Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike are cheering the implementation of X’s new location feature this week — allowing users to see what countries accounts are operating from — with some expressing hope that the move will expose the level of foreign involvement in domestic online political discourse.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle touted the new feature as a useful way to identify if an account commenting on U.S. political matters could potentially be a foreign actor. 

The new feature has exposed a variety of far-left and far-right accounts engaging in U.S. political discourse and spreading antisemitic and anti-Israel sentiments as they operate from various foreign countries.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) said the information gleaned from the platform’s new feature crystalized the degree to which “foreign interests are trying to spread” antisemitic ideas in the United States. “The evidence is insightful,” Bacon, who is leading a bill with Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) aimed at addressing antisemitism on social media, told Jewish Insider.

“On one hand I’m glad much of the antisemitism poison is not coming from the U.S., but it is alarming that so many foreign interests are trying to spread that poison by pushing it in the U.S. and masquerading as Americans,” the Nebraska Republican continued. “We need to keep informing Americans that much of the antisemitism is coming from abroad.”

Several lawmakers argued that the feature would help with the broader effort to prevent worsening domestic partisan divides, especially those fueled by U.S. adversaries.

“Foreign adversaries have spent years flooding social media with hate-filled and antisemitic propaganda to divide Americans,” Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), the GOP co-chair of the Senate Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Antisemitism, told JI. “Americans deserve to know which accounts are run from abroad so we know the true source of these narratives.”

Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), who represents a Trump district and has been critical of X owner Elon Musk, said in a statement, “I have always suspected that many anti-Israel, antisemitic, Jew hate accounts are promoted by our adversaries.”

“Beijing, Moscow and Tehran know they cannot defeat us economically or militarily, so they exploit controversial issues, like Israel and antisemitism, and try to divide,” Suozzi told JI. “We must defend America by pushing back on external adversaries seeking to divide us internally.”

Others noted in statements to JI that ensuring transparency from major social media platforms was a necessary step in combating the rise in online antisemitism. 

“Transparency on social media is crucial to fighting misinformation and antisemitism online. We’ve seen cases of foreign actors like Russia, China and Iran attempting to use these platforms to sow division and spread hate,” Gottheimer told JI. “I am glad they implemented this change and hope they will work with Congress to take steps to fight antisemitism and prevent malicious foreign influence.”

Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA), who led a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in July about X’s AI program Grok expressing antisemitic and pro-Nazi ideas, told JI in a statement, “This transparency is an important step. No matter what side of the aisle you’re on, bad actors spreading antisemitic narratives to divide Americans is a real threat. There’s much more tech companies should do to expose and stop this manipulation.”

Other Republicans also commented on the new feature this week. 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who has become a leading voice targeting right-wing antisemitism, posted on X on Tuesday that “America-hating foreign bots are at it again,” in response to a tweet from an account that is based in South Asia, according to the new location feature.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley tweeted her support for the new service, writing on Tuesday, “I have long said foreign actors are using social media to poison our politics and divide Americans. The location feature on X is a huge win for transparency and American security. Other social media platforms should do the same.”

A group of Democratic lawmakers is launching a political action committee to support candidates who have prioritized tackling antisemitism, alongside standing up against other forms of hate. 

Reps. Greg Landsman (D-OH), Laura Friedman (D-CA) and Ted Lieu (D-CA) will be chairing the committee, called the Alliance Against Antisemitism PAC. The PAC filed a statement of organization with the Federal Election Commission in October.

“We want to celebrate and lift up those leaders who are unapologetically going to fight back against hate in all of its forms, including antisemitism. Sometimes antisemitism gets lost,” Landsman told Jewish Insider on Thursday. “This is our effort to root it out on our side, and I think it’s going to have an enormous impact.”

The idea of a PAC focused solely on a candidate’s stance on antisemitism is new, and a contrast from political action committees devoted to advancing pro-Israel candidates.

“I think that an individual could have a wide variety of opinions about the conflict in Israel, for instance, and still be very effectively standing up against antisemitism,” said Friedman. “Also, by extension, someone who, let’s say, is very pro-Israel, is not necessarily taking a big stand against antisemitism.”

That doesn’t mean a candidate’s approach to Israel is irrelevant. Both Landsman and Friedman described the need to target instances when criticism of Israel crosses a line into antisemitism.

“I personally believe that denying that the Jewish people have or deserve a homeland — that can have antisemitic roots to it,” said Friedman. 

