New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani reiterated on Wednesday his criticism of an event held at Park East Synagogue the night prior, even as fellow Democrats condemned the extremist speech and actions of protesters who sought to break the police cordon outside.

Pressed on Tuesday about plans for protests at the Manhattan shul, Mamdani released a statement strictly criticizing the “Great Israel Real Estate Event” held inside — which included, among other offerings, advertisements for settlements in the West Bank — with no mention of the previous disturbance the same pro-Hamas activist group caused outside Park East last November. 

Mamdani’s spokesperson told the far-left Drop Site News ahead of the event that the mayor was “deeply opposed” to its promotion of settlements that are “illegal under international law and deeply tied to the ongoing displacement of Palestinians.” Still, Mamdani’s administration said it has “also been clear that we are committed to ensuring safe entry and exit from any house of worship.” 

Questioned Wednesday morning about the protest, the police response and the influence his own rhetoric might have on antisemitic incidents citywide, Mamdani reaffirmed his earlier stance.

“I think that critique of the policies of a government are very much separate from bigotry toward people of a specific religious faith,” the mayor said at an unrelated press conference. “When we have a real estate expo that is promoting the sale of land that includes the sale of land in occupied West Bank, in settlements that are a violation of international law, that is something I firmly disagree with and that I also believe that many New Yorkers firmly disagree with, because it has been at the heart of an ongoing effort to displace Palestinians from their homes.”

Mamdani also lauded the NYPD’s enforcement of a security perimeter around the synagogue, which demonstrators tried to push through, and added that the right to protest is “sacrosanct.”

But much as the mayor and his allies stressed the West Bank property advertisements, the protesters outside the synagogue did not call for a peaceful two-state solution along the internationally recognized borders established in 1949. To the contrary, they waved the flag of Hezbollah — an Iran-backed terror group that seeks Israel’s destruction — defaced images of the late Chabad-Lubavitch Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson and shouted “we don’t want no Zionists here,” “death to the IDF” and “we don’t want no two-state, we want ‘48.”

When Jewish Insider reached out to Mamdani’s team about these chants and actions, they signaled disapproval of “some” protester behavior.

“Some of the rhetoric and conduct outside Park East Synagogue — including displays of support for terrorist organizations and antisemitic acts — was unacceptable,” said Deputy Press Secretary Sam Raskin. “As the mayor has said, chants in support of terrorist organizations and promoting violence of any kind have no place in our city,” Raskin added, alluding to Mamdani’s belated criticism of pro-Hamas slogans bandied near a synagogue in Queens in January.

Other leading New York Democrats, meanwhile, uniformly denounced the protesters’ conduct.

“No one should be intimidated when entering their house of worship,” said Jen Goodman, spokesperson for Gov. Kathy Hochul, highlighting the administration’s support for legislation making it a felony to obstruct entryways to houses of worship during demonstrations. “While protesters have a First Amendment right to be heard, hate-fueled antisemitic rhetoric has no place in New York and Governor Hochul will continue to call it out and confront it head on.”

Attorney General Letitia James offered similar remarks, stressing both freedom of speech and the necessity of condemning threats and bigotry.

“Antisemitism has no place in New York,” James said in a statement to JI. “We will protect New Yorkers’ First Amendment rights and condemn hate, harassment, and violence in equal measure.”

Council Speaker Julie Menin offered a thorough critique of both the protesters and of the NYPD’s response, noting complaints that the safety cordon set up at the site also constrained the movements of journalists, local residents and even would-be attendees. She further asserted that her own recently passed bill compelling the department to codify protocols for such buffer zones would resolve these issues.

“I’m deeply disturbed by the hateful rhetoric heard last night outside Park East Synagogue. Calls for the destruction of Israel and the glorification of Hezbollah are horrific, intimidating, and only fuel the flames of antisemitism,” she said. “Whether you are a congregant entering a house of worship, a peaceful protestor, a journalist, or a passerby, the Council’s new law will help bring greater transparency to the considerations that the NYPD uses in situations like these.”

Citadel CEO Ken Griffin praised Rahm Emanuel’s tenure as former mayor of Chicago while attacking Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker for his handling of crime and education issues — two Democrats seen as potential presidential contenders —  during a panel at the annual Milken Institute Global Conference on Tuesday. 

The billionaire hedge fund magnate and major Republican donor has held a longstanding feud with Pritzker over his state’s economic, crime and education policies to the point that he moved his firm’s headquarters from Chicago to Miami, Florida.

Griffin said his acrimonious relationship with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani was “triggering of the trauma I went through in Chicago.” Citadel has a major presence in New York City, but Griffin has threatened not to proceed with a major planned development in Manhattan due to Mamdani’s use of Griffin’s property there to promote a tax on luxury second homes.

“Chicago went through a renaissance during most of my 30 years there,” Griffin said on Tuesday. “Under the leadership of JB Pritzker, [former Chicago Mayor] Lori Lightfoot and the current mayor [Brandon Johnson], it has just evolved into a state that has lost its way. … This is really a story of the progressive left. I mean, when Rahm Emanuel was there, I think he did an extraordinary job of helping to deal with the issues that we had in our public schools and that we had with crime on the streets.”

Griffin touted the work he did with the Emanuel administration to get the city to “use digital technology to forecast what crime could occur.”

“I helped to fund this work, and we would actually pre-position police officers in these crime hotspots. We brought murder rates down in one of the most difficult neighborhoods by 50% in less than two years. That’s lives saved. That’s both political leadership, thought leadership and execution from our police department,” he said. 

“We saw that JB Pritzkers and Lori Lightfoots of the world dismantle these gains that we were making that we’re really improving the lives of people who depend upon good government to make their lives better.”

Griffin said violent crime was “the biggest problem” that caused him to leave the state, telling Eisen that “I had a colleague stabbed outside the door of our building. I had a colleague’s house burned down by an arsonist. I could just go on for the next 10 minutes about muggings, about bullets flying through people’s cars.”

“It became impossible to recruit people to Illinois, because of the question they posed: ‘I love the job, I love the people, but will my family be safe here?’” he continued. “You couldn’t look somebody in the eyes and go, ‘Your family will be safe here.’ You couldn’t. The best you could do is, ‘I hope they will be.’”

The Citadel chief executive said his team’s conversations with Mamdani’s City Hall have “made clear … that we need to double down on our bet in Miami.”

“We want to be in a state that embraces business, that embraces education, that embraces personal freedom and liberty and that embraces people having an opportunity to live the American dream,” Griffin said. “It’s a dream of earned success, not a dream of redistributive handouts that lead people dependent on government for their lives and their livelihoods in a way that takes away community and honor.”

On the U.S. war with Iran, Griffin backed the rationale for the war while criticizing the Trump administration for not being transparent enough with the American public. 

“I applaud the president for having the willingness to actually try to ensure a nuclear-free Middle East,” Griffin said. “I don’t think he has made that case strongly for the American people, but we should all sleep better knowing that he has set back the Iranians and their nuclear ambitions for years, if not decades, over the course of his time as president.”

Asked by Eisen about the lack of broad support domestically for the war, Griffin reiterated his view that the president has not made a “strong enough” case to the public for launching the war, but continued to defend its mission.

“A nuclear Iran would put into question the safety and security of the people of our nation,” Griffin said. “I think that they have made many good decisions here, but they have encountered something that they did not anticipate, which is a military capacity by Iran and a commitment to the preservation of the regime that is completely different to what they saw in Venezuela. In some sense, the extraordinary success of Venezuela almost certainly led all of us to believe that we could have some remarkable success in Iran,” he added, referencing the U.S. mission to oust former dictator Nicholas Maduro.

Griffin also noted that the Iranian military had not yet “been defeated,” counter to Trump’s claims, which Griffin described as a “stalemate situation” that was causing energy prices to rise. He said that the U.S. is “largely shielded from that” from a holistic standpoint, but that individual consumers are not. 

Two Jewish Democrats from Chicago are looking to run for president. 

One, Illinois’ two-term governor, JB Pritzker, has built up a reliably progressive record while steering clear of ideological fights over Israel, antisemitism and other cultural issues fueling the Democratic Party. 

The other, former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, is one of his party’s leading pragmatists, known for feuding with left-wing Democrats over education, the power of unions and the degree to which cultural progressivism cost the party on the ballot box.

So it came as a surprise that, in two separate interviews each published Tuesday, it was Pritzker who came out as a more forceful voice against antisemitism and in support of the U.S. relationship with Israel, while Emanuel sounded like he was all too eager to blame Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he anticipated a future breakup between the two close allies. 

Pritzker offered the point that relationships between allies aren’t dependent on whether you personally like the elected leadership in charge. It’s a line you’d expect more mainstream Democrats to invoke, especially as Israel’s favorability within the Democratic Party has sunk to new lows.

“There are a lot of people who don’t like Netanyahu, but you shouldn’t take it out on Israel. It’s a democracy that elected him. There are a lot of people who don’t like Trump. I mean, should we be tossed into The Hague as a country because of Trump?” Pritzker told Politico over matzoh ball soup at Manny’s Deli, referring to the home of the International Criminal Court.

Emanuel, when asked by Jewish Insider if there was a special relationship between the U.S. and Israel, agreed with the premise but then quickly pivoted to arguing the state of the relationship should be premised on Israel’s efforts contributing to peace in the region. It’s an implication that its post-Oct. 7 efforts at self-defense have gone too far. 

“Every risk you will take, the State of Israel takes, for peace, then America will stand by you,” he told JI. “We understand there’s risks. We have stood by Israel through thick and thin.” “But,” he said, “when one friend in that relationship abandoned something that’s contrary to our interests and contrary, in my view, also to Israel’s interests,” it is reasonable to rethink that alliance.

Pritzker also spoke directly about the scourge of antisemitism, laying most of the blame for the rise in anti-Jewish hate on President Donald Trump, but when pressed, also laid out a clear red line that it’s never acceptable to invoke antisemitism for disagreeing about Israel’s policies. 

“Antisemitism has often been connected to people’s views about Israel. That is: If you don’t like what Israel and, in particular, Netanyahu are doing, now it’s OK to have slurs that you’re spewing about Jews,” Pritzker said. “It’s not. It’s never OK.”

Asked about whether anti-Zionism intersects with antisemitism, Emanuel touted his own experiences fighting neo-Nazis in Skokie, Ill., and relentlessly attacking anti-Jewish hate as an elected leader. He told JI that “we have to confront” antisemitism wherever it emerges, referencing Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner not knowing he had a neo-Nazi tattoo on his chest. One day later on CNN, he endorsed Platner’s campaign. 

At a time when unfavorable views of Israel are at historic highs within the Democratic Party and open antisemitism is being tolerated in a way unimaginable not long ago, the trajectory of these two prominent Jewish presidential contenders — along with the fate of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro — will be instructive on the future role of Jewish voters within the Democratic coalition.

Pritzker, with strong anti-Trump and progressive bona fides, may feel a little more comfortable tacking to the center when talking about Israel and antisemitism. Emanuel, who has made a name for himself as a moderate calling out the excesses of the left as he travels across the country (and speaks on TV), may be a little more reticent to tout his pro-Israel credentials, given the ideological direction the party is headed in.

Several top Jewish Democrats are expressing concerns about the ideological direction of a newly revived foreign policy group now aiming to shape the party’s approach to Israel in the 2028 presidential election as well as a future Democratic administration.

National Security Action, an influential Democratic foreign policy organization that launched in 2018 and helped staff the Biden administration, is returning to the political arena with a new leader, Maher Bitar, who has served in high-level defense and intelligence roles on Capitol Hill and in the White House, the group confirmed on Sunday.

Bitar, a deputy assistant to President Joe Biden and coordinator for intelligence and defense policy at the National Security Council who most recently served as chief counsel and national security advisor to Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), has faced scrutiny over his past record of anti-Israel activism.

During his time in the Biden administration, Bitar, who is Palestinian American, drew criticism from Republican lawmakers who alleged that he had demonstrated bias against Israel, citing, among other things, his past board membership with Students for Justice in Palestine while attending Georgetown University. As a student, he had also helped organize a pro-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions conference and was shown in a university yearbook performing a dance in front of a banner that called to “divest from Israeli apartheid.”

Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security advisor in the Obama administration who is now a leading left-wing critic of Israel, co-founded NSA with Jake Sullivan, most recently Biden’s national security advisor. Sullivan drew headlines last year when he came out in support of withholding arms to Israel, an argument he reiterated last month on “Real Time With Bill Maher” while defending the majority of Senate Democrats who had recently voted to block some weapons sales to the Jewish state.

Both sit on NSA’s board and will be involved in the group, Rhodes told Axios, saying he is invested in building a “pipeline” to help “populate a Democratic administration” as well as crafting “ideas that can form a progressive or Democratic foreign policy going forward.”

“The center of gravity has shifted on the relationship with Israel, and there will be a debate about the nature of the relationship going forward,” Sullivan told the outlet.

“We urge National Security Action to continue to be an honest convener about these important issues,” Brian Romick, the president of Democratic Majority for Israel, told Jewish Insider. “There is a strong majority of Americans, including Democratic primary voters, who support the U.S.-Israel relationship because they understand that doing so is in the best interest of the United States. 

“DMFI is proud to advocate for those voices and we recognize they have a major role to play in choosing our 2028 nominee,” Romick said.

Bitar told Axios, which first reported his role, that NSA would be a “big-tent” organization seeking to unite the party. “We are not excluding anyone,” he said, noting that the group will serve as a “hub” to discuss Democratic foreign policy “to be ready for 2028 and beyond.”

A former senior foreign policy official in the Biden administration, who was granted anonymity to address a sensitive issue, told JI that Bitar “was part of a small cohort of senior White House advisors who worked to actively undermine President Biden’s policy preferences by inserting their own anti-Israel ideology, especially” following Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks.

“National Security Action exists to help empower our leaders and broad community of stakeholders to communicate effectively about foreign policy and bring together a wide range of perspectives,” David McGonigal, a spokesperson for the group, said in a statement to JI. 

“Maher’s deep relationships across the national security community and the outpouring of support for his appointment — including from members of Congress and organizations such as J Street, the Jewish Democratic Council of America and the Nexus Project — underscore how National Security Action is uniquely positioned to carry out this important mission.”

Ethan Wolf, a Democratic strategist who previously worked as a communications director for Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), told JI he was “concerned National Security Action is rewriting everything they’ve ever stood for and putting their pen in the hand of a ‘Pod Save America’ bro,” referring to Rhodes’ association with the left-wing political podcast hosted by former Obama officials who have grown increasingly hostile to Israel.

DMFI, for its part, also alluded to Rhodes and the podcast in a heated social media post on Monday. “Democrats and Americans do not want Pod Save America hosts dictating our future national security platform,” the group wrote.

