations with Israel and cooperate against the threat of Iran and Iranian proxies, safeguarding our ally Israel’s very right to exist in the process,” he added.

Efforts to expedite arms sales to U.S. partners has been a long-term priority for lawmakers and administrations on a bipartisan basis, and the House currently has a dedicated task force on overhauling the military sales process.

“There are too many bureaucratic barriers that prevent us from assisting our closest allies in global security,” Zinke, who chairs that task force, said in a statement. “This bill strengthens the ties forged by the Abraham Accords by ensuring our partners have expedited access to the tools they need to stand against Iran and its terrorist proxies. Israel is one of our closest and most vital allies, and peace through strength is the only way to secure the region and protect American interests.”

A group of 22 left-wing House Democrats introduced legislation pushing for a series of sweeping and unprecedented new restrictions on U.S. aid to Israel, requiring specific authorizations from Congress for each transfer of numerous key weapons and guarantees from Israel about their use.

The legislation would prohibit the administration from transferring or selling a series of arms to Israel including several types of bombs, bomb guidance kits and tank and artillery ammunition without the passage of a distinct law from Congress authorizing the individual transfer.

The bill would require Congress, in those authorizations, to identify “the specific purpose or purposes for which such articles or services may be used for.” And Israel would have to provide “written assurances satisfactory to the President” that the weapons would be used in accordance with those specified purposes, as well as in line with existing U.S. arms sales law — which is already binding on Israel — and international law.

The proposal, which stands no chance of passing in the current Congress, goes beyond the conditions that have previously been proposed for U.S. arms sales to Israel or in place for any other recipients of U.S. aid. It contains no emergency waiver provision for the administration, should Israel face an attack.

Bradley Bowman, senior director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Center on Military and Political Power and a former Senate staffer, told Jewish Insider that the bill “would be an extraordinary measure targeting Israel alone in a unique manner with the clear purpose of depriving Israel of some of the munitions it needs most” and is “among some of the most concerning anti-Israel legislation we’ve seen in recent years.” 

He said that, while Congress has placed conditions on arms transfers to other nations in the past, the requirement of specific congressional approval for each transfer is “particularly aggressive.” He described the bill as “part of a campaign on the far left in this country focused on depriving the world’s only majority Jewish state of the means of self defense.”

“If it were to become law, it essentially is an arms embargo against Israel for these munitions,” Bowman said, making it “incredibly time consuming” to provide those weapons and slow the transfers down by months, and giving anti-Israel members opportunities to further derail the process through procedural means.

The bill is led by Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-IL) and co-sponsored by Reps. Sara Jacobs (D-CA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Becca Balint (D-VT), Andre Carson (D-IN), Greg Casar (D-TX), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Veronica Escobar (D-TX), Maxwell Frost (D-FL), Chuy Garcia (D-IL), Jonathan Jackson (D-IL), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Summer Lee (D-PA), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Lateefah Simon (D-CA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ).

A Ramirez spokesperson told JI that Ramirez introduced the legislation prior to the news of the murder of two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington last week. “Out of an abundance of respect and care for the communities and loved ones impacted by the murders of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, Ramirez and the cosponsoring legislators decided to hold any plan to discuss it publicly, honoring the intention of the legislation to uphold our shared humanity and interconnectedness. We will be sharing more information on the legislation once members return to DC,” the spokesperson said.

Bowman noted that the group in support of this bill is nowhere near a majority in either chamber, but “could be increasingly problematic” as their numbers grow and members gain leadership roles in key committees.

He said the weapons in question are critical for Israel’s operations against Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as for preventing imminent launches of rockets toward Israeli cities. And, he noted, some of the weapons included, like the bomb guidance kits, are designed to improve targeting and decrease civilian casualties, making the effort counterproductive.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), the former chair of the House Progressive Caucus who has been a leading supporter of efforts to block weapons sales to Israel, is set to join the influential House Foreign Affairs Committee, House Democratic leadership announced on Tuesday.