“I think there is some misunderstanding around what is and isn’t antisemitic, and what does lead to a growing misunderstanding of Jewish people and a growing anger towards Jewish people, and it’s really important for us to support those candidates that are clarifying all of this,” Landsman explained. “There has been a lot of demonizing and othering of Jews, particularly Jews who believe in Jewish self-determination and statehood. I think it’s really important that we clarify that for folks.” 

The lawmakers’ goal is to start making endorsements and spending early next year, before congressional primaries begin. Landsman and Friedman declined to share who the PAC is considering endorsing, whether it will support only incumbent candidates versus new candidates and if it would challenge an incumbent deemed insufficiently supportive of measures to combat antisemitism. 

Nor is there a scorecard the group is using to determine whether to support a candidate; there are not particular stances candidates need to have taken in order to earn the endorsement of the Alliance Against Antisemitism PAC.

“We have not talked about any kind of legislative litmus test,” said Friedman, though Landsman added that passing the long-stalled Antisemitism Awareness Act is a priority for the group. 

“That bill should have been passed a long time ago,” he said.

The PAC will only support Democratic candidates. The chairs are looking at candidates whose stance against antisemitism is coupled with action against other forms of hate. 

“It can’t just be the one issue, because, personally, the solution to this is to bring other marginalized groups into an understanding of what antisemitism is, and to be our allies on this,” said Friedman. “There are people who have stood up against antisemitism who have been absolutely hateful when it comes to the LGBT community. Those are not the kind of people we’re looking for.”

Landsman said that his party is adept at fighting hate, but that antisemitism does not always get included in the litany of biases Democrats want to root out. 

“Sometimes we, on this side of the aisle, stand up for everybody, but we’re not as clear-eyed about Jews and Jew hate, and that needs to end,” Landsman explained.

A spokesperson for Lieu did not respond to a request for comment.

One thing Betsy Sheerr knows for sure is that most Democratic lawmakers still believe in Israel’s right to exist. She also knows that needing to reestablish this basic fact may not be a good sign for her party, and, more broadly, for American support for Israel.

“I can’t believe the bar is so low that that’s where we have to start,” said Sheerr, a longtime Democratic activist and a board member of the Jewish Democratic Council of America. 

That’s the position in which many pro-Israel Democratic advocates find themselves as they begin to take stock of the domestic political damage wrought by Israel’s two-year war with Hamas that followed the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks. 

Unlike naysayers on the right who suggest Democrats have abandoned Israel — a claim made frequently by President Donald Trump — the Jewish activists and communal leaders who advocate for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship and for U.S. aid to Israel still insist that support for the Jewish state remains bipartisan, and that congressional Democrats remain broadly pro-Israel. That proposition faced its toughest test during a two-year war, when Democrats became increasingly sympathetic to the Palestinians as Israel’s effort to eradicate Hamas left the Gaza Strip in ruins and claimed thousands of lives.

As a fragile ceasefire holds, Jewish Democrats see an opportunity to reengage party activists and elected officials who have grown frustrated with Israel’s actions in Gaza. 

Jewish Insider spoke to more than a dozen fundraisers, activists and professionals in the pro-Israel space, most with a long history of involvement in Democratic politics. Their pitch to Democrats at this precarious moment involves two parts: First, push to make Trump’s peace plan a reality. Second, ensure that Democrats understand that the value of America’s relationship with Israel is independent from the leader of either country — and that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who remains unpopular with the American left, won’t be in power forever. 

“I think ending the war turns the temperature down pretty dramatically,” said Brian Romick, CEO of Democratic Majority for Israel. “Right now, what we’re saying is, no matter where you were in the previous two years, we all need the deal to work, and so being for the deal [and] wanting the deal to work is a pro-Israel position right now, and then you build from there.”

At the start of the war, 34% of Democrats sympathized more with Israel, and 31% sympathized more with Palestinians, according to New York Times polling. New data released last month shows that 54% of Democrats now sympathize more with the Palestinians, compared to only 13% with Israel. That stark shift in public opinion corresponded to more Democratic lawmakers voting to condition American military support for Israel than ever before.

This summer, 55 Democrats in the House co-sponsored legislation that would significantly restrict arms sales to Israel. Twenty-seven Democratic senators voted in July to support a bill put forward by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that aimed to reject Israeli arms sales. The bill failed, but it marked a watershed moment for the party, with more than half of all Democrats voting in support of the measure. Not long ago, voting to condition aid to Israel would have been seen as a red line by pro-Israel groups. But with a growing number of Democrats who have already done so, such threats could ring hollow.