Despite other reservations over Bitar’s new role, some Jewish Democrats voiced positive views about his extensive resume.

“Maher has held multiple high-level national security positions in government — in the House, in the Senate and in the Biden and Obama administrations — where he was deeply respected for his pragmatism, depth and expertise,” said Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America. “I enjoyed working with Maher in the Obama administration and think National Security Action is lucky to have him at the helm.”

Daniel Shapiro, a U.S. ambassador to Israel in the Obama administration who served as a top defense official in the Biden administration, said he had worked with Bitar “in various capacities for over a decade, and know him to be a thoughtful and talented national security professional.”

“When we agree and when we disagree — and we do both — Maher has always been dedicated to pursuing smart, strategic, productive policy in the national interest,” Shapiro told JI. “I am confident we will continue to have a productive dialogue. And I completely reject the prejudiced attacks against him based on his Palestinian-American identity.”

In an unsolicited statement shared by a spokesperson for Schiff, the senator said Bitar “has been devoted to addressing the country’s most complex foreign policy challenges while upholding our values and protecting America’s national security interests.”  

“In this new role with National Security Action, I know Maher will continue to provide the great insights and leadership we need to get through these turbulent times,” Schiff told JI.

Joel Rubin, a progressive strategist involved in Jewish and pro-Israel causes, acknowledged what he called a “freak-out” among some Jewish leaders over Bitar, but expressed optimism that the new NSA head would be open to constructive dialogue on a divisive issue.

“As long as multiple voices are included at the table, and I have no reason to believe they won’t be, this is the reality of the Democratic Party,” said Rubin, who is releasing a new book on Democratic foreign policy this week. 

Michael Makovsky, the president and CEO of the hawkish Jewish Institute for National Security of America, said, “Given the recent anti-Israel statements and actions of possible Democratic presidential candidates, even historically pro-Israel ones such as Rahm” Emanuel “and centrist former officials like Jake Sullivan, it will be interesting to see if the big tent the organization says it’s seeking will include real pro-Israel voices.”

NSA is also hiring an associate director for polling and outreach to “support its work advancing a smart, principled vision of U.S. foreign policy, while pushing back on the Trump administration’s reckless national security policies,” according to a job listing posted to its website.

The group’s previous executive director, Caroline Tess, a former National Security Council official in the Obama administration, stepped down in 2025.

The Jewish Democratic Council of America is not ready to endorse Graham Platner, the controversial presumptive Democratic nominee in Maine’s Senate race, said Halie Soifer, the group’s CEO.

“We won’t support a Democrat who doesn’t represent the views and values of the vast majority of American Jews,” Soifer said in a statement. “JDCA has endorsed more than 120 candidates across the country who are fighting for the issues Jewish Americans care about and standing against antisemitism. It’s those many Democrats who have our backs, and we’ll have theirs as they work to defeat Republicans aligned with this White House whose views are antithetical to our values.”

Soifer additionally told The Forward on Thursday that Platner’s record of incendiary past comments and personal controversies are “reasons for concern” about his candidacy, saying that the far-left insurgent would first need to clarify his views to receive possible consideration from the group.

Reached by Jewish Insider on Thursday, Soifer confirmed JDCA’s position on the race but declined to comment further.

JDCA, a leading Jewish Democratic group, typically endorses most Democrats in major federal races, especially closely contested ones like the Senate seat in Maine.

The group had backed Maine Gov. Janet Mills in the June primary to unseat Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). But Mills, the establishment favorite, said Thursday that she was suspending her campaign due to a lack of financial resources, clearing the way for Platner to secure the nomination in a race viewed by Democratic leaders as key to regaining control of the upper chamber.

Previously, JDCA had expressed criticism of Platner after it was revealed that he had a Nazi tattoo on his chest for nearly two decades. He has since removed the tattoo and claimed he was unaware of its links to Nazism until recently, even as a former acquaintance told JI that he had long known the icon represented a skull-and-crossbones known as a Totenkopf, adopted by an infamous SS unit.

“Hateful rhetoric and Nazi symbols must have no place in the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, or anywhere in our politics,” JDCA said last year after JI’s report. “Under any and all circumstances, it must be unacceptable to glorify Nazis or Nazism. Period.”

Platner’s hostile approach to Israel and demonization of AIPAC have also faced scrutiny among mainstream Jewish leaders at the state and national levels. 

He has repeatedly accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza and called for blocking U.S. aid to the Jewish state. In a past Reddit post recently uncovered by JI, the Marine veteran voiced admiration for Hamas’ tactics in a violent raid into Israel in 2014.

JDCA’s reservations over Platner’s campaign reflect ongoing discomfort among both Democratic and nonpartisan Jewish organizations that are now reckoning with the implications of his popularity in spite of the tattoo and other issues he has weathered.

The Anti-Defamation League as well as Maine’s Jewish federation have also raised concerns about Platner’s tattoo and past comments.

Platner, for his part, has pledged to engage further with the Jewish community, recently hosting a Seder in Maine that included the state chair of J Street, the progressive Israel advocacy group.

A spokesperson for J Street did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday night about whether it would endorse Platner’s campaign.

The Senate rejected for the sixth time an effort from Democrats to force the Trump administration to halt the war in Iran — with the vote once again falling largely along party lines. 

The vote was the last before the conflict approaches the 60-day mark outlined in the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires the executive to seek congressional approval for continuing hostilities or draw down U.S. forces. 

“After 60 days of war, it is long past time for Republicans to hold Donald Trump accountable,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said in a statement released prior to the vote. “Some of my colleagues have indicated that the War Powers Act’s 60-day mark is the moment they may join our efforts to bring this war to its conclusion. That time has come.” 

The latest resolution, sponsored by Schiff and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), failed by a measure of 50-47. Sens. Jerry Moran (R-KS), Patty Murray (D-WA) and Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) did not vote. 

Sens. John Fetterman (D-PA), Rand Paul (R-KY) and Susan Collins (R-ME) voted with the opposition party. This was the first time in which Collins sided with the Democrats on the war powers votes.

“As I have said since these hostilities with Iran began, the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief is not without limits,” Collins said in a statement following the vote. “Further military action against Iran must have a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close. I voted to end the continuation of these military hostilities at this time until such a case is made.”

Collins added that the 60-day war powers deadline is “not a suggestion; it is a requirement.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said he was not surprised by Collins, noting that “she has been saying the 60-day clock is significant for her.”

He added that for him: “We haven’t reached the 60 days. That’s why I voted the way I voted.” However, Hawley said that he wants “to see an end to the war.”

Senate Republicans have told Jewish Insider they expect the White House to abide by the law and provide notification of a 30-day extension to Congress, which is permitted to ensure a safe withdrawal. However, the administration has not yet indicated publicly whether it will seek that extension or continue offensive operations, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday that the 60-day clock was “paused” during the ongoing ceasefire.

As the deadline approaches, a growing rift is emerging among Senate Republicans over whether to support an Authorization of Use of Military Force. 

“I would hope it wouldn’t come to that,” Hawley said of the White House potentially extending the conflict past the 60-day mark. “I think the administration has tried to remain within the statute.” Hawley has said that should the conflict extend past the deadline with no further action from the White House that he would debate an AUMF, but said he would prefer not to support authorizing a war he wants to see “wind down.” 

Hawley said he would “welcome further communication from the White House.”

Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) also said he expects that the White House will “communicate” and “make a very strong legal argument.” He also noted that he believes the administration has “followed the War Powers Act provision so far in a very careful way.”

Young said that should an AUMF be necessary, he could see himself voting for a “properly structured authorization.” 

“That’s been my position throughout this exercise,” Young said, referring to the recent slate of war powers votes. “My hope would be that if we went down that road, we’d work with the administration to draft a properly scoped authorization for the use of military force.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) said he is “not ready to commit to anything.”

“I want to make sure that we continue to get classified information on a timely basis from the Pentagon,” Rounds said. “I think today we had a very good classified setting with a lot of good information being provided. I think they [the White House] did a good job of sharing their point of view on it. So we’re moving in a good direction.” 

Asked whether he believes anything would change at the 60-day deadline, Rounds replied: “I have no reason to believe that’s the case right now.” 

Rounds said he believes a path forward between the U.S. and Iran will be “extremely difficult without regime change.”

“But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t hope for an agreement with this particular regime under very strict observations by outside forces to make sure that they adhere to any agreements we make,” Rounds added. 

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said that while he thinks the current war is “unwise” and “illegal,” he said that if Congress “were to pass an AUMF in both houses it would stop being illegal.”

“I would stop critiquing it as an illegal war if they [Congress] passed an AUMF,” Kaine said. 

Kaine said he expects that another war powers vote “will come up right after [Congress adjourns for] recess.” 

“I think the testimony this morning shows they [the White House] know they got a 60-day problem,” Kaine said, referring to Hegseth’s remarks at the hearing.

Rounds, who serves on the Senate Armed Services committee, said that he would need to “go back and do a good review of that particular” remark.

“We’re in the middle of it,” Rounds said. “Once I have a chance to actually go through it myself then I’ll have a comfort level. I’m not going to disagree with him [Hegseth] at this stage.”

During a meeting on the 2027 funding bill for the Department of State, several Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee pushed, ultimately unsuccessfully, for the committee to adopt new conditions on the $3.3 billion in U.S. military aid allocated for Israel annually in the bill.

Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) introduced an amendment which would have prevented the use of U.S. funded-weapons to expand settlements or damage or destroy “homes, schools, farms, orchards or other civilian property” in the West Bank or Gaza, but ultimately withdrew it. Israel has routinely targeted Hamas operatives hiding in a range of civilian locations throughout Gaza.

Though he withdrew the amendment before requesting a vote, several progressive Democrats spoke in favor of it, most notably Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), who is set to be the chair of the Appropriations Committee should Democrats retake the House in November.

The amendment “would require the United States to live up to our obligations under international law,” DeLauro argued, condemning settlement expansion as “annexation of the West Bank … happening before our very eyes.”

Destructions of Palestinian homes in the West Bank “are part of a strategy to destroy the possibility of a two-state solution,” she continued.

“This amendment would recognize the United States’ obligation under international law, which is at a minimum to cease support for Israel’s illegal settlement policies,” she said. “But there are impacts at home as well. The more the U.S. ignores lawless actions, turns a blind eye to the violations of Palestinian territory and sovereignty, the more that our credibility and influence erodes on the global stage.”

Rep. Lois Frankel (D-FL), the ranking member of the subcommittee responsible for State Department funding, did not offer a definitive stance on the bill, but indicated her opposition, praising Quigley repeatedly for withdrawing it.

“This has obviously become a contentious situation. I myself am a strong supporter of the security of Israel, of the people who live there, and also decency to innocent people who live nearby,” Frankel said. “I respect your offering [the amendment] and willingness to withdraw.”

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), the subcommittee chair, emphasized Hamas’ use of human shields in Gaza and placement of terror infrastructure under schools, hospitals and United Nations facilities, and noted that U.S. aid to Israel is already subject to global human rights conditions.

“These other conditions, additional conditions, are totally unnecessary. I think they’re totally inappropriate to one of our closest allies that is under serious threat right now,” he continued.

Quigley introduced a second amendment allocating at least $400 million for rebuilding civilian infrastructure in Gaza, which failed by a vote of 32-25.

The explanatory report accompanying the committee’s draft 2027 funding bill for the State Department, also released this week, includes multiple passages that offer veiled and overt criticism of U.S. allies for failing to assist in the U.S. operations against Iran, a gripe shared by President Donald Trump.

One section “strongly encourages longstanding allies and partners to work with the United States to help secure freedom of navigation within critical sea lanes, including the Strait of Hormuz,” and another “condemns the decision by the Government of Spain” to deny the U.S. use of its bases and airspace for operations against Iran.

The full bill includes various new provisions aimed at securing accountability for United Nations Relief and Works Agency staff’s involvement in the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel, and ties to Hamas. The explanatory report accompanying the bill expands upon such efforts.

It condemns the United Nations for providing “ongoing protection” to former U.N. staff involved in the Oct. 7 attacks, and highlights that the State Department inspector general has sought information from organizations operating in Gaza about their staffing and relationships with Hamas, but such requests have at times been ignored.

It requires that funding to any entity be suspended if the entity fails to comply within 90 days with a request for information from a U.S. inspector general. It emphasizes that the “committee expects” that anyone employed by a U.S.-funded group who is a member of a terrorist organization, or any group that knowingly employed such individuals, “shall be referred expeditiously for the appropriate criminal and administrative remedies.”

And it urges the administration to use U.S. influence and power at the U.N. to push other countries to defund UNRWA, and to identify other aid mechanisms.

It instructs the administration to assess whether international organizations’ anti-Israel bias arises from specific actions by member states or “systemic behavior” within the organizations, and to assess “institutional practices” that might undermine neutrality toward Israel, such as hiring individuals known to be prejudiced against Israel or accepting information provided by Hamas while rejecting information provided by Israel.

It also calls for an assessment of the U.N.’s progress in implementing efforts to combat antisemitism and recommendations on how such efforts can improve.

The report raises concerns about Turkey’s relationship with Hamas, demanding a briefing to Congress on such ties. And it blocks U.S. funding to South Africa until the South African government stops cooperating with U.S. adversaries, additionally condemning the country for its anti-Israel advocacy on the international stage.

The bill proposes a marginal increase in funding for the office of the State Department’s special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, from $2.6 million in 2026 up to $2.75 million. It  again urges the State Department to increase full-time staffing within the office.

The explanatory report offers support for the State Department’s Global Guidelines for Countering Antisemitism, and urges the department to expand efforts to promote those guidelines globally.

It further expresses concern about rising antisemitism in Latin America, particularly by elected officials, and calls on the State Department to engage with regional leaders to combat it.

The bill allocates $37.5 million for the Nita Lowey Middle East Partnership for Peace Act designed to promote Israeli-Palestinian people-to-people ties, level with 2026; allocates $55 million for the Near East Regional Democracy program, which promotes civil society and democracy in Iran, as well as directing the administration to consult with Congress on expanding internet access in Iran; keeps consistent funding at $3 million for U.S.-Israel development partnerships in third countries; holds funding for Israeli-Arab scientific partnerships level at $7 million; and offers a substantial increase in funding for the Middle East Partnership Initiative from $20 million to $50 million.

It also allocates $4 million in U.S. military aid for Bahrain.

The report condemns the U.N. General Assembly for passing, in a previous year, a resolution upgrading the Palestinians’ status at the U.N.

The report urges the further expansion of the Abraham Accords, calling the “urgent need” for further normalization “more apparent than ever” following Oct. 7. It calls for additional “dedicated resources” to implement U.S.-driven normalization efforts. It instructs the Department of State to “ensure resources are available” to implement and expand on normalization agreements, and to consult with Congress on these efforts.