Jayapal will join Reps. George Latimer (D-NY), Johnny Olszewski (D-MD), Julie Johnson (D-TX) and Sarah McBride (D-DE) as the new Democratic members of the key House committee.

Since Oct. 7, 2023, Jayapal has repeatedly voted against legislation to support Israel, counter Iran and combat antisemitism, including supplemental U.S. aid for Israel’s war effort, and has called on the U.S. to withhold aid, accusing Israel of violating arms sales law and serious human rights violations.

Weeks after the Hamas attack, Jayapal voted present on a widely bipartisan resolution expressing support for Israel and condemning Hamas, even though she initially sponsored it. She was among the earliest lawmakers to call for a cease-fire, sponsoring a resolution to that effect on Oct. 18, 2023.

She also faced accusations that she had equivocated about or downplayed Hamas’ use of sexual assault as a weapon of war in public comments. 

Prior to Oct. 7, Jayapal described Israel as a “racist state,” comments she walked back under criticism from Democratic leadership, and suggested that the Progressive Caucus might ban members from taking funding from the pro-Israel advocacy group Democratic Majority for Israel. She also voted against a resolution supporting the Abraham Accords and the U.S.-Israel relationship and pushed for the State Department to consider controversial alternative definitions of antisemitism.

She suggested as early as 2020 that the U.S. should consider conditioning aid to Israel if it pursued annexation of the West Bank.

She has also led efforts to restore funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and opposed U.S. strikes against the Houthis as unconstitutional.

Outside of Middle East policy, in 2022, Jayapal led Progressive Caucus members on a letter calling for direct talks between Russia and Ukraine for a peace deal that was quickly disavowed by some of its key signatories.

Jayapal did not immediately provide comment. 

Latimer, also joining the committee, was elected on a staunchly pro-Israel platform — ousting anti-Israel Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) — with the support of the large Jewish community in Westchester, NY. He voted last week in favor of sanctions on the International Criminal Court. 

Olszewski also ran on a pro-Israel platform and has ties to the Maryland Jewish community. He voted against the ICC sanctions but signed a letter to the ICC condemning its efforts to arrest Israeli leaders, as did Johnson and McBride.

In her campaign, McBride also expressed strong support for Israel, a stance that earned her the particular ire of some in the progressive community.

Johnson holds the seat of Rep. Collin Allred (D-TX), a former HFAC member.

Elsewhere, Democrats announced that Reps. Jason Crow (D-CO), Gil Cisneros (D-CA), Eric Sorensen (D-IL), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Sarah Elfreth (D-MD), George Whitesides (D-CA), Derek Tran (D-CA), Eugene Vindman (D-VA) and Wesley Bell (D-MO) will join the Armed Services Committee.

Crow has repeatedly led letters accusing Israel of violating U.S. arms sales law.

Among the freshmen members, Cisneros and Bell voted for the ICC sanctions, while Cisneros, Elfreth, Tran and Vindman voted against. Whitesides was not present for the vote.

Vindman, a former military war crimes prosecutor and investigator, ran as a supporter of Israel but has also called for caution in Israeli military operations. He was one of the leaders of the letter condemning the ICC arrest warrants. Cisneros, Sorensen, Goodlander and Elfreth all signed it as well.

Goodlander, the wife of Biden national security adviser Jake Sullivan, is a former congressional national security adviser and intelligence officer in the Navy Reserves, who conducted research fellowships in the Middle East. She expressed support for Israel and continued U.S. aid on the campaign trail.

Elfreth received support from the AIPAC-affiliated United Democracy Project super-PAC and said she opposes conditions on U.S. aid, though she appeared to indicate support for such efforts at a candidate forum last year. A spokesperson said after that event that she supports the existing, universally applicable regulations on U.S. aid, not new conditions.

Bell ran on a staunchly pro-Israel platform, with support from St. Louis’ Jewish community, to oust anti-Israel former Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO).

Reps. Greg Casar (D-TX), Summer Lee (D-PA) and John Mannion (D-NY) are set to join the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, the committee that investigated campus antisemitism.