“I do think that there is room to build forward,” said Jeremy Burton, CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston, which works closely with Democratic lawmakers in deep-blue Massachusetts. “We have to be secure enough in our own belief in the future and our hope for the future to say ‘OK, if your point was that you’re committed to the long-term project of Israel’s security and safety, and you were looking for short term ways to pressure the government of Israel, then let’s move forward with the long-term project, even if we disagreed with you in the short term.’” 

The pro-Israel lobby AIPAC maintains that it is committed to bipartisanship on Capitol Hill, even as the group has faced sharp criticism from progressive activists — including some who have pressured political candidates to swear off donations from the group. A spokesperson for the organization downplayed the shifting political headwinds, noting that American military aid to Israel continued throughout the war. 

“It is important to separate the noise from anti-Israel extremists of the right and left and actual impact,” AIPAC spokesperson Marshall Wittmann told JI. “For example, time and time again Congress has resoundingly rejected the efforts of those extremists to cut defense assistance to Israel.”

AIPAC has a long-standing policy of not criticizing the Israeli government no matter who is in power, and that isn’t shifting. But other pro-Israel advocates believe that approach may not work with Democrats who are fed up with Netanyahu’s governance. 

“We know that can one be critical of certain Israeli government policies and still be pro-Israel, and we also know that’s increasingly the case for many Democrats, just as it is for a majority of Jewish Americans,” said Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America. 

“The vast majority of Democrats are far more sympathetic to the people of Israel than its current leadership,” echoed Tyler Gregory, who leads the Bay Area JCRC and works closely with progressive leaders in San Francisco. “We need to bring it to a human level.” 

Andrew Lachman, president of California Jewish Democrats, was more overt in his hope that Israel elects a new leader in its next election, set to take place next October, unless it’s called sooner. 

“If there’s a new change in leadership in Israel, that has the opportunity to be able to reset some of those relationships,” Lachman told JI. 

It’s a sentiment echoed by Sheerr, who regularly interacts with Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill. “I think a lot of people, both lawmakers and others, are looking forward to the next Israeli elections, frankly, and life after Bibi,” she said. That is, of course, assuming that Netanyahu isn’t reelected — a risky bet given that Netanyahu has held the role through multiple elections since 2009, except for one 18-month stretch.

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA), who is challenging Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) in Massachusetts’ Senate primary next year, said this month that he would return donations from AIPAC, an organization that has previously endorsed him. He told JI last week that he took issue with the group’s “steadfast support for the Netanyahu government.” 

“My views on Israel as an essential partner of the United States and our most important ally in the Middle East have not changed,” Moulton said. 

Markey, for his part, has been one of Israel’s leading critics in the Senate, making next year’s Democratic primary one between a candidate who condemns the leading U.S.-Israel advocacy group and a candidate with a record of voting against military aid to Israel.

Ron Halber, who leads the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington and maintains close ties with Democratic lawmakers in Maryland and Virginia, said that Israeli leaders also have a responsibility to repair ties between Democrats and the Jewish state.

“For Israel to align itself, or for the current government or for advisors to think that working with the Republican Party is the way to the future, is about the dumbest strategic mistake I can imagine,” said Halber. “The bipartisan nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship is the fundamental blanket of Israel’s support in the world.” 

The leftward shift of Democratic lawmakers has come despite advocacy campaigns by major Jewish groups who urged senators to vote against Sanders’ resolutions restricting aid to Israel. But some within the mainstream Jewish community recognize that the longtime approach of offering unequivocal support to Israel’s government is not sustainable. 

“My opinion is that this government is harmful,” said Sam Lauter, a public affairs consultant in San Francisco and Democratic fundraiser who helped create DMFI in 2019. “I used to be one of those people who would be sort of silent about that, because ‘I’m a diaspora Jew, and I don’t get a say.’” 

Halber said he believed that many Democrats supporting Sanders’ bill “did so symbolically,” because they knew it was going to fail. “They were trying to send a message to Israel that this is a bridge too far, when they believed humanitarian aid [to Gaza] was being cut off,” he added.

The “million-dollar question,” according to Ilan Goldenberg, J Street’s vice president of policy, is whether lawmakers’ support for conditioning military assistance to Israel will continue after the war, when they have to vote to approve the annual $3.8 billion security package to Israel. 

“I think it’s going to be, ‘We need accountability, and we need certain behavior that we would like to see,’ and if you’re not getting that out of the Israelis, then a willingness to use more leverage and pressure and accountability,” said Goldenberg, who served as Jewish outreach director on Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign last year. “I think that is where the center of the Democratic Party is likely to settle, which is a very different place from where we were before the start of the war.” 