The report instructs the administration to report to Congress every 90 days on progress in implementing the 20-point peace plan for Gaza — an effort that has been hampered by Hamas’ refusal to disarm — as well as to brief Congress on the Board of Peace.

It asks the administration to provide information to lawmakers on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign targeting Israel, including companies, international organizations, countries, sovereign investment funds and other entities promoting or engaging in BDS, and steps that the administration is taking to “discourage or end” such policies.

It further directs the administration to “expand vetting policies and practices” to ensure no U.S. aid is provided to entities that engage in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, glorify violence or support efforts to target Israel or the U.S. at the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice.

The report further instructs the State Department to report to Congress on the effectiveness of Iran sanctions and current Iranian revenue streams — as well as to allocate an additional $2 million to enforce and implement Iran sanctions; report on efforts to end the Palestinian Authority’s prisoner payments program; report on the status of religious and ethnic minorities in Syria; report on the Iranian and Iranian proxy presence in Latin America; and report on the production and distribution of the narcotic Captagon by Hezbollah and other adversaries.

It also urges the administration to “prioritize partnerships” with educational institutions that support U.S.-Israel engagement, and instructs it to make funds available to support humanitarian needs in Israel stemming from Iranian and Iran-backed attacks and to provide funding to historical preservation projects in Israel such as the City of David.

All five of Pennsylvania’s living former governors, both Republicans and Democrats, released a statement on Monday calling on state officials to prioritize the safety and security of Gov. Josh Shapiro. 

The bipartisan letter comes days after Pennsylvania Treasurer Stacy Garrity — Shapiro’s leading Republican opponent in this year’s gubernatorial race — said the state would not pay for security upgrades at Shapiro’s private home.

“Combatting political violence and keeping our elected officials safe should always be nonpartisan and a priority,” Democratic former Govs. Tom Wolf and Ed Rendell wrote in a statement with GOP former Govs. Tom Corbett, Mark Schweiker and Tom Ridge.

The security upgrades were already made to Shapiro’s privately-owned family home in Abington, outside of Philadelphia, following the arson attack on the state-owned governor’s mansion in Harrisburg last year. State Police said such upgrades were necessary because Shapiro and his family lived in their private home while repairs were undertaken at the governor’s mansion after the fire.

Shapiro and prosecutors have said that the attack, which occurred on the first night of Passover, was antisemitic in nature, citing the perpetrator’s targeting of Shapiro over his stance on Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza.

The former governors did not specifically mention Garrity, though they did refer directly to the “unspeakable attack” that occurred at the governor’s residence while he and his family were asleep. 

“For us, the attack on Pennsylvania’s First Family was particularly upsetting,” the governors wrote. “In the aftermath of that attack we ask the state’s current leaders and legislators to make the safety and security of the governor and his family a priority.” 

Garrity told reporters last Thursday that the state’s procurement rules don’t allow public funds to be used to pay for construction work on property that is not state-owned, SpotlightPA reported. 

Garrity insisted she was not motivated by politics, saying she calls “balls and strikes here at Treasury.”

A spokesperson for Shapiro said last week that Garrity’s announcement was “a completely unprecedented and shameful political action without legal basis.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), one of just seven Senate Democrats to vote last week against resolutions to block U.S. arms sales to Israel, said that he wants to maintain and restore bipartisan support for Israel.

“An overriding goal that has been one of my most profound concerns since coming to the United States Senate is to preserve bipartisan support for Israel,” Blumenthal told Jewish Insider in a brief interview on Wednesday. “I partnered with [former Sen.] John McCain (R-AZ) on traveling to the Middle East and to Israel a number of times. He believed powerfully, as I do, that the cause of Israel’s security has to be bipartisan, and I will adhere to that goal as long as I’m in this body.”

Asked how that support on the Democratic side can be restored, he said that he doesn’t have a silver bullet, but he’s “going to work at it every day,” reaching out to colleagues on both sides of the aisle, even those who disagree with him, to work on the issue and travel to the region.

“I will take advantage of every opportunity to make sure that we are as bipartisan as possible, and I resent and oppose anyone who tries to use Israel as a wedge issue politically,” he said. “We need to make decisions on the merits of our own national interests and security.”

He said that he has family in Israel and in the IDF, but his support for Israel comes from it being one of the U.S.’ closest allies and the U.S.-Israel relationship being “vital to our own national security” through military cooperation, intelligence sharing and technological, academic and educational cooperation.

“My argument to my colleagues is that Israel is an ally in a dangerous world,” he continued.

He said he’s also working “fervently” toward normalizing relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, a goal he said was “very close” prior to the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks.

“But it’s a very powerful, long-range dynamic that serves everyone’s interests, including our own,” Blumenthal said, describing normalization as an issue that “could bring us together again, to more robust bipartisan support.”

Asked during a Tuesday press conference about the anti-Israel shift in the Democratic Party, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), another one of the seven Democrats who opposed the effort to block weapons sales, pivoted to discussing the war in Iran.

“Our caucus is united and focused on ending the war in Iran,” Schumer responded.

For the fifth time, the Senate rejected an effort by Democrats to force the administration to end the war in Iran, with the partisan battle lines on the issue remaining firmly unchanged from previous iterations of the vote.

“Democrats will continue to force votes on war powers resolutions every week until Republicans decide to put the American people over Donald Trump and end this war,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said ahead of the vote. 

The vote failed 51-46, with Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and David McCormick (R-PA) not voting, and Sens. John Fetterman (D-PA) and Rand Paul (R-KY) voting with the opposing party.

Democrats have already introduced eight other similar resolutions that will be eligible for votes in the coming days and weeks, giving them plenty of runway to continue such efforts for the foreseeable future.

In the House, Reps. Greg Meeks (D-NY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) also introduced new war powers resolutions on Iran, after previous efforts narrowly failed. The Congressional Progressive Caucus reportedly plans to force votes on such resolutions frequently next month.

Though they haven’t broken openly with the president, dynamics for at least some Senate Republicans could begin to shift toward the end of the month; under the War Powers Act, the administration can only carry on military operations without congressional approval for 60 days, with an additional 30-day drawdown period.

Though some Republicans have said Congress and the administration should disregard that deadline, others say that some form of action will be necessary at that point, and some hope that the war will be over before then.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) who has been working with other senators on crafting an Authorization for Use of Military Force on the war, told Jewish Insider on Wednesday, “we’ve been having some good conversations, and we’re going to continue them.” She said the goal of the AUMF is to have “greater disclosure, greater transparency” about the war.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said earlier this week, ahead of the U.S. extension of the ceasefire, that he believed the president was “trending in a direction of ‘let’s end this without further involvement, including even further strikes’” and said that he hopes the war is over before the 60-day mark.

He told JI that he hasn’t been working with Murkowski on her AUMF, but said that the effort “makes sense since we’re approaching the 60-day deadline.”

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) told JI he would “give the administration the benefit of the doubt that they will respond accordingly, in compliance with that” 60-day deadline “and if not, then we’ll have to have some discussions” around further congressional involvement through an AUMF or other avenue.

Still, other Republicans seem comfortable overlooking the 60-day deadline.

“I think the president has the authority to protect us, so we should let the president protect us,” Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) said.

Amid the downbeat assessment of Israel’s political standing in the U.S., two new polls that came out last week suggest that the Jewish state still can rely on a sizable, if largely Republican, constituency of support.

The biggest takeaway from these two new polls — one commissioned by NBC News and one conducted by the respected GOP firm Echelon Insights — is that Israel has become a partisan issue, with Democrats turning decidedly against the Jewish state while Republicans have become strongly supportive.

All told, the polls show the public evenly divided over Israel, with the splits largely along party, ideological and generational lines. The results indicate President Donald Trump’s embrace of the Jewish state has caused Democrats to take an instinctively more negative view — in a continuation of how politics has generally operated in the Trump era.

Echelon Insights, which surveyed 1,022 respondents from March 12-16, found 44% of respondents held a favorable view of Israel, while 38% held an unfavorable view. While Israel’s plus-6 net favorability score is nothing to write home about, the results are noticeably better than a recent Pew Research Center poll that drew outsized attention for finding Israel’s net favorability rating at a dismal minus-23 (37/60%).

The Echelon poll found support was highest for Israel among the most conservative voters, with 72% of “very conservative” voters viewing the Jewish state favorably, while 61% of “somewhat conservative” respondents said the same. Moderates broke evenly, with 40% viewing Israel favorably and 39% unfavorably.

But among “somewhat liberal” respondents, support for Israel dropped noticeably, with just 31% viewing the Jewish state favorably and 55% unfavorably. And among the “very liberal” voters, only 14% viewed Israel favorably and 70% unfavorably — a worse favorability rating than Iran and China. 

The Echelon survey found the same general splits within both parties: Republicans under 50 were significantly less supportive of Israel than their older counterparts, with 44% viewing it favorably and 33% unfavorably. By contrast, 78% of Republicans over 50 gave Israel positive marks. 

Similarly, there was a sizable minority of Democrats over 50 (33%) who viewed Israel favorably, compared to the smaller share of under-50 Democrats (17%) who said the same. 

The NBC poll, conducted by SurveyMonkey between March 30-April 13, framed its question about Israel in a different way, asking respondents whether they were more sympathetic to Israelis or Palestinians. The poll found an even 50-50% split on the question.

The groups that were most sympathetic to Palestinians were Democrats (75% viewed Palestinians more favorably, 25% Israelis) and Gen Zers (74%/26%). 

Rep.-elect Analilia Mejia (D-NJ) cruised to victory in last Thursday’s special election for New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District, but the results showed notable defections among Jewish Democrats — an early warning sign for both the left-wing Mejia and her party.

Mejia ran significantly behind other recent Democratic candidates in two municipalities that have traditionally strongly favored Democrats — Livingston Township and Millburn Township — both areas with significant Jewish populations. In Millburn, Mejia lagged 22 percentage points behind former Vice President Kamala Harris’ performance in the 2024 presidential election, and 17 percentage points behind Harris in Livingston.

Dan Cassino, the director of the Fairleigh Dickinson University Poll, said that, given that Livingston favored Democrats by 34 percentage points but Mejia won it by just two, “you could count [that] as a 32-point underperformance.”

Joe Hathaway, the GOP nominee against Mejia, worked during his campaign to attract Jewish voters, casting himself as a moderate centrist and Mejia as an antisemitic extremist.

Jeff Grayzel, the deputy mayor of Morris Township who ran in the Democratic primary against Mejia, said that the special election presented an “actual Sophie’s choice” for Jewish Democrats.

“Some Jews surely voted for her because of their anger with President [Donald] Trump. But many Jewish Democrats I spoke to refused to support Mejia because of her genocide position,” Grayzel, who had hoped to rally support from Jewish voters across the district in the primary, said. Mejia accused the Jewish state of genocide shortly after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel.

“So some Jewish Democrats voted for Hathaway, which was evidenced by the result in Livingston, and others simply stayed home,” Grayzel continued. “We will see from voter turnout data how many Jews actually sat out this election. Unfortunately, our voice is our vote, and declining to vote will only hurt the Jewish community in the long run.”

Jason Shames, the CEO of the Jewish Federation of Northern New Jersey, said “it’s disappointing to see someone representing New Jersey or any district in America who not only doesn’t fight antisemitism but seemingly aligns with those who delegitimize Israel. Her comments on Israel’s self defense to the horrific terror attack by Palestinians [are] alarming and should not be dismissed.”

Cassino said that while Mejia outperformed other Democrats who have run in this district, she “did slightly worse than we would have expected from a generic Democrat in the special election,” given that the environment strongly favored Democrats.

Cassino said that it’s a “reasonable hypothesis” that attacks on Mejia’s stance on Middle East policy drove Democrats in Millburn and Livingston to vote for Hathaway.

“I would be really cautious, though, about saying that her stance on Palestine, or any other issue, cost her any particular number of votes, because all of these numbers are conditional on turnout,” he added, noting that all of the voters who turned out for Mejia might not have turned out for a different Democratic candidate.

Cassino said that strategists are likely to read the results to mean that attacks on Mejia’s stance on Israel were effective.

“Maybe the most important thing here is that strategists — Democrats and Republicans alike — are going to look at these results and conclude that the attacks on Mejia worked, and ramp them up in November,” he added. “They’re also likely to try and use them against any candidate where they might plausibly stick. So, I hope voters liked those ads, because they’re going to be seeing a lot more of them.”

Micah Rasmussen, the director of the Rebovich Institute of New Jersey Politics at Rider University, said that the apparent protest votes in the Jewish community “could … matter in a different election,” but this time, “Mejia picked up other votes in their place.”

“A lot is being made about these 900 or so votes, and I want to be balanced about how I see them. Yes, they were certainly noticeable. Yes, you can never take any voting bloc for granted,” Rasmussen added. “But electoral coalitions do shift. What can’t be denied is that Mejia’s current margin of 19.5 percent is larger than any other candidate for federal or statewide office since [former Rep.] Rodney Frelinghuysen’s (D-NJ) 25.2 percent win over Mark Dunec in 2014.”

The Democratic shift on Israel policy was on full, dramatic display on the Senate floor on Wednesday night as 40 of 47 Senate Democrats voted for at least one of two resolutions to block U.S. shipments of bulldozers and bombs to Israel.

The votes left many pro-Israel Democrats shocked and disillusioned — exemplified in the muted statements, if any, on the vote from key pro-Israel groups — and is being seen by some as the marker of a new era of Democratic policy on Israel, in which critics of Israel are firmly in the party mainstream.

“It’s yet another data point that the bipartisan consensus [in support of Israel] is, at least at the moment, no longer,” a former Biden administration official told Jewish Insider on Thursday. “Democrats think it’s politically advantageous to take these votes that would have been completely out-of-bounds just two-and-a-half years ago. … It’s deeply concerning if you care about the relationship, if you care about the security of [Israel]. But that’s the state of play at the moment, I think until or unless there’s an event that changes the trajectory.”

Abe Foxman, the former head of the Anti-Defamation League, said the vote highlights the “progressive socialist wing” of the Democratic Party’s increasing takeover. “This is a calamity for the Democratic Party, if it will not be contained and stopped,” Foxman told JI. “What’s also disturbing to me is that this litmus test is being first administered to every Jewish candidate.”

He added that the votes send a terrible message to U.S. allies beyond Israel that the U.S. can’t be relied upon.

Pro-Israel Democrats who spoke to JI said the votes came about as a combination of several factors: They served as a proxy for the war in Iran that nearly all Democrats oppose, but also were a signal of opposition to Israel’s operations in Lebanon, settler attacks and settlement expansion in the West Bank, the war in Gaza and — to a substantial degree — the Democratic enmity that has been growing for years toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his government and his alignment with President Donald Trump and Republicans.

And lawmakers are also responding to the growing progressive pressure, fueled by two years of imagery from the war in Gaza, amplified by social media platforms that boosted antisemitic content, that has changed the politics around Israel in a “really dramatic way” in the Democratic Party, the former Biden administration official said.

“Those [resolutions], at this moment in time, were just a proxy for real discomfort with the direction of the Trump-Netanyahu relationship in this war, which is not the right reason to vote for these,” another former Biden administration official told JI. “I understand the [vote to block] bulldozers at this moment in time. [Withholding] the munitions — I think it’s really, really troubling.”

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), an early supporter of efforts to block weapons sales to Israel, said that the growing opposition can’t be blamed solely on Netanyahu. “I also think it’s watching how the weapons are used,” Kaine told reporters. “I think the observation of how the weapons are used is probably a little bit more the reason that the vote total is going up than a feeling about the domestic politics of Israel.”

Some pro-Israel Democrats say that the impact and meaning of the votes shouldn’t be overstated, and that there remains a sizable pro-Israel Democratic contingent, even including some of the lawmakers who voted for the resolutions on Wednesday.

“There were pro-Israel senators, and senators who are close partners and allies of the Jewish community, on both sides of this vote last night,” Halie Soifer, the CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, said. “This didn’t occur in a vacuum, and it’s not necessarily driven by anti-Israel, and certainly not antisemitic, views. It also doesn’t necessarily represent a wholesale shift in the Democratic Party. It’s a snapshot of where we are in this moment as it relates to these particular arms sales and this particular Israeli government and its policies. But I have no doubt that there’s the chance that that will change in the future.”

Soifer said that she and JDCA didn’t support the resolutions, but emphasized that some of the Democrats who voted for the resolutions said in their statements that they remain strong supporters of Israel. And she said JDCA doesn’t view the votes as “inherently anti-Israel” or necessarily an expression of alignment with the far left.

She called the vote on the bulldozers, which received 40 supporters, a particularly potent “symbolic message” — many Democrats associate the machines with the destruction of Palestinian homes and expansion of settlements in the West Bank. But she said it was something of an “anomaly” as compared to previous efforts to block systems such as bomb guidance kits.

“It’s a challenging time where both things are true at once: You do have an increased number of Democrats who are supporting these [resolutions], and you also still continue to have a majority of Democrats who support the U.S.-Israel security relationship,” Soifer said.

A common refrain in conversations with those in the Democratic pro-Israel world after the votes — and even before then — was that the end of Netanyahu’s premiership would provide a critical opening and opportunity to start rebuilding support for Israel among Democrats.

Kaine said that a change in the Israeli government would lead lawmakers to step back and analyze the potential implications, but said it wouldn’t necessarily bring sweeping changes. “I don’t think the 40 [Democrats voting for the resolutions] is baked in, I also don’t think it will immediately change.”

But a Netanyahu defeat in this year’s Israeli elections is far from a sure thing. So what happens if Netanyahu wins again? “I think it will be very difficult for Democrats to hold any center on support for Israel,” one former Biden administration official said.

The other former Biden administration official said that the intense anti-Israel pressure on Democrats would likely fade if Middle East policy issues are out of the headlines on a day-to-day basis. They further argued that the 2028 primaries will be an “inflection point,” on both sides of the aisle.

And they said that the Jewish community, particularly the non-Orthodox community, needs to be more organized and active locally and on a grassroots level in advocating for their representatives to be supportive of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Foxman said he hopes to see more Democratic lawmakers — naming Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) specifically — standing up directly to the anti-Israel wing of the party, just as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has spoken out against antisemitism on the right.

With opposition to weapons systems for Israel apparently firmly within the mainstream, we wrote earlier this week about the emerging progressive push to cut off U.S. support for Israel’s missile-defense systems as well.

Asked whether he takes a similar view, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the lead driver of the Senate votes, did not directly respond. “Let’s take one thing at a time. Right now, I think we made progress yesterday,” he told JI.

Kaine took a firmer stance in support of missile-defense aid, calling those who want to cut it off “a tiny minority,” especially in the Senate. He noted that no Democrats have offered similar resolutions to block defensive systems, and that other weapons sales to Israel have gone entirely unchallenged — though he acknowledged that the distinction between offensive and defensive weapons can be fuzzy at times.

One of the former Biden administration officials warned that opposing missile-defense support is a “totally unproductive, terrible” policy — not just for Israel, but also sending a message to allies around the world that the U.S. can’t be relied upon to follow through for its partners.

Saying that funding to protect synagogues and other religious-based nonprofits “has not kept pace to meet the moment,” 41 senators — almost entirely Democrats — wrote to leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee urging members to provide $750 million in funding for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program in 2027.

That figure amounts to a substantial increase in funding over current levels, as well as over Senate lawmakers’ request from last year.

The program was funded in 2025 at $274.5 million, which has not yet been disbursed, and the still-stalled 2026 Homeland Security funding bill includes $300 million for the program. Yet, in 2024, the program fulfilled just 43% of requests, even with additional funding provided through a national security supplemental bill that year. Jewish and interfaith groups, as well as House lawmakers, have been pushing for up to $1 billion for the program.

Last year, 33 senators requested $500 million for the program, a record-high request at the time. This year’s request represents a new high-water mark, both in terms of the funding requested and the number of lawmakers who signed the bipartisan letter in support.

“The threat of violence is unfortunately increasing at places of worship across our country at alarming rates. In the past few years, there has been an increase in hoax bomb threats and attacks against houses of worship that are intended to interrupt services and intimidate worshippers. In particular, there has been an increase in antisemitic incidents across the country following the October 7th attack on Israel,” the senators wrote. “Nationwide, there have been countless acts of violence against religious communities.”

The lawmakers also urged the Appropriations Committee to “maintain separate line-items for this program,” amid reports that the administration has been pushing to convert Federal Emergency Management Agency grant programs, under which NSGP falls, into a broad state-by-state block grant.

The administration also called for cuts to non-emergency FEMA grants, a category that includes NSGP, without making any specific line-item request for the NSGP.

“[F]unding has not kept pace to meet the moment,” the lawmakers added, highlighting a litany of attacks on religious institutions and the funding shortages in 2024.

The letter was led by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), James Lankford (R-OK), Gary Peters (D-MI) and Jacky Rosen (D-NV). Only two Republicans other than Lankford joined the effort: Sens. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Josh Hawley (R-MO).

“As we continue to work with Congress to secure Jewish communities, the bipartisan consensus in the Senate around $750 million for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program is a monumental step toward our community’s $1 billion goal,” Eric Fingerhut, the CEO of the Jewish Federations of North America, said. “At a time of rising antisemitism and an escalating security crisis facing vulnerable communities across the country, demand continues to far outpace available funding.” 

Fingerhut said that JFNA plans to bring Jewish activists from across the country to lobby Congress on the issue next month “and urge them to act with urgency and resolve to ensure at-risk institutions have the resources they need before the next incident, not after.”

Lauren Wolman, the Anti-Defamation League’s senior director of government relations and strategy, said, “At a time of sustained and evolving threats, this program remains a critical lifeline for houses of worship and nonprofit institutions working to protect their communities. Demand continues to far outpace available resources, and we urge Congress to ensure funding levels reflect the reality on the ground.”

Nathan Diament, the executive director of the Orthodox Union Advocacy Center, said, “The need for increased NSGP funding remains critical. We are thankful to the large bipartisan group of Senators who signed onto this letter.”

“OU Advocacy will keep pressing on all fronts to deliver the funding our Shuls and schools need to stay safe,” Diament continued.

The House narrowly voted to block a Democratic resolution to force an end to the war in Iran by a vote of 214-213-1, with all but one of the four Democrats who opposed a similar effort in March changing their votes to support it on Thursday.

Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, had held off on calling a vote on the resolution in hopes that he would be able to win over enough Democratic holdouts and Republican defectors to pass the legislation.

Reps. Greg Landsman (D-OH), Juan Vargas (D-CA) and Henry Cuellar (D-TX), who voted last month against a similar resolution, flipped their votes to support the war powers effort. But Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME), who is retiring at the end of his term, voted no again.

On the Republican side, Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), who voted for the war powers resolution last time, switched his vote to “present.” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) was the only Republican who voted for the resolution.

A small number of Republicans who have expressed skepticism about the war effort and could have been potential swing votes, including Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Nancy Mace (R-SC), did not vote.

Golden said in a statement that the war powers resolution would “weaken our hand” in negotiations with Iran.

“I believe we must maintain a strong negotiation position over Iran’s nuclear program, freedom of movement in the international waters at the Strait of Hormuz, and how to achieve a durable peace between our two nations,” Golden said in a statement.

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.”

An effort by Senate Democrats to force an end to the war in Iran was again blocked by Republicans on Wednesday, the fourth such failed attempt mounted by Senate Democrats since the war began in late February.

The measure failed by a vote of 52-47, with all Democrats except Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) voting for a procedural motion on the war powers resolution, and all Republicans except Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) voting against it. Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV) was not present for the vote.

Nevertheless, Democrats intend to continue their efforts. They have nine such resolutions that have been filed, and top Senate Democrats said this week they intend to continue forcing such votes weekly, in the hopes that more Republicans will change their votes as the war drags on.

Some Republicans have begun to express hesitation about the war, and top members of the caucus have said they hope it comes to an end soon. But thus far most have not been willing to openly break with President Donald Trump on the effort.

Separately, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) plans to call up a vote later on Wednesday on a pair of measures to block sales of bombs and bulldozers to Israel, which Sanders has also framed as referenda on the war in Iran. Twenty-seven Democrats have previously voted for such resolutions, and supporters of the effort expect that number to increase this time.

But at least one lawmaker, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who introduced a war powers resolution on Iran this week, for future consideration, said that she views the two issues differently.

“I think of them very differently,” Gillibrand told Jewish Insider during a virtual press conference on Wednesday. “I oppose the war in Iran, but I do not believe we should leave an ally who is being attacked without support,” she said, referring to Israel.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) in an interview on the “Pod Save America” podcast praised former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) — once a vocal Omar foe who called for the congresswoman’s deportation while they were both in the House — and far-right influencer Candace Owens over the pair’s break with President Donald Trump.

All three have faced repeated accusations of antisemitism. Owens, in particular, has become a propagator of rampant and often bizarre conspiracy theories, including becoming one of the most prominent antisemitic voices on the right. Greene and Owens have broken with Trump over his continued support for Israel and the war in Iran, among other issues.

“I think as Americans, it is really important for us to work together for the preservation of everything that is good in our country, and to support leaders that we can trust to safeguard what is good of our country,” Omar said, in response to a clip of Greene disavowing Trump on conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ podcast. “And I believe the thing that has been very fascinating, especially about Marjorie and Candace, is that they are not just coming out — like the other ones that you’d mentioned — where they’re saying, ‘This action is wrong,’ right? They’re saying, ‘I am done with you.’”

“We should give them credit for that, the fact that they’ve had this wake up call to finally seeing this con man, this corrupt, chaotic man for what he is,” Omar continued. “I think is an important thing for us to put our arms around and say, ‘Yes, and now let’s figure out, how do we save our country from the disaster that this man is creating?’”

While Omar is not the first Democrat to praise Greene or to suggest that Democrats should be partnering with her, her comments are particularly notable in light of the enmity between the two women while they served in the House together.

Greene, in 2024, sought to censure Omar for allegedly working as a foreign agent on behalf of Somalia, in what Greene described as “treasonous tendencies” in violation of Omar’s oath of office.

“I would love to have her expelled. I’d love to have her deported,” Greene said at the time. “Unfortunately, I don’t think we have the votes to do that.”

Asked about the past opposition that she faced from Greene and others, Omar brushed it off as a product of their “brainwashed” cult-like devotion to Trump and his movement.

“I’m glad, as my fellow Americans, that they understand that, that they want us to chart a new chapter in America,” Omar continued.

Omar said she had approached Greene on the House floor before Greene resigned from Congress to thank her for her advocacy against Israel and opposition to U.S. support for Israel.

Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY) said he’s aiming to call up a war powers resolution this week to force an end to the war in Iran, but that he’s still working to lock down the support of a few wavering Democratic and Republican lawmakers whose support will be necessary to pass the legislation.

Meeks had considered calling up the legislation before Congress’ two-week recess, but ultimately declined to do so, saying he was waiting until the legislation could pass and he didn’t yet have the votes.

“I’m probably going to do war powers this week. I’m still working [on] it. I’m very close,” Meeks told Jewish Insider. “I’ve got just about all of the Democrats — just about — and [some] Republicans. And I have some that are contemplating, but I don’t know what they’re going to do.”

He said that there are a few lawmakers who voted against a previous war powers effort in the House who are talking to him and considering now voting in favor, but haven’t disclosed their final plans to him yet. 

Meeks said that he thinks he will get “just about every Democrat … maybe the exception of one.”

Of the four Democrats who voted against a previous war powers effort, two — Reps. Greg Landsman (D-OH) and Henry Cuellar (D-TX) — said that they would vote for the next war powers resolution, and Cuellar affirmed those plans to JI on Tuesday. Reps. Juan Vargas (D-CA) and Jared Golden (D-ME) haven’t announced their plans yet.

Vargas told JI on Tuesday that he has made up his mind, but declined to preview how he plans to vote. Golden, who is not running for reelection, could be the hardest of the four to flip.

On the Republican side, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), who said she would oppose a supplemental funding request for the war, declined to comment on how she would vote, saying she isn’t currently focused on a potential war powers resolution.

Meeks said that the current ceasefire makes it an important time for Congress to weigh in, and that he may ultimately bring the resolution forward for a vote even if he’s not sure if there are sufficient votes to pass it.

“We don’t know what the president may do or may not do afterwards,” Meeks explained. “I’ve been waiting to get commitments … it may be time for them to get on one side of the fence or the other, as opposed to staying on the fence. I may just do it. I haven’t decided yet, but I may just do it.”

Even if the resolution passes the House, it currently would not pass the Senate and would almost certainly be vetoed by the president. But Meeks argued that passing the resolution in the House would send an important message to the administration anyway.

“I think this is giving a message to the president — and it becomes really important, because the 60 days will be up soon, and they have to come to Congress for the money,” Meeks said, referring to a 60-day deadline for the operation cease or to come to Congress for authorization under the War Powers Act. “And it lets the president know that unless he comes to Congress and lets us know what the plan is, he’s not going to get the money.”

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), who has said the administration hasn’t properly articulated its plans and goals for the war to Congress, told reporters he will “support continued operations until we get this job done, or it’s clear to me it’s fruitless.”

“I support the military campaign. I think some of the commentary has not been helpful from the White House, but yes, I think the military has done a great job,” Bacon said, pointing to the destruction of Iran’s leadership and military capabilities.