J Street has supported Sanders’ resolutions restricting arms sales to Israel.

If any of the support for the bills that sought to reject certain weapons sales carries over into the regular appropriations process, it would mark a significant shift. 

“It seems indisputable that the Overton window has shifted dramatically over the last two years in terms of what ‘the left’ broadly deems acceptable about Israel, Zionism and even the Jewish American community,” said Amanda Berman, CEO of the progressive group Zioness. “This kind of rhetoric doesn’t just disappear when the news cycle moves on. That said, the vast majority of liberals and progressives are not uniquely obsessed with Jews or Israel, and have any number of urgent issues of concern.” 

Even as pro-Israel activists seek to rebuild frayed ties with erstwhile allies, they recognize that not everyone should be welcomed back into the tent, even if the tent is bigger than it was before.

“We don’t need to be forgiving or ignoring those who chose to just demonize and be dismissive of our anxieties, our fears, our hopes over the last two years,” said Burton. 

The dust has hardly settled in Gaza, and it is too soon to know what the lasting impact of the war will be. But given that this was Israel’s longest war, and that it played out under scrutiny of the traditional media and social media, “it’s going to be a lot harder to put the genie back in the bottle than previous times,” as one person involved in Jewish philanthropy and Democratic politics quipped. 

Democratic lawmakers who have been stridently critical of Israel and its operations in Gaza offered tepid support for the ceasefire and hostage-release deal, the first phase of which was signed on Thursday, while reiterating their criticisms of Israel and the U.S.’ support for the Jewish state. Few offered any words of support for the Israeli hostages who have been held by Hamas for over two years. 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who has led a series of efforts to block arms transfers to Israel, didn’t explicitly praise the deal negotiated by President Donald Trump, but said he hopes the deal would lead to the end of a “horrific war.” He made no mention of the Israeli hostages set to be released, but asserted one-tenth of the Gazan population was killed or injured during the war. 

“As of today something like 10% of the Palestinian people in Gaza have been killed or wounded, mostly women, children and the elderly. The United States has put tens of billions of dollars into an effort which has led to mass destruction,” Sanders told Jewish Insider. “So I hope — and I’m sure everybody else does — that this horrific war can end as soon as possible.”

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) said on X that the ceasefire is a “hopeful step” but quickly pivoted to expressing unvarnished opposition to Israel. She also made no mention of the Israeli hostages expected to be freed from their Hamas captors.

“For the sake of humanity, let’s hope this will be a lasting and permanent ceasefire,” Omar said. “While this is a hopeful step, we must demand accountability for every war crime committed during this genocide and continue to call for an end to the occupation.”

Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-IL), the lead sponsor of legislation that aims to place strict conditions on critical arms sales to Israel, said on X she plans to continue to pursue that legislation.

“Immediately after October 7, I called for a ceasefire and for a path that honors our shared humanity. It is unfortunate that it took this long. However, I am hopeful that today’s ceasefire agreement will bring the hostages and prisoners home and end the bombing and starvation of the Palestinian people,” Ramirez said. “We must save Palestinian lives and pursue an end to U.S. complicity in Israel’s war crimes, atrocities, and genocide.  I will continue to work to Block the Bombs, as we pursue a future of self-determination for the Palestinian people and a just and lasting peace for all residents of the region.”

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX), tamping down on enthusiasm for the deal, reposted an X post suggesting that Israel may violate the deal.

“There is certainly some hope that the Gaza deal will hold but it’s important to remember that the last ceasefire agreement collapsed in March before ever reaching phase 2 when Israel reimposed a blockade on Gaza and bombings on the strip resumed,” the post, from an NBC News correspondent, reads.

Other prominent critics, particularly on the far-left, have remained unusually mum about the deal.

Squad members Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA) and Progressive Caucus Chair Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX) did not respond to requests for comment and did not comment publicly.

Some other lawmakers who have been vocally critical of Israel’s operations in Gaza offered more fulsome praise for the deal.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) said in a statement that the deal is “the first hopeful moment in a long time,” noting both the release of hostages and the surge of aid into Gaza. He credited U.S. pressure on Israel, however, rather than the reported increased pressure from Qatar, Turkey and Egypt on Hamas, for the breakthrough.

“Pressure from the U.S. and others has always been necessary to reach this moment — something that could have been achieved much earlier and prevented the staggering loss of civilian life, starvation, and devastation in Gaza,” Van Hollen said. “U.S. leadership will be essential to enforce this plan and convert this moment into real progress toward lasting peace — which can only be achieved by sidelining the extremists on all sides and committing to security, dignity, human rights, and justice for all.” 