He said that an Authorization for Use of Military Force would be legally required to continue the war beyond the 60-day deadline — a point that other Republicans have disputed — but said that he would be “inclined to support” such an authorization.

“Maybe not a blanket one, but yes, I think we should finish the job,” Bacon said. “These guys have been our enemy. These guys have been our enemy, they’ve killed young [U.S. troops].”

Jewish Insider’s Washington reporter Matthew Shea contributed reporting.

At last week’s Democratic National Committee meeting in New Orleans, two resolutions concerning Israel — including one that referred to Israel’s actions as a genocide — were tabled, and punted to a working group tasked with building consensus among Democrats on Middle East-related issues. 

At a time when Democrats appear deeply divided about how to address the U.S.-Israel relationship and Middle East policy more broadly, that’s a tall order. Never mind that the members of the working group include both strongly pro-Israel and staunchly anti-Israel voices, all tasked with working to further a message that will resonate with as many party members as possible. 

“As much as this issue is potentially divisive, I think it’s actually really the purview of a smaller group of activists who want something really radical. I think most Democrats are within what the Democratic platform of 2024 is, and that’s two peoples living in two states, side-by-side in peace,” Adam Goldwyn, a working group member who serves as chair of the North Dakota Democratic Party, told Jewish Insider. 

The Democratic Party’s 2024 platform, authored in the midst of Israel’s war in Gaza and the simultaneous hostage crisis, reflected former President Joe Biden’s support for Israel. But rank-and-file Democrats have shifted away from Israel since then. A recent Pew Research Center poll showed that 80% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have an unfavorable view of Israel, an increase from 69% one year ago, and a growing cadre of Democratic candidates and activists have targeted the pro-Israel group AIPAC as a toxic brand that is not welcome in Democratic politics. 

Even though the DNC is not tasked with rewriting the party platform until 2028, the party’s biannual meetings present opportunities for activists to submit resolutions on any number of topics. Following Democrats’ 2024 defeat, anti-Israel activists — including two who sit on the working group — have put forward resolutions that would attempt to dramatically move the party’s public positioning to the left. 

One, which called for an arms embargo on Israel, was voted down at the party’s summer meeting in August 2025. Another, which criticized AIPAC’s involvement in Democratic primaries, failed to advance at the meeting in New Orleans last week. Allison Minnerly, a DNC member from Florida who authored both of those resolutions, sits on the working group. Another resolution considered last week, which referred to Israel’s actions as a genocide and was written by working group member Joseph Salas, was sent back to the working group for consideration. 

The question facing the group’s members is whether they will actually be able to agree on anything — or if the group is simply a way to push the issue off until 2028, when the party platform is again up for debate. It would not be the first bureaucratic Band-Aid applied to paper over an increasingly fraught political debate. 

“Both young voters who consider themselves vigorously pro-Palestinian, and Jewish voters, who are one of the most loyal groups in the Democratic Party, are not going anywhere,” said Andrew Lachman, a member of the working group who was previously the president of California Jewish Democrats. “Anyone who wants to take an approach of trying to shout one or the other out of the room, I think it’s bad politics. It’s bad for the party, and it’s an unrealistic expectation.” 

“We are working within the framework of the Democratic platform as it is now, so anything which attempts to radically rewrite where the party has been is not something that I personally feel is appropriate,” said Andrew Lachman, a member of the working group who was previously the president of California Jewish Democrats. 

Lachman said he recognized “that the conversation has shifted a little bit in the last couple of years.” But, he added, the party must still be able to find common ground among party members who hold different views on the issue.

“Both young voters who consider themselves vigorously pro-Palestinian, and Jewish voters, who are one of the most loyal groups in the Democratic Party, are not going anywhere,” said Lachman. “Anyone who wants to take an approach of trying to shout one or the other out of the room, I think it’s bad politics. It’s bad for the party, and it’s an unrealistic expectation.” 

DNC Chair Ken Martin created the working group last August, amid controversy surrounding the failed arms embargo resolution. He had put forth his own resolution, which was more balanced, but withdrew it and opted instead to task a group of party activists with litigating the issue.

“I feel like we’ve been a little rudderless,” Steph Newton, an Oregon Democrat who was appointed co-chair of the group, told JI on Friday after the group met in New Orleans. “I’m taking it seriously. I want my kids to be Democrats. I want this party to be safe for my kids in the future.”

“There is a divide in our party on this issue. This is a moment that calls for shared dialogue and calls for shared advocacy,” Martin said in August. He called on the task force “of stakeholders on all sides of this to continue to have the conversation, to work through this, and bring solutions back to our party.”  

Steph Newton, an Oregon Democrat who was appointed co-chair of the group, drafted a charter for the working group that the body is now editing ahead of its next planned meeting later this month. The group was “convened to support the Democratic Party in advancing a just, secure, and lasting peace in the Middle East, while strengthening internal cohesion across perspectives within the Democratic coalition,” the draft charter states, according to a copy shared with JI.

“I feel like we’ve been a little rudderless,” Newton told JI on Friday after the group met in New Orleans. “I’m taking it seriously. I want my kids to be Democrats. I want this party to be safe for my kids in the future.”

She expressed frustration at working group members who had submitted their own resolutions ahead of last week’s meeting. Newton’s goal is for the group to be able to come up with some kind of compromise language that they can all get behind. 

“We got agreement from folks. We said, ‘Hey, it wasn’t cool that you guys went off and did something like this and just submitted something. You should have come to the group,’” said Newton, who also leads the Oregon Democratic Party’s Jewish caucus. “The next thing that’s going to be coming out of this is going to be coming from the working group.”

Her co-chair on the working group is Shad Murib, the chair of the Colorado Democratic Party. Other members include longtime pro-Palestinian activist James Zogby and Deborah Cunningham-Skurnik, a regional director in the California Democratic Party. 

What the working group members can agree on is the shared goal of electing Democrats. A DNC spokesperson told JI that this is the lens through which the working group views its mandate: winning elections.  

“I think certainly there are some people for whom the message is more important than the election,” said Goldwyn, the North Dakota Democrat. “But I think that’s not where most Americans and most DNC members and most voters are.”

The Senate campaign of Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN) is calling on Minnesota’s Democratic Party to launch a formal investigation into a series of alleged instances of antisemitic activity among delegates in the lead-up to its state convention being held at the end of next month.

In a letter sent last week to Richard Carlbom, chair of Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, Craig’s campaign wrote that one of its staffers had received a threatening anonymous phone call last month from a person “believed to be a delegate” who used an ethnic slur for Jews and said that the congresswoman “takes dirty Jewish money.”

The letter, shared exclusively with Jewish Insider, also cited a local DFL organizing convention in late March at which an unnamed delegate allegedly said that “we should nuke” Israel, among other examples of extremist violent rhetoric. 

Mara Kunin, Craig’s campaign manager, said in the letter to state party leadership that such “incidents should be investigated promptly and that the DFL should take appropriate action and make clear that antisemitism in addition to other forms of hate will not be tolerated in our party.”

“Hate in all forms must be called out, whether it comes from the right or the left,” Kunin wrote. “We hope this serves as a necessary wake-up call for the DFL. We urge prompt and decisive action — action that allows the DFL to live up to our shared goal of building a big-tent party rooted in the principles of respect, dignity and integrity.”

In a statement shared with JI, Carlbom said that the DFL “condemns antisemitism and harassment in all forms without reservation,” and called the incidents raised by Craig’s team “disgusting and wrong, full stop.”

“We have responded directly to the Craig campaign, connected them to our Code of Conduct Committee, and encouraged those affected to file a police report,” he continued. “We will enforce our Code of Conduct and hold every leader and member to the standard our party demands. That work is happening and it won’t stop.”

The letter comes as Jewish and pro-Israel Democrats have voiced concerns about growing hostility toward Israel that has overlapped with a creeping extremism among some high-profile party influencers who have gained prominence espousing antisemitic rhetoric.

In Michigan’s Senate race, for example, Hasan Piker, an antisemitic streamer who has praised Hamas, has recently emerged as a flash point in a broader debate about whether Democratic candidates should appear with him publicly or join his show.

The issues raised by Craig’s campaign also dovetail with an uptick in anti-Israel sentiment during state and national party conventions around the country. Last week, at the Democratic National Committee’s meeting in New Orleans, party activists voted down one controversial resolution that criticized AIPAC’s “undue influence” in primary elections, while kicking two other measures to a Middle East working group.

Similar efforts are now poised for consideration at several state conventions in the coming months, including a series of new resolutions introduced by Democratic activists in Texas seeking to formally condemn Israel for alleged genocide while labeling pro-Israel political activity as “foreign interference in U.S. elections.”

In Minnesota, where Craig is facing off against Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan for the DFL endorsement, the party’s convention in late May is expected to feature some divisive resolutions related to Israel as in past years, according to local Jewish community activists familiar with the ongoing preparations.

During a recent local convention among several that take place before the statewide meeting, for instance, one new resolution advocated for removing language from the DFL’s official platform recognizing “Israel’s right to exist within secure borders, Palestinian rights to self-determination, and continued peace efforts in the Middle East.”

“Israel with the full support & shielding of the U.S. Government has conducted an intensification of genocide & ethnic cleansing in the past 2+ years, murdering more than 75,000 Palestinians since October 2023,” the resolution states. “The DFL party cannot claim any sort of morality while providing support to a state that’s founded on and committed to ongoing occupation, apartheid, and genocide. The two-state solution has long been an illusion, and so-called ‘peace’ without justice is not worth supporting.”

The DFL did not return a request for confirmation about the status of the resolution and if it would be taken up at the state convention in its current form.

Manny Houle, a Democratic pro-Israel strategist based in Minnesota, said it was “highly unlikely this divisive verbiage makes it as is to the state ballot at the end of May,” noting “there is an entire other round of editing when it comes to resolutions and most of the greatly divisive platforms are not getting the statewide support needed to make the ballot.”

“However, some sort of floor petition resolution is likely,” he told JI. “In addition there likely will be a resolution, if not multiple, about Middle East peace.”

One local Jewish activist now involved in efforts to oppose such resolutions, speaking on condition of anonymity to address a sensitive matter, predicted “other problematic” measures will also arise at the state convention. “We have been strategizing about how to handle any anticipated nastiness at the state convention this year, likely to arise through ‘debate’ over these resolutions,” the activist told JI, pointing to a DFL Jewish community outreach organization that is seeking to become an official party caucus. 

In the August Senate primary to be held three months after the convention, Craig, a moderate favored by the pro-Israel community, has claimed backing from the party’s establishment wing, while Flanagan is largely coralling progressive support in what is regarded as a proxy fight between opposing Democratic factions.

While AIPAC has not made an endorsement in the race, Craig’s past support from the advocacy group have drawn criticism from activists working to force the party leftward on Israel.

Antoine Givens, a Craig spokesperson, said her team “will continue to make clear that antisemitism and all forms of hate cannot be tolerated in our party,” while referring to the recent alleged incidents of antisemitic behavior among party members.

“Violence and the threat of violence have no place in our politics and no place in the DFL,” he told JI in a statement. “These actions are unacceptable, and it’s on all of us to demand better.”

A group of six additional Senate Democrats plan to file new war powers resolutions this week to halt the war in Iran, a move that would allow Democrats to continue forcing votes on the war for the foreseeable future. 

Previously, a different group of six Democrats introduced similar resolutions, and Democrats have called up two of them thus far, with plans to call up a third this week. So far, the resolutions have all failed along mostly party lines, with all senators remaining consistent in their votes.

The latest group of lawmakers includes Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Raphael Warnock (D-GA) and Andy Kim (D-NJ). 

The array of lawmakers involved in the latest effort spans from staunch progressives and critics of Israel to generally more pro-Israel members. 

“President Trump chose to start a war knowing it was going to raise gas prices on Americans already struggling to get by,” Gillibrand said in a statement. “The president, and his party, just don’t care about anyone other than themselves. They lie, cheat and steal to enrich themselves and leave regular folks with the bill. It is long past time for Republicans in Congress to stand up and do their job.”

House Democrats also plan to call up a war powers resolution this week, which may pass given that some Democrats who previously opposed a war powers effort and a handful of Republicans have indicated they plan to change their votes.

The latest set of six resolutions will not be eligible for floor votes immediately, but Democrats can call up the other four resolutions introduced previously at will. Senate Democrats are also likely to force votes on matters related to the Iran war during the upcoming reconciliation process, which Republicans aim to use to fund immigration enforcement and other priorities.

Top Democrats across both chambers condemned President Donald Trump for threatening that “a whole civilization will die tonight” in Iran, with some pushing for Trump’s immediate removal from office over the threat and his conduct of the war.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and other members of Democratic leadership including Reps. Katherine Clark (D-MA), Pete Aguilar (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Joe Neguse (D-CO) and Suzan DelBene (D-WA), issued a statement calling Trump “unhinged” and saying that he risks bringing the country “into World War III” unless Congress reconvenes to vote to bring the war to an end.

“For years, Republicans have enabled and excused Donald Trump’s deeply dangerous and extreme behavior. Enough is enough,” the leaders said. “Our brave men and women in uniform have been put into harm’s way in the Middle East. Over a dozen have already been killed and hundreds injured. Gas prices are skyrocketing, the cost of living in America is out of control and billions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted on a reckless war of choice.”

In another joint statement, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Brian Schatz (D-HI), who are the top Democrats on several relevant committees and subcommittees, similarly condemned Trump’s comments, saying they indicate an intent to commit war crimes.

“This is not strength. Intentionally destroying the power, water, or basic infrastructure upon which tens of millions of civilians depend to punish the very civilians who suffer at the hands of the Iranian regime would constitute a war crime, a betrayal of the values this nation was founded on, and a moral failure,” the lawmakers said. “It’s unconscionable to threaten the lives of so many people — grandparents, children, families — simply because they were born in Iran.”

They said that Trump’s comment “makes Americans less safe, further destabilizes our nation and economy, and puts at greater risk U.S. service members,” as well as makes a diplomatic solution — ”the only viable solution to this war” — harder to achieve.

In a separate statement, Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also said that Trump’s threat constitutes a war crime and an illegal action under international law which risks tens of millions of Iranian civilians, and potentially catastrophic after-effects.

“At this critical moment, the United States must pursue immediate de-escalation and a coordinated diplomatic strategy with our allies. We cannot allow Iran to simply reset to a dangerous status quo — but the answer is not to threaten war crimes and isolate us from every partner we need to end this conflict,” Meeks said. Trump’s threat is “recklessness that America and the region will pay for long after this president is gone,” he added.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), who prior to the war was one of the few Democrats who said he would oppose a war powers resolution — though he ultimately voted for it after the war began — demanded that the House immediately reconvene for a war powers vote. Moskowitz’s comments are a sign that Trump’s latest comments have crossed a line even for some of the most hawkish Democrats in the House.

“Speaker Johnson must immediately reconvene the House to vote on a war powers resolution. It’s beyond clear we are at war,” Moskowitz said. “The Speaker’s legacy will be that he made Congress so irrelevant that a president can threaten to wipe out a civilization while Congress is on vacation.”

Jeffries said Democrats plan to bring up another war powers resolution to halt the conflict in Iran, which stands a stronger chance of passing than a previous one, when the House returns from its recess. At least some of the Democrats who voted against the previous resolution are expected to support this one, and a small number of additional Republicans may join them.

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), one of four House Democrats who voted against the previous war powers resolution on the war in Iran last month, announced he will now support such an effort because the administration has failed to provide adequate answers about its goals and its exit strategy.

“[W]e must be careful with the language we use. Strength and destruction are not the same,” Cuellar added. “When the United States echoes the rhetoric of its adversaries, we risk weakening the values that have long defined our leadership.”

Several Democrats have described Trump’s comments as a threat to commit genocide.

Trump’s threat has also prompted growing calls from at least 70 House Democrats for his removal from office, either through impeachment or the invocation of the 25th Amendment, which allows the involuntary removal of a president from power if he is mentally or physically unfit to govern.

Sens. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) joined those calls.

“Donald Trump is deranged,” Wyden said. “He must be impeached and removed from office. Republicans who don’t stop him will have blood on their hands, and anyone who carries out an order to bomb civilian targets will be complicit in war crimes and will be held accountable.”

Markey called the president “unstable and a clear and present danger, not just to the American people but to the world” and said he “must be removed from office before he causes incalculable and unfathomable harm.” He said that a war powers resolution to stop the war is now insufficient to address the situation.

A small number of Republicans are also airing concerns with Trump’s threat.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), one of the few Republicans who has been openly skeptical of the war effort in Iran, said that Trump’s threat “cannot be excused away as an attempt to gain leverage in negotiations with Iran.”

“This type of rhetoric is an affront to the ideals our nation has sought to uphold and promote around the world for nearly 250 years. It undermines our long-standing role as a global beacon of freedom and directly endangers Americans both abroad and at home,” Murkowski said, calling for deescalation by both Trump and Iran, and insisting that the U.S. must draw a distinction between the Iranian regime and the Iranian people.

Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-TX) said that, while he has supported the war thus far, “I do not support the destruction of a ‘whole civilization.’ That is not who we are, and it is not consistent with the principles that have long guided America.”

“[W]hat sets America apart is not only our strength, but how we use it. Our nation has always conducted military operations for just causes and through just and moral means. This must continue in the future; otherwise we forfeit our legitimacy to lead the world,” Moran said. “[H]ow we protect the lives of the innocent is just as important as how we engage the enemy.”

Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-CA), who recently left the Republican Party but remains part of the GOP caucus and has generally been hawkish on Iran, said that the U.S. “does not destroy civilizations. Nor do we threaten to do so as some sort of negotiating tactic.”

“Congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight with respect to ongoing military operations and our obligations under both U.S. law and international agreements to which we are a signatory,” Kiley said.

Tina Shah is hoping she might have the cure to Democrats’ struggles in New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District.

Shah, an emergency room physician and former government official, is running in the Democratic primary to face off against Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ), who has proven resilient against repeated Democratic challenges in the purple district.

Shah noted in an interview with Jewish Insider last month that the district is home to a substantial Jewish community, and said that she’s had many conversations with community members about the situation in the Middle East and the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks, conversations she said have fostered her support for continued, unconditional aid for the Jewish state.

“Where I am right now is unequivocally that Israel is our most important ally in the Middle East,” Shah said. “They had a right to defend themselves then, [and] they continue to. I will be the strongest ally to make sure that we continue to build this relationship and support Israel with aid.”

In a position paper shared with JI, Shah emphasized her support for ongoing security aid to Israel, and said that the Oct. 7 attacks and their lasting impacts show the need for a continued U.S.-Israel alliance.

“Allyship with Israel is a bedrock principle of US foreign policy in the Middle East,” she wrote. “Our shared security interests and democratic principles have built a resilient foundation that I will support in Congress.”

She also emphasized the two countries’ shared values and democracies. Shah said she supports a two-state solution and said that she favors a “diplomacy-first approach” like that which led to the Abraham Accords. Shah argued that the U.S. needs stronger advocates for a comprehensive peace deal, and said she would be such an advocate.

“The US should remain a partner in Israel’s long-term security, and the long-term security of the Palestinians, to ensure the realization of a two-state solution achieved through a political and diplomatic process,” Shah said in the paper. “As many members of Israel’s security establishment have acknowledged, failing to reach such a resolution represents an existential threat to Israel.” 

She went on to argue that a diplomatic agreement, rather than unilateral action or annexation, will ultimately better serve Israel’s security interests.

She said that she mourns the loss of any innocent life, emphasizing Palestinians’ right to their own state as well, calling for an end to “illegal settlement activity” and said that the “international community must do more to de-escalate violence and provide pathways toward lasting peace.”

Working in the medical technology field, Shah said in her position paper she’s seen firsthand the benefits that the Israeli economy and tech sector has brought to her state and the country.

“I am proud that Israel is one of New Jersey’s largest trading partners,” Shah said. “Continuing this incredible partnership will only make New Jersey more attractive and competitive for employers, it will also increase employment opportunities for New Jersey families and workers.”

Shah told JI she is concerned by the rise of antisemitism in her home state, in part blaming President Donald Trump, who she said is “stoking … he’s feeding the fire and allowing antisemitic acts to go unchecked.”

She pledged her support for the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which is stalled in Congress, and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism. She said she’d also listen to members of the Jewish community in her district to “make sure that I can advocate in the strongest possible way in Congress.”

Shah said in her position paper she “would continue to be an advocate against the weaponization of conflict in the Middle East against American Jews” and that she would oppose the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement targeting Israel, which she said ultimately does not help Israelis, Palestinians or the U.S.’ own interests.

Shah also blasted the Trump administration’s moves to cut the Department of Education, the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice and parts of the intelligence community, saying that those moves only hamper efforts to protect the Jewish community.

Shah told JI that Jews in her community are also worried that the war in Iran is going to make them less safe at home, a concern she said she shared, speaking to JI a day after the attempted attack on Temple Israel in the Detroit suburbs.

Shah said that Trump did not have the constitutional authority to start the war, and vowed that she would “hold our president accountable.”

“Let me be clear, the Iranian regime is brutal, repressive and destabilizing, but there’s a safeguard that was built in with the Constitution to prevent any president, especially Donald Trump, from unilaterally dragging the nation into war,” Shah said, describing the war as directionless.

She said she supports stronger sanctions on the Iranian regime, while lamenting the first Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, a decision she said led the administration to the war today.

In her position paper, Shah said that Israel’s strikes on Iran in the summer of 2025 were a necessary action, in light of Iran’s violations of its nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations, which “created a situation in which Israel could not delay action,” 

But she said that she did not agree with the U.S.’ own involvement in the conflict without congressional authorization or, in her view, proper consideration and consultation.

Shah is a practicing intensive care unit doctor in the district, and said that she was inspired to run for office by her experiences seeing patients unable to afford the medicine they need. America, she argues, is in “critical condition.”

“We live in the greatest country in the world,” Shah said. “How is it that people get so sick that they need the ICU because they can’t afford basic medical care?”

But Shah is also hardly new to government or the political scene. She served in three administrations, in the Department of Veterans Affairs and under the U.S. Surgeon General. She also advocated in her home state to prevent insurance companies from denying patients essential care.

And she’s also been involved in the business world, as the chief medical officer of a health care AI startup.

Asked what positions her to win the primary, and to defeat Kean, Shah again pointed to her medical background. “People trust their doctor,” Shah said. “I’m a doctor running in an election cycle where the No. 1  economic issue is health care.”

She said that her time in the exam room gives her experience getting to know and understand people and build trust quickly, regardless of political affiliation.

“I have the ability to raise enough money to combat what Tom Kean Jr. is going to do. But I am the only candidate who has worked across the aisle in D.C., who has worked to pass a bipartisan bill into law here in New Jersey, and that is how I’m going to flip NJ-07,” she said.

Shah faces a series of other candidates in the primary including Rebecca Bennett, a former Navy pilot who is leaning into her national security experience and whom many Democrats see as a top contender for the seat, and Brian Varela, a businessman who is leaning into a progressive lane after initially vying for the centrist vote.

Bennett leads the field in fundraising with nearly $2 million, followed by Varela with $1.76 million and Shah with $1 million.

A useful rule of thumb to live by: Social media isn’t real life. 

But one of the challenges in the brave new world of media is that extremist influencers can often create the perception of influence simply by dominating so much of the online discourse. 

Hasan Piker, a far-left streamer who has been the subject of favorable media profiles despite a laundry list of antisemitic and terror-justifying rhetoric, is a case study in how traditional journalists normalize extremists — and how politicians conclude there’s a marketplace for radical views in the electoral marketplace, even when it’s typically a mirage. 

In part because Democrats have been desperate to find anti-establishment voices that claim to speak for young men, Piker is seen as a popular, edgy podcaster by liberal leaders in both media and politics. (Nevermind the fact that Piker gets only about 36,000 viewers on a typical stream — about 1/25th of the typical nighttime audience of MS NOW, as The Atlantic’s David Frum pointed out.) 

The New Yorker invited Piker to speak at its annual festival, treating the antisemitic streamer as just another one of the many thought leaders in attendance. Leading progressives, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), joined him at rallies and on his show.

And a handful of leading Democratic presidential contenders — most notably California Gov. Gavin Newsom — expressed interest in going on his show. 

This, despite the fact Piker has justified Hamas’ Oct. 7 terror attacks, forcefully denied some of the terror group’s atrocities, has called Orthodox Jews “inbred” and claimed America deserved 9/11. 

Any one of those comments on their own would have typically disqualified anyone from playing a part in our political discourse. Yet in the wave of glowing profiles, Piker’s antisemitism and anti-Americanism didn’t even merit a mention. 

It wasn’t until March 19, when Third Way President Jon Cowan and Lily Cohen, a press advisor from the center-left think tank, took the initiative to co-write a column for The Wall Street Journal calling out Piker’s antisemitism without any caveats. The decision to call out the crazy — when few in the press or politics had the courage to do so — was a moment that proved that one principled voice in defense of normalcy can break the mirage of those who believe there’s a political marketplace for this garbage. 

The op-ed, headlined “Democrats Are Too Cozy with Hasan Piker,” generated outsized attention, in a way that previous efforts to spotlight Piker’s antisemitism hadn’t. Reporters who once gave Piker a free pass were now asking Democrats whether they agreed with his extremist positions. 

Suddenly, when presented with his indefensible comments, some Democrats started building up enough courage to speak out against him. First, it was Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), head of the moderate New Democratic Coalition, who called Piker an “unapologetic antisemite.” Then, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, running for the U.S. Senate in Michigan, told JI that Piker is “somebody who says extremely offensive things in order to generate clicks” — and called on one of her primary opponents, Abdul El-Sayed, to cancel a scheduled rally with him. 

Even left-wing lawmakers and candidates — such as Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner and a progressive Democratic state legislator from Michigan — canceled scheduled appearances with Piker.

By the end of the month, only three of the 14 prospective Democratic presidential candidates that Politico interviewed said they would appear on a livestream with Piker if invited. That marks a sea change from just weeks earlier, when he was being treated as the trendy fad in progressive politics. 

The dynamic is a reminder that the delusions of a social media echo chamber will persist unless they get confronted by political reality. Sometimes that reality is as simple as speaking up against craziness when everyone else is afraid to speak the truth. 

It would be heartening to conclude that this episode is proof that antisemitism can be confronted when good people speak up. 

But this past week also featured Politico publishing a virulently antisemitic cartoon that could have been drawn from the Nazi tabloid Der Sturmer — one that they pulled from their website and apologized for. This is the same publication, owned by Axel Springer, that gave Piker a credulous interview last year making no mention of his extremism. (And last week, it also blatantly misrepresented leading Democrats’ comments on AIPAC to manufacture an anti-Israel narrative.)

It all goes to show that the antisemitic rot fueled by social media is entering into the mainstream. It will take more brave and principled voices like Cowan and Cohen to stem the tide.

Speaking to Jewish Insider last July, Effie Phillips-Staley, one of the Democrats aiming to take on Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) in suburban New York this fall, said that she wanted to be “very clear that the U.S. has to continue to be a critical ally to Israel” and that she wouldn’t support additional conditions or restrictions on U.S. aid to Israel.

But as support for Israel has declined with the Democratic base, the progressive candidate has  flip-flopped on her views towards the Jewish state. She received an endorsement this month from the virulently anti-Israel group TrackAIPAC, which has garnered accusations of antisemitism and dishonest tactics from even elected Democrats who are themselves critical of Israel.

In a statement to JI, a spokesperson for Phillips-Staley said that her initial stance was a result of “the typical boilerplate advice from establishment Democrats to stay away from critiques of US aid to Israel.”

“But as voters and advocates continuously pressed her to examine this position, and as Israel’s bombardment and starvation of Gaza intensified, Effie began to evolve her thinking,” the statement continued. “The turning point came in August when the New York Times started reporting that UN agencies were classifying the starvation of Palestinians in Gaza as famine. At the end of that month, Effie announced that she would support the Block the Bombs legislation. She also determined that scholars and NGOs across the world were justified in classifying Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.”

Phillips-Staley went on a trip to the West Bank in February, where the spokesperson said she “witnessed first-hand the apartheid conditions on the ground for Palestinians,” including the “unequal application of law between Palestinians and Israelis, the daily state-sanctioned settler violence that Palestinians endure, and the severe travel restrictions that exist for Palestinians in cities like Hebron and Ramallah.”

Ramallah and significant areas of Hebron are controlled by the Palestinian Authority.

“Effie’s position is that the United States must not make exceptions to its own laws for Israel or any nation that benefits from US support and tax dollars,” the spokesperson said. “She believes the path toward peace and resolution of this conflict requires equal application of American and international law for all nations and states, fair consequences for those who do not follow the law, and a firm belief in upholding universal human rights.”

Phillips-Staley is also racking up other anti-Israel endorsements, including from former Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner, who lost a 2021 primary campaign to a pro-Israel Democrat. 

And this week, she joined antisemitic streamer Hasan Piker’s show, eliciting a joint condemnation from the chairs of the Westchester, Rockland, Putnam and Dutchess County Democratic Committees, in which they called out Piker’s history of “profoundly shocking, abhorrent, and offensive” content, including antisemitism.