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who led an effort calling for the U.S. to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state, also praised the deal and led with the return of the Israeli hostages in his comments.

“It’s obviously very welcome news. Finally, the hostages are going to come home. The bombing hopefully is going to stop. Israel is going to withdraw,” Khanna said on Fox Business. “Everything I have read seems that this is a welcome development. And I’m really glad that after two years of a war, this seems to be finally coming to a resolution.”

“Now, we need to work for 2 states & ensure the bombing does not resume later in the year,” he added on X.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) told JI, “For the sake of humanity, I pray this holds. It is so far past time to end this genocide, free the hostages, and surge food, water, and baby formula to starving families in Gaza.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) declined to comment, saying she had not reviewed the deal.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said in comments to Jewish leaders in New York City on Monday that anti-Israel protesters and, in some cases, fellow Democratic lawmakers are fueling antisemitism through the rhetoric and slogans they use, though she said that in many cases it is unintentional.

“Some of the rhetoric that comes out of various protests globally, various protests on college campuses is so damaging. When they say words like ‘river to the sea,’ whey they say words like ‘globalize the intifada,’ it means end Israel. It means destroy Jews,” Gillibrand said in a video from a roundtable with Jewish leaders in Borough Park shared by The Forward. “No matter what words they intend to be saying, that is the meaning of these simple phrases.”

Intifada, she continued, is “not a social movement. It’s terrorism, it’s destruction, it’s death.”

The New York senator has been particularly outspoken about the “intifada” rhetoric in the context of the New York City mayoral race. She previously offered strong condemnation of Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani for his refusal to condemn the “globalize the intifada” slogan and said that Jewish constituents were alarmed by his past comments. 

Gillibrand also claimed Mamdani had made “references to global jihad,” but later apologized. She has not endorsed Mamdani’s mayoral bid.

The New York senator said she would work with Democratic colleagues “who sometimes, in my opinion, don’t use the right words or aren’t sensitive to the impact of those words” and explain to them how their comments are being received and contributing to antisemitism, and to rally them to support efforts to fight antisemitism.

“Nine times out of 10, they aren’t trying to be antisemitic or even trying to be anti-Israel. They just think they’re fighting for human rights,” Gillibrand continued, “but the words they often choose to use are very hurtful and harmful and are undermining.”

“It is very hurtful and it makes people feel like sometimes the members of our party do not have their back, and I think that’s very disruptive and damaging for our community, for our state, for our brothers and sisters,” Gillibrand said.

Gillibrand added that leaders and individuals have to “understand the impact of their words in all contexts,” including to the Muslim community and other faith and immigrant communities.

She also insisted that “nine out of 10 Democrats are pro-Israel and want peace in the Middle East,” though a majority of the Senate Democratic caucus recently voted in favor of blocking some arms sales to Israel.

Gillibrand argued that many of her colleagues’ concerns are driven by the political leadership in Israel, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and far-right members of the Israeli government.

“They don’t know how to articulate political disagreement, and sometimes it comes out as anti-Israel,” she said. “I try very hard to explain that your intentions are one thing, but how you’re received is another, and that’s where we get the disconnect.”

Having recently returned from a trip to Israel, Rep. George Latimer (D-NY) is emphasizing that Israel’s critics in the United States and around the world are overlooking Hamas’ key role in perpetuating the conflict and contributing to the humanitarian issues in Gaza, strengthening the terrorist group’s position and insulating it from external pressures. 

At the same time, the New York Democrat also said that Israel must do more to pursue an end to the war, make its case to the world and provide aid in Gaza.

Latimer, speaking to Jewish Insider last week, said that the trip, organized by the AIPAC-affiliated American Israel Education Foundation for Democratic freshmen and leading Democratic lawmakers, had reinforced his view that the situation on the ground is more complicated than the more simplistic narratives demonizing Israel that have been spread by some critics and media.

“When you see on the ground, you understand it is not a simple black-and-white situation,” Latimer, a first-term congressman from Westchester County, N.Y., who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said. “People come up to me and say, ‘Israel is practicing genocide. What they’re doing is evil and we need to stop it.’ And then you get on the ground and you realize how much more complicated it is than that.”

He said that American critics of Israel fail to acknowledge Hamas’ “role in all of this and its contributory actions.” He said he sees a “lack of appreciation here in the United States that Hamas is committed — has shown no signs to want to sit, talk peace, have a cessation of hostilities. … That makes it very, very hard to plot a strategy, if the other side is completely intransigent.”