“We must speak up now to express deep disappointment by the appearance this afternoon of … Effie Phillips-Staley on Hasan Piker’s Twitch stream,” the chairs said. “Her decision represents a dangerous and unacceptable step toward legitimizing rhetoric that has no place in this District, in mainstream Democratic politics, or in any serious political discourse.”

Phillips-Staley responded by attacking the “Democratic establishment” for its “outdated mentality that alienates the very voters we need to win” and for “narrowing our tent and refusing to engage with platforms that reach young people.”

“While I don’t align with every word Hasan Piker has ever said, we must recognize the massive value of a platform that engages millions of young people in the democratic process,” she continued. “[Piker] is mobilizing a movement that demands our politics center human rights and favor diplomacy over the reflexive use of military force.”

Phillips-Staley’s recent endorsements, comments and interviews — have brought heightened attention to her pivot on Israel policy issues, at the same time as she’s trying to gain attention against several better-funded and higher-polling opponents.

When she entered the race, Phillips-Staley had the progressive lane largely to herself, competing against a lineup of Democratic moderates. 

But Peter Chatzky, the deputy mayor of Briarcliff Manor, N.Y., subsequently entered the race as a progressive, dropping $5.8 million of his own money to support his bid, according to the most recent campaign finance disclosures. Phillips-Staley, meanwhile, had raised just $302,000 and had less than $30,000 on hand at the end of the year, trailing in fundraising behind two other candidates who have since dropped out of the race.

Chatzky entered the race as a critic of Israel, accusing the Jewish state of violating U.S. arms sales laws, though Phillips-Staley falls to his left on the issue, touting on her campaign website that she’s “the first candidate in this race to support the Block the Bombs Act.” 

Both progressives are polling well behind their moderate, pro-Israel competitors — Rockland County legislator Beth Davidson led a recent survey with 23% support, followed by national security veteran Cait Conley with 17% and Chatzky and Phillips-Staley far behind at 8% and 5%, respectively.

“I believe that she looks around and sees a field that has not differentiated themselves a lot on this issue, and she says, ‘OK, this will be one of the the ways that I try to stand out in an otherwise crowded field where I’m being heavily outspent,’” said Jake Dilemani, a New York Democratic strategist, adding that her positions are also consistent with a shift among the progressive faction of the Democratic Party.

“She’s trying to outflank Chatzky, period,” he continued. “Chatsky is the only other candidate competing for what you would call the left of the field. Effie is still to the left of him,” he continued.

The anti-Israel push is particularly notable in a Democratic-leaning, moderate district with a significant Jewish population, which has repeatedly helped push Lawler, an outspoken supporter of Israel, to victory.

Phillips-Staley’s campaign insisted that her stance isn’t motivated by political considerations.

“Effie received immense political pressure to remain silent on Israel’s human rights abuses against Palestinians. Because she has centered human rights and equality throughout her career, she investigated the issue and determined she could not remain silent, regardless of the political cost,” the spokesperson said. “Her support for Palestinian human rights reflects her moral stance that human rights should apply equally to all.”

Dilemani said that there’s more room for a further-left position in the Democratic primary than there would be in the general election. But he said there’s a larger gap between Phillips-Staley’s stances and the average general election voter, and that she would be a long shot in the general election.

Phillips-Staley suggested in an interview with the anti-Israel outlet Zeteo that leaning into stance is yielding benefits — she said that a post about her trip to the West Bank yielded more likes and more positive comments than any other issue she’d posted about. But she also claimed that local Democratic leaders are trying to silence her for describing the situation in the West Bank as apartheid.

Phillips-Staley said in the interview she visited Israel and the West Bank because the conflict is “the most consequential foreign policy issue of our time” and it has been the most talked-about issue among voters on the campaign trail.

“For many people this is a litmus test for honesty — can we speak about it and can we speak about it from [a] human rights perspective knowing that there are political consequences for doing so,” she said. “And then on the other side that I hear not as much is the establishment telling us not to talk about it.”

She said that she found the situation in the West Bank “much worse … than I imagined,” referencing a conversation and video she posted with Rev. Munther Isaac, a virulent antisemite who has justified Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel. 

Phillips-Staley also asserted that Israel applies different tiers of citizenship for different people.

“Her trip to the West Bank was organized by Israeli and American Jews, including former IDF soldiers. They arranged the visit with Rev. Isaac, and he gladly welcomed us all to his church,” Phillips-Staley’s spokesperson said, when asked about Isaac’s history. “Effie strongly condemns antisemitism and any prejudice against Jews. She does not see criticism of Israel’s occupation, apartheid, and genocide as antisemitic and believes everyone has a right to live with freedom and equality under the law.”

Phillips-Staley has also recently blasted Chatzky over revelations of a yearslong history of bizarre and sexual posts on social media, calling on him last week to drop out of the race. She said she would not support Chatzky if he’s the nominee.

A nasty intraparty divide intensified this week as Democrats publicly debated whether to associate with Hasan Piker, the far-left streamer who has faced criticism for antisemitic commentary and pro-Hamas rhetoric, among other extreme remarks.

The dispute erupted Tuesday after Piker revealed that he would join Abdul El-Sayed, a Democratic Senate candidate in Michigan, for two upcoming rallies in the state, marking the Twitch streamer’s first major campaign appearance of the midterms.

For mainstream Democrats increasingly troubled with Piker’s rising influence on the left, El-Sayed’s decision was particularly alarming. In a statement on Tuesday, Jonathan Cowan, president of the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way, said Democrats’ associations with Piker are “morally repugnant and strategically self-defeating,” and alleged that candidates “eager to campaign with” him are, “at best, comfortable overlooking his antisemitic and anti-American extremism and, at worst, endorsing it.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), a top moderate voice in the House, became one of the first prominent Democratic officials to speak out against Piker in comments on Tuesday, calling on the party to reject and distance itself from a figure he characterized as “an unapologetic antisemite.”

In a statement to social media, Schneider said Democrats “cannot allow those who preach hate and seek division to find safe harbor among us,” urging his colleagues to “call out hate and reject those who champion ideologies of exclusion and demonization.”

On Wednesday, El-Sayed faced further blowback from high-profile Michigan Democrats, including Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), a top rival in the Senate race, who said “choosing to campaign with someone who has a history of antisemitic rhetoric” would not be a winning formula in the swing state. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) echoed that sentiment, saying Piker “sounds deeply antisemitic” and he is “not someone that should be helping anybody out in the Michigan political environment.”

A spokesperson for El-Sayed’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment asking if he had weighed Piker’s antisemitic rhetoric in choosing to appear with him. The Senate candidate has said he is unconcerned with backlash to his decision, while arguing that his “politics resonates with people who have been locked out.”

Piker, for his part, has appeared to relish the new controversy, calling Schneider an “AIPAC dog” in an X post. “Democrats that spend any amount of time chirping about me love israel [sic] more than defeating Republicans and preserving democracy,” he wrote in another.

Even as prominent progressives have come to Piker’s defense, none seem to have meaningfully reckoned with his record of extreme commentary, which features a range of offensive statements about Jews and Israel. He has labeled Orthodox Jews as “inbred,” compared Zionists to Nazis and dismissed reports of sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023. More recently, he unequivocally sided with Hamas, saying the terror group “is a thousand times better” than Israel — which he condemned as a “fascist settler colonial apartheid state” in a social media post last January to his 1.6 million followers.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), for instance, a potential 2028 presidential contender who has appeared on Piker’s show, said in mid-March that he is “proud” to join the streamer’s feed. But when asked to share his views on Piker’s antisemitic comments, Khanna — in keeping with other progressive elected officials and activists who likewise have ties to the influencer — has demurred, stating broadly that he condemns antisemitism while reiterating he has called Hamas a terrorist organization.

The debate over Piker raises questions about the meaning of progressivism as left-leaning figures have continued to tolerate and in some cases even condone Piker’s extreme commentary, which has frequently shown a penchant for illiberalism that is sharply at odds with traditional progressive values.

In addition to espousing antisemitism and using eliminationist rhetoric with regard to Israel, Piker has said “America deserved 9/11,” downplayed the U.S.-designated Uyghur genocide in China, voiced approval of Hezbollah, called Russia’s annexation of Crimea “justifiable” and endorsed political violence, among other radical sentiments regularly expressed on his Twitch stream and on social media.

Jeremiah Johnson, co-founder of the Center for New Liberalism, who has written critically about Democrats embracing Piker, said the fundamental issue with the streamer “is that he does not believe in liberal democracy.”

“I am generally in favor of a big tent for the Democratic Party,” he told Jewish Insider. “If we want to win large majorities, we’re going to have to accept that some of the people who vote for us will have idiosyncratic, outdated or even outright wrong and bigoted views. But that doesn’t mean we should make those voices the face of the party, and I think it’s a dangerous game for Democrats to promote people like Piker.”

Piker’s status otherwise underscores how some progressive leaders are increasingly aligning with extreme figures in the Democratic Party based on broad policy agreements, without fully accounting for the implications of ignoring or validating baggage that voters would likely find off-putting.

Last week, for example, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) joined a growing cohort of Democratic senators in endorsing Graham Platner, a far-left candidate running for Senate in the battleground state of Maine, saying he’s “got the grit to fight for what’s right on behalf of Maine’s working families — not billionaires and giant corporations.”

Her statement made no allusion to the lingering concerns over Platner’s now-covered Nazi tattoo — whose symbolism he claims not to have known until recently — even as she raised alarms last year about one of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s tattoos that is reportedly linked to white supremacist ideology.

Warren’s team did not respond to a request for comment from JI asking if she had considered Platner’s tattoo while making her endorsement.

Some critics argue that progressives who overlook Piker’s disturbing record or dismiss Platner’s tattoo do so at their own peril. 

Shannon Watts, a prominent gun control activist who has vocally criticized both Piker and Platner, said it is “disheartening to watch some Democratic politicians and pundits align with the most morally vacant and dangerous people in our party, just as we watched happen on the right for over a decade.”

“Too many Democrats are deciding one compromise at a time that their political survival matters more than principle,” she told JI this week. “Anyone who embraces hatred cannot call themselves progressive; they are simply an emerging version of MAGA on the left. Aligning with and supporting antisemitic behavior is a moral stain on our party and a stark warning sign for our future.”

Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is facing criticism from some prominent Michigan Democrats — including Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), who is running against him in the Democratic primary — for his decision to host campaign rallies with Hasan Piker, the far-left political streamer with a history of antisemitic remarks. 

“That’s the exact opposite of someone I’d be campaigning with,” Stevens told Jewish Insider on Wednesday. “We have to be serious here about who’s going to be the best general election candidate for U.S. Senate in Michigan to beat [Republican] Mike Rogers, and someone who’s campaigning with someone like that is not going to win in Michigan.” 

El-Sayed will host two rallies with Piker and Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA) at the University of Michigan and Michigan State University on April 7. 

Piker has millions of followers on the streaming platform Twitch. He has said that “Hamas is a thousand times better” than Israel, and has described Orthodox Jews as “inbred.” He has also praised terrorists and said America deserved 9/11. 

Stevens said that by associating with Piker, El-Sayed is “choosing to campaign with someone who has a history of antisemitic rhetoric.”

Slotkin told JI that she is not familiar with much of Piker’s language but that what she knows of his rhetoric raises concerns for her.

“Any equating of all Jews or American Jews with Israel and the Israeli government is a problem right off the bat, and then it sounds like, from there, a cascading set of antisemitic tropes and just the kind of rhetoric that is — I want to read for myself, but sounds deeply antisemitic, consistently, and therefore not someone that should be helping anybody out in the Michigan political environment,” said Slotkin. 

The announcement of Piker’s upcoming campaign visits to Michigan comes two weeks after an attempted terrorist attack at Temple Israel, a Reform synagogue in West Bloomfield Township, Mich. 

A new poll conducted by the campaign of Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, the third major Democrat running alongside Stevens and Piker, shows McMorrow leading the race with 30%. El-Sayed is behind her at 25%, and Stevens follows at 23%, with 21% undecided. Other polling ahead of the August primary has shown Stevens with a small lead. 

Former Secretary of State Tony Blinken said at a Harvard Kennedy School event this week that he warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a few months into the war in Gaza that Israel was going to lose support among not just Democrats, but also Republicans and evangelical Christians.

“Israel was mostly seen as the David and other forces were seen as the Goliath. That is now flipped,” Blinken said. “One of the things that I told Netanyahu was, ‘You may not care that you’re losing the Democratic Party, but trust me, you are going to lose young Republicans. You’re going to lose young evangelicals. This is generational.’ And he moved on to something else.”

The conversation took place early in 2024, a few months after the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks that killed 1,200 people in Israel. During his remarks at Harvard, Blinken said he wonders if there is more the U.S. could have done to protect Palestinians in Gaza. But he also called on people not to be “binary” in their thinking about the Middle East.

“Of course, for me, coulda-woulda-shoulda is something that will always be there when it comes to Gaza. It could not help but be given the level of human suffering,” said Blinken. 

“But where did we start? We started with Oct. 7. We started with the most horrific massacre of Jews since the Holocaust,” Blinken added. “It’s very easy to say, ‘Oh, yeah, that’s a given.’ Except it wasn’t a given for Israelis and Israeli society. It became one for the rest of the world, but not for Israelis.”

Blinken was being interviewed by New York Times reporter David Sanger, who said that history books written about President Joe Biden will show his administration as “strongest on Ukraine and weakest on Gaza.” 

Asked whether the Biden administration could have done things differently in Gaza to save lives, Blinken said, “Could we, should we have done things differently such that the suffering that people endured, the loss of the children you just listed and so many others could have been averted? The short answer is: Maybe yes.”

“We had to make judgments in real time about how to try to get to a better place. We made those judgments. People will make their own judgments about what we did and what we didn’t do,” said Blinken.

Despite the humanitarian crisis that emerged in Gaza, the U.S. pushed Israel to do more for Palestinians and to allow more aid into Gaza, Blinken said.

“That didn’t just happen. It happened because every single day we were on the Israelis to try to get assistance in, to open more crossing points, to flood the zone. They did that profoundly inadequately. They did that in ways that were not the way I would like to have seen it done, but we got some of that done,” said Blinken. “But yes, of course, you couldn’t be and I wouldn’t be human if I didn’t ask myself every day, could we have done things differently.”

Blinken said that the trauma Israelis experienced after Oct. 7 was so severe that Israel’s war in Gaza would have continued, even without American support — and that cutting off American weapons sales to Israel may have actually lengthened the war.

“Cutting off arms, sure, that was an option. But I don’t actually believe that at least in the near term, it would have changed things,” said Blinken. “I also believe it would have led to an even wider war as Israel’s enemies, and they were multiple, jumped in, and that only would have extended the war in Gaza, not ended the war in Gaza.”