Latimer said the situation is comparable to overlooking the fact that the U.S. entered World War II because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, or that the U.S. invaded Afghanistan because of the 9/11 attacks. He said that the “mindset” that motivated such attacks doesn’t disappear overnight, and can take protracted conflict to address.

At the same time, he said that “there’s a gap between what [the Israeli government] needs to be doing and what it is doing, and it’s a serious gap.” He said he doesn’t see proposals to relocate the population of Gaza out of the enclave, discussed during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as “workable” or “humane.”

He addressed friction within Israeli society over Israel’s war plans in Gaza, and said that Netanyahu’s decision-making may be shaped by his far-right coalition members, adding that “if there’s no movement from Hamas, what can you ask Israel to do unilaterally?”

“So Netanyahu’s strategies present as intransigent in the face of intransigence on the other side,” Latimer continued. “You need some joint breakthrough where both sides step back from the path that they’re on, and both sides have to be willing to do that, if you can expect the other side to also then do that.”

He noted the difficulty of forcing a dug-in enemy like Hamas to surrender, comparing it to the challenge of forcing a Japanese surrender during WWII.

Latimer unseated Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), a vocal Israel critic, in the 2024 Democratic primary, boosted by significant support from his district’s Jewish community as well as national pro-Israel groups.

Latimer told JI he thinks Israel has not done enough to try to win over or influence global opinion in its favor. Latimer said he believes that the Israeli government views such efforts as a lost cause and not worth attempting.

“There’s a case to be made [for Israel]. But in lieu of that, the rhetoric is all what Israel is doing and not doing, and how evil they are, when, in fact, all of this came from an attack that was horrific on Oct. 7,” Latimer said.

He said that there have been “atrocities” on the Israeli side, pointing broadly to settler violence in the West Bank, but said that “the question is, overall, are you weighing all of these things together, or as the world opinion, and much of the United States opinion, particularly among younger people, has been framed completely around ‘Israel bad,’” ignoring the “evil that’s been done on behalf of the other side of this. That is a contributing reason why we’re in the situation we’re in.”

“The fact that people are starving is horrific. But as long as the world blames Israel for it solely, Hamas is winning. Why would they change any strategies?” Latimer said. “The leaders of Hamas are not sitting in the tunnels. … They’re sitting in the safety of the protection of [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan or over in Qatar. Therefore, they’re not under the pressure.”

Latimer said that the food supply in Gaza was a key issue he examined on the trip, calling starvation in Gaza a “legitimate” problem. 

He said that the current four Gaza Humanitarian Foundation aid distribution sites are “nowhere near enough,” given the “massive number of people that need to be fed and housed.”

But he added that Hamas being “unwilling to cooperate” in the safe delivery of aid is an impediment to efforts to improve the humanitarian situation and that the United Nations “in the eyes of the Israelis, has lost credibility.” 

He said that the best path forward would likely be for a coalition of Arab countries to take the lead of a humanitarian aid distribution entity: “We need to have a third party that has credibility.”

“Israel is not doing enough to solve the problem, and Hamas is doing things to prohibit the problem from being solved,” Latimer said, calling on Israel to work to increase the number of food distribution centers and strengthen supply lines and on Hamas to stop attempting to intercept food and sow chaos at distribution sites.

“The fact that people are starving is horrific. But as long as the world blames Israel for it solely, Hamas is winning. Why would they change any strategies?” he said. “The leaders of Hamas are not sitting in the tunnels. … They’re sitting in the safety of the protection of [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan or over in Qatar. Therefore, they’re not under the pressure.”

“What I saw in September 2005 gave me hope. What I see when I go back 20 years later is, you shake your head and you go, ‘Why did it turn out this way?’” Latimer said. “Did it turn out this way because Israel wanted it to turn out this way? Israel didn’t want Oct. 7. Israel didn’t want all of its young men in the reserves and active duty, constantly on a wartime footing.”

He declined to weigh in definitively — citing the limited information at his disposal and his limited power as a lone congressman — on whether the U.S. needs to increase pressure on its allies in Turkey or Qatar to expel or detain those Hamas leaders, but said that “clearly there has been insufficient pressure on Hamas” because its leaders have shown no urgency to return the hostages, negotiate in good faith or participate in un-corrupted food distribution.

Latimer said he first traveled to Israel two decades ago, just after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza, and that there was hope at the time that the Israeli withdrawal would “allow the opportunity for Gaza to experience peace and some kind of growth.”

“What I saw in September 2005 gave me hope. What I see when I go back 20 years later is, you shake your head and you go, ‘Why did it turn out this way?’” Latimer said. “Did it turn out this way because Israel wanted it to turn out this way? Israel didn’t want Oct. 7. Israel didn’t want all of its young men in the reserves and active duty, constantly on a wartime footing.”

He said that if Gaza’s leaders had pursued growth and development over the past 20 years, “we could be in a very different place today,” but instead Hamas seized power and used Gaza as a platform to attack Israel.

Asked about recent decisions by European countries to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state, which came around the time of Latimer’s trip, the congressman said that he supports a two-state solution, but one that “comes out of a negotiated process,” noting the many outstanding issues to be worked through.

“You cannot expect Israel to survive with a hostile entity interspersed with its borders, and yet be its own country. And there has to be a sense that this country can function and provide its services to its people and maintain civil control. None of those things are automatically in place yet, so I don’t know what we’re recognizing in substance,” Latimer said. 

“I think what we’re recognizing in symbolism is European countries that basically are saying, ‘We need to have a two state solution,’ and probably their population is reacting to what’s happening in the moment and putting pressure on their governments to do this,” he continued.

“The Palestinian Authority certainly has a steep mountain to climb, but right now, they’re the best hope that you have of a presence — and certainly it’s not Hamas, it’s certainly not coming out of any of the groups that Iran is backing or has backed,” Latimer said.

Based on the delegation’s meeting with Palestinian Authority leaders, Latimer said that he believes there is an “intent” and “willingness” in the PA to pursue needed reform and bolster credibility with the Palestinian population.

“How much success they’re going to have with the civilian population to accomplish those things — it’s going to be a tall task,” he said.

At the same time, he noted that some Arab governments such as those in Jordan and Egypt maintain cooperative relationships with Israel even as many of their citizens remain hostile.

“The Palestinian Authority certainly has a steep mountain to climb, but right now, they’re the best hope that you have of a presence — and certainly it’s not Hamas, it’s certainly not coming out of any of the groups that Iran is backing or has backed,” he continued.

In the long term, Latimer added, the Abraham Accords represent a path forward for the region, and said that moderate Sunni Arab states want to see a viable and demilitarized Palestinian Authority government that can credibly govern the Palestinian people.

ASPEN, Colo. — Former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Herzog and other pro-Israel speakers received a warm reception from the crowd at the Aspen Security Forum this week, as they discussed continued efforts to free the hostages in Gaza and Israel’s strikes on Iran.

But Herzog told Jewish Insider, on the sidelines of the conference after his panel on Wednesday, that he’s been disappointed by the response to the strikes from Democratic lawmakers in Washington, which has been overwhelmingly negative.

It’s a response that also stands in contrast to Herzog’s description of the transition he observed in the Biden administration’s thinking on Iran: from pushing for a nuclear deal with Iran that Herzog said would have been weaker than the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to, by the time President Joe Biden left office, active discussions of strikes on Iran.

“I must say, I was disappointed by the response of some senior people on the Democratic side,” Herzog told JI. “I’m saying it carefully because I never interfere in domestic politics here, but from a strategic point of view, I was disappointed by the response of some senior Democrats to the war on Iran.”

Herzog said that maintaining bipartisan support for Israel was the central goal of his ambassadorship and that he engaged with nearly everyone, including critics, with the exception of the most extreme voices. He said he expected U.S. leaders on both sides of the aisle to realize that the strikes offered a “unique opportunity” to counter a “malign actor” and “changed the strategic landscape in the Middle East.”

“People who either criticize it on procedural issues or people who say, ‘[It] wasn’t the right timing because they were talking to each other about a deal’ — there’s never a right time. Never,” Herzog said, emphasizing that the strikes had not, as critics warned, spiraled into a protracted war similar to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Herzog said Israel must “put a lot of work into maintaining that dialogue with both sides of the aisle, explaining our common interest, away from domestic politics here … and exploring the new opportunities that have been created in the Middle East.”

Herzog said that Israel has been preparing for an attack on Iran for decades, but the specific planning for what became Israel’s Operation Rising Lion and the U.S.’ Operation Midnight Hammer began in earnest in November 2024, after the second Iranian strike on Israel and Israel’s elimination of Iran’s air-defense systems. By that time, U.S. nuclear talks with Iran, which Herzog criticized as misguided, had been long stalled.

He said the fall of the Assad regime in Syria the following month provided a further opportunity to take action.

“If you look at the journey the Biden administration took from the initial days when they were rushing to a deal with Iran, to the last few months of the Biden administration where they were talking to us about military options against Iran, they went a long way,” Herzog recounted.

Herzog said he believes that the Biden administration underwent “disillusionment with the possibility of reaching a good deal with Iran,” as Iran made unrealistic demands, such as removing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ terrorism designation. And he said Iran’s supply of weapons for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine made the talks “much more difficult.”

“I just could see that movement with time, to the last phase of Biden’s presidency, when, after we turned the tables on the Iranian axis and opened that huge opportunity, we actually started looking with them at the military option,” he said. “It was too late in the day [to carry out the strikes before Biden left office], but it was a very interesting journey that I noticed.”

Looking at the rising isolationist sentiments on the Republican side of the aisle, Herzog said he’s been monitoring the issue and has “been concerned about it,” but also argued that such voices aren’t dominant in the Trump administration’s decision-making.

“It’s like a swing of a pendulum because the U.S. ultimately decided to follow Israel and strike Iran, and this is really historic, in that it’s a first-of-its-kind coordinated offensive operation. … This is the first time that we are coordinated in our offensive operations, that’s a very big deal for a long time to come in my view,” Herzog said.

He said he sees the pendulum swinging against the isolationists in the administration’s recent moves to provide additional support to Ukraine and take a tougher stance toward Russia as well.

“So all in all, I don’t think that the administration is following this isolationist trend, but I do follow it and I am concerned about it,” Herzog said. “I do believe that the world needs American leadership, [an] American dominant role. The world needs America to be a force of good, as it has always been, and that’s what we’d like to see.”

Herzog — reflecting on the panel he spoke on, “Israel at a Crossroads” — said that the U.S. and Israel need to be closely coordinated and in lockstep on the path forward on Iran, including the limits of a diplomatic deal and the red lines that would prompt further military action to prevent Iran from rebuilding its nuclear program, as well as ways to capitalize on Iran’s weakness throughout the region and prevent it from rebuilding its proxy network.

“We managed to surprise the Iranians, hit all the main centers of gravity and take them completely off balance. But challenges are still ahead of us because we have to assume that Iran will seek to rebuild those threatening capabilities,” Herzog said. “We should not rest on our laurels.”

He also emphasized that the strikes and the degradation of Iran’s proxies had “created the conditions for a different Middle East.”

Asked about the Israeli government’s policy on Syria — which shifted in the span of a week, from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu actively discussing normalization and diplomatic paths with President Donald Trump in the White House to Israel bombing key Syrian government sites in recent days — Herzog described the new Syria as a “mixed bag” with both risks and opportunities, and said that it may be too early to judge.

“On one hand, I believe that this new leader, Ahmad al-Sharaa, a.k.a. Mohammad al-Jolani, doesn’t want, he doesn’t seek war with Israel, and he sends across messages, and that’s what he told the Trump administration,” Herzog said, adding that Israel had started a dialogue through the U.S. on what Herzog termed a formal or informal non-aggression agreement and the demilitarization of southern Syria.

“On the other hand, we should not forget the background of al-Sharaa and the people surrounding him or subordinate to him,” Herzog said. “They all grew up in the school of jihadism.”

He criticized al-Sharaa for what he said was an effort to “subjugate [Syrian minorities] so they become part of his Syria, his vision of Syria” rather than allowing for a federalist system. Herzog said the Israeli strikes “sent a very strong message … that we will not tolerate the scenes of humiliating the Druze and endangering their lives,” and aimed to block the Syrian army from conquering Druze areas and carrying out atrocities.

“What we’ve seen, first with the Alawites and now with the Druze, is very troubling,” Herzog said. “We in Israel, our concerns are about, first, the security situation in southern Syria, and second about the state of minorities, especially the Druze, because not only are they close to our border, [but] because we have an important Druze community in Israel. They are our brothers in arms.”

He added that it’s unclear to what extent al-Sharaa himself is in control over Syrian government forces’ actions.

The Israeli ambassador also reflected on the ways that the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel seemingly activated a global wave of antisemitism.

“You’re hit hard, you’re bleeding, and all your enemies smell the blood and rise to hit you,” Herzog said. “That pertains to all of our enemies in the region, the Iranian axis, but also pertains to anti-Israel, antisemitic forces here in the U.S. and elsewhere.”

He said that Israel has “gone a long way” against its military adversaries in the Middle East, “really turned the tables on Iran and the Iranian axis” and “created the conditions for a different Middle East.”

“But,” he continued, “we still have a long way to go against these anti-Israel, antisemitic forces. That’s an open front.”