The main focus of the Biden administration, according to Blinken, was to reach a ceasefire, “with hostages coming out and with aid going in.” He acknowledged the pain of people who were angry about the situation in Gaza, but questioned why so little anger was directed at Hamas.

“I empathize with people who felt this so deeply,” said Blinken. “I do remain with a question in my mind about why barely a word was spoken in all those months about Hamas, which was an actor too, and is responsible for so much of what happened.”

Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), who chairs the moderate New Democratic Coalition, called on Democrats on Tuesday to reject and distance themselves from Hasan Piker, the far-left media figure boosted by an increasing number of Democrats and Democratic candidates.

Piker has faced repeated criticism for antisemitic comments and support for terrorism, in addition to a range of other offensive remarks and activity. Schneider, in addition to his leadership in the New Dems -— one of the largest groups in the House Democratic Caucus — is a co-chair of the Congressional Jewish Caucus.

“Hasan Piker is an unapologetic antisemite,” Schneider said on X on Tuesday. “Democrats risk losing our credibility to condemn those on the right who traffic in bigotry, antisemitism, & hate when our own Members of Congress & candidates are celebrating or, worse yet, platforming those who espouse hate of any kind.”

Schneider said he is proud that the Democratic Party “welcome[s] a broad diversity of opinions and priorities. But we cannot allow those who preach hate & seek division to find safe harbor among us. We must call out hate & reject those who champion ideologies of exclusion and demonization.”

The moderate Democratic leader’s comments come on the same day that Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed announced a rally alongside Piker, and after numerous other colleagues have appeared on Piker’s livestream show or defended him.

They also follow similar condemnation from Third Way, a prominent moderate Democratic group.

For the third time in a month, Senate Republicans on Tuesday evening blocked an effort by Democrats to halt U.S. operations in Iran.

The war powers resolution, this time led by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), is part of a series of efforts by Senate Democrats to disrupt business on the Senate floor to force a reckoning and public testimony by Cabinet officials about the war in Iran.

Democrats have four other such resolutions filed, which they could call up for votes at a time of their choosing, using special procedures allowing lawmakers to force votes on war powers resolutions.

The Senate again rejected the resolution 53-47, with Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) once again voting in favor of the war effort and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) again voting against it.

The mostly party-line vote comes in spite of recent comments by some Senate Republicans pushing for the war to come to an end.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), another leader of the Democratic war powers push, said that the group plans to continue to force weekly votes on the issue. He acknowledged before the vote that the results might not change this week, but suggested that some Republican colleagues might be won over if the war continues to drag on, troops are sent to invade Iran or oil prices continue to spike.

Kaine indicated that he was not encouraged by President Donald Trump’s comments that he considered the U.S. to have “won” the war in Iran or his recent claims of engaging in productive talks with the regime.

“If he announces that it’s over, that will be good news,” Kaine told Jewish Insider. “Now, the consequences are not going to be over for a very long time, and Virginians are going to be suffering the consequences of something that lacked a rationale and lacked a plan for a very long time, in all likelihood. But the minute he announces it’s over, that will be positive — if he doesn’t change his mind, but he could change his mind.”

The House is expected to vote this week on a similar measure led by Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY). A separate House measure led by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and other pro-Israel moderates which would limit the war effort to 30 days — a period which will expire next week — could also come to a vote soon.

At least one House Democrat who voted previously against a war powers resolution and backed the U.S. operations in Iran has said he plans to vote for the Meeks resolution this week.

A group of congressional Democrats is urging the State Department to restart chartered evacuation flights and take additional steps to help U.S. citizens who wish to leave Israel amid the ongoing war with Iran.

The lawmakers described the State Department’s current partnership with El Al, which launched on March 13 with a limited number of special evacuation flights for U.S. citizens, as insufficient. The Israeli airline has currently suspended registration for the flights, and government-imposed security restrictions are limiting passenger capacity on each flight and reducing airport operations.

“We were shocked to learn this week that as the military conflict in Iran escalates and continues to threaten the safety of U.S. citizens in the Middle East, the State Department has abruptly and effectively ended emergency evacuations for Americans out of Israel,” the lawmakers said in a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Thursday. “As Israel continues to face threats from hostilities with Iran, the State Department cannot abandon American citizens abroad. Failing to assist Americans in their time of need is totally unacceptable.”

The letter, led by Rep. Laura Gillen (D-NY), was co-signed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Don Davis (D-NC), Dan Goldman (D-NY), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Julie Johnson (D-TX), Greg Landsman (D-OH), George Latimer (D-NY), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Pat Ryan (D-NY), Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Ritchie Torres (D-NY), John Mannion (D-NY), Haley Stevens (D-MI), Joe Morelle (D-NY) and Johnny Olszewski (D-MD).

According to the letter, the State Department is urging Americans to rely on commercial transportation or the Israeli Ministry of Tourism, and El Al lacks the capacity to carry all U.S. citizens who wish to depart, leaving Americans “without real options.” The information provided by the State Department, the letter reads, is “causing frustration, anxiety, and fear.”

“In the midst of a conflict, U.S. citizens should not have to wait weeks to be able to board a commercial flight or cross the Israeli border into another country to find their way home. It is unacceptable for the State Department to leave them on their own,” the letter continues.

In a press release Thursday, the State Department heralded its partnership with El Al, which it said has “already allowed more than 2,000 American citizens to return to the United States from Israel.” 

The airline “will continue to reserve a percentage of seats on all regular U.S.-bound flights for Americans wishing to depart Israel” and has 28 flights scheduled over the next week “to the extent permitted by the Israeli authorities,” the State Department said. The release did not acknowledge that the registration form for the evacuation flights is currently closed.

Democrats have accused the administration of failing to adequately prepare to evacuate U.S. civilians, or government personnel, from the Middle East before launching the war in Iran.

The lawmakers called on the State Department to restart charter flights from Israel and elsewhere in the region; reopen the State Department’s crisis intake form, which helps citizens receive emergency information; activate a crisis task force to assist Americans attempting to leave Israel; and provide clearer information on commercial air travel options.

Thousands of Americans, currently in Israel, are unable to access flights home and are not being offered alternative travel options or any additional assistance by the State Department,” their letter reads. “Additionally, the Department’s inconsistent guidance and lack of responsiveness have added to uncertainty and fear, making the situation even more dire for impacted families.”

In its press release, the State Department defended its evacuation efforts: “After the launch of Operation Epic Fury, the Department offered charter flight options to thousands of Americans wishing to leave Israel to Athens and destinations in the United States, as well as ground transportation options to Egypt — with supply exceeding demand on nearly every chartered flight and bus.”

The ongoing war in Iran is highlighting a widening gulf between center and center-left voters in Israel and Democrats in the United States. While Democrats in the United States are mostly opposed to the war, Israelis are overwhelmingly supportive of the effort.

Recent polling from Israel has shown that 92.5% of Jewish Israelis and 81% of Israelis overall support the war

The divide was particularly evident in an exchange on X this week between Yair Zivan, a centrist and top advisor to Israeli Opposition Leader Yair Lapid, and Matt Duss, a foreign policy advisor to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and a former confidante of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), whose post prompted the exchange. 

Sanders, on X, condemned the Israeli operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon, saying, “The U.S. cannot continue to be complicit in [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s wars.”

Zivan said in response that he was writing from a bomb shelter and that Israel “is under attack by fanatical terrorists who want to murder us,” arguing that Sanders’ “humanity never seems to extend to Israeli lives.”

Duss responded that Israelis are under fire “because your fanatical prime minister and my president launched a reckless and unnecessary war. Bernie is trying to stop it. What’s your boss doing?”

Zivan, who also edited a book on centrism, responded that the blame for the attacks lies with the “fanatical regime in Iran” and “fanatical terrorist organization in Lebanon sworn to our destruction (yours too if they could get to you),” rather than with Netanyahu.

He followed up later saying that war “should be a last resort” but is “sometimes … just and necessary.”

Zivan told Jewish Insider that most Israelis agree about the need to take on Iran.

“For us Israelis, this war is just and necessary. The vast majority of Israelis (left, right and center) understand the absolute necessity of removing the Iranian threat which is hanging over us,” Zivan said. After Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks, “no one should expect us to wait until it’s too late to defend ourselves from terror. I think most of our friends in the U.S., on both sides of the aisle, understand the importance of what’s happening for Israel’s national security.”

Ilan Goldenberg, the senior vice president of J Street, which has strongly opposed the war in Iran, acknowledged the divide between Israelis and the American left in an op-ed last week — but argued that Israelis are mistaken in their outlook on the war.

“Just because the Israeli public supports the war doesn’t mean it’s a good idea or in Israel’s interest. [Seventy-two] percent of Americans supported invading Iraq in 2003. That didn’t make it a wise decision,” Goldenberg said. “Americans and Israelis see this conflict through very different strategic lenses. … because American and Israeli interests and perspectives are not perfectly aligned.”

Israelis, Goldenberg continued, see Iran as their primary geopolitical enemy and as the primary threat to their homeland, which is not the case for Americans. He argued that “aggressive” Israeli views are also being driven by the “trauma” of the Oct. 7 attacks, and that the set of acceptable outcomes from the war are different for Israel than for the U.S., for strategic reasons.

In a low-profile electoral upset that defied the difficult national political environment facing the GOP, a Republican candidate declared victory this week in a down-ballot race for a seat on the Prince William Board of County Supervisors in Virginia — for the first time in nearly 40 years.

But while Republicans are now rejoicing over their narrow win, it otherwise largely demonstrated how Democratic leaders effectively sacrificed the seat to the GOP rather than elevate an extremist member of their own party who had claimed the nomination.

The result underscored the extent to which local Democrats had swiftly mobilized to oppose their own nominee, Muhammed Casim, who faced backlash over a series of recently uncovered past social media comments in which he used racist, misogynistic and antisemitic language. The posts, written more than a decade ago, used the n-word as well as demeaning rhetoric targeting women. He also accused Israel of genocide and promoted a conspiratorial post about U.S. financial assistance to the Jewish state, among other extreme comments.

More broadly, the outcome is an atypical example of how the Democratic Party worked to meaningfully confront extremism within its own ranks, even if its efforts came at the expense of an easily winnable local seat that instead flipped to Republicans for the first time in decades. 

Casim apologized for his comments but refused bipartisan calls to drop out of the race, which had motivated a Democratic challenger to launch a write-in campaign that ultimately helped siphon votes away from his embattled bid. He lost to Republican Jeannie LaCroix by a margin of 258 votes. Write-in candidates pulled in 744 votes — a relatively sizable total that appeared to have made a difference in the closely contested race.

“Opposing antisemitism, racism or misogyny isn’t a partisan position,” Marc Broklawski, a Jewish vice chair of the Virginia Democratic Party, told Jewish Insider on Wednesday. “It’s a floor, not a ceiling, and the least we should expect from any party, official candidate or voter. When Democrats hold that floor even when it’s costly, that’s something to be proud of. When we don’t, voters notice that too.”

Casim’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

Though some prominent Democrats have sought to reject radicalism in their party, many Jewish party activists have begun to express a growing sense of unease about whether their longtime political home will remain welcoming, amid rising hostility toward Israel that has frequently crossed into antisemitism while producing alliances with controversial figures.

This week, for instance, leading Jewish groups spoke out against New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s decision to host Mahmoud Khalil, the campus anti-Israel activist facing deportation who had justified Hamas’ terror attacks, for dinner at his official residence, while Democratic officials largely stayed silent. 

Likewise, a mounting number of Senate Democrats have endorsed Graham Platner in his insurgent bid for Senate in Maine, brushing aside concerns about a recently covered Nazi tattoo whose provenance he has struggled to explain as well as associations with antisemitic conspiracy theorists that have continued to raise alarms among many Jewish party members.

And in Virginia, Jewish Democrats have denounced an anti-Israel state legislator, Sam Rasoul, who has called Zionism “evil” and a “supremacist ideology,” even as high-ranking state party officials have been reluctant to weigh in on his incendiary commentary.

By contrast, several Jewish activists and party strategists said they were encouraged that most Democratic leaders had enforced red lines in the Virginia supervisor election. Even if the party had been forced to endure a short-term hit in losing the seat, they suggested, it was healthy to set standards — particularly in a time of rising extremism on both sides of the aisle.

“Virginia Democratic leaders were clearly repulsed by Muhammed Casim’s racist, misogynistic and antisemitic social media posts,” Sara Forman, a Jewish party strategist who previously worked in the state, told JI. “Their actions, including calling Casim out publicly, should send a strong signal nationally that the entirety of the Democratic Party has not capitulated to the leftist narrative entirely.”

Such opposition was not unanimous, however, as the local party accepted Casim’s apology and said it would stand behind his campaign. “There’s a lesson in there about the integrity of voters and the lack of integrity — and therefore weakened legacy — among some Dem leaders,” Shannon Watts, a gun control activist who has also criticized Platner, wrote in an X post on Wednesday.

“Leadership means speaking out clearly and consistently against antisemitism, racism, misogyny, and not only when it is easy, but especially when it is not — and from whomever,” Eileen Filler-Corn, a Jewish Democrat and former speaker of Virginia’s House of Delegates, told JI. “These values should unite us. We can disagree on policy and politics, but standing against hate and discrimination in all forms should never be up for debate. Our credibility with voters depends on our willingness to apply that standard fairly and without hesitation.”

Still, with most Democratic elected officials in the county refusing to support Casim after his posts had surfaced near the end of the race, nonpartisan Jewish leaders and members of both parties voiced satisfaction regarding the strong show of resistance.

“We think it is imperative that both parties call out the fringe and hateful elements in their own parties, so we’re certainly glad to see the Democratic Party do it in this instance — especially when it was hard and cost them a seat,” Vicki Fishman, the director of Virginia government and community relations at the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, told JI. “It’s an important lesson for everybody that hate is hate, and when you see the ugly rhetoric in your own house for what it is, it’s important to call it out.”

Gary Katz, a Jewish Republican activist in nearby Loudoun County, said he was “encouraged by the outcome” of Tuesday’s race, “where principled voices within the Democratic Party chose to reject a nominee whose past comments reflected racism, misogyny and antisemitism — even at the risk of losing the seat to a Republican.”

He said the dynamic “mirrors efforts we’ve seen in the GOP, such as in Fairfax County, to keep hateful elements from gaining leadership roles,” referring to a recent election where Republicans beat back an extreme candidate for county chair who had spread antisemitic conspiracy theories. 

“It’s a reminder that combating the rising scourge of antisemitism requires people of good conscience in both parties to prioritize our shared values over partisan wins,” Katz told JI on Wednesday. “We need more of this vigilance to ensure that extreme fringes on either side never hold power, and that we support responsible leadership, even when we disagree politically, rather than those who align with us but betray our core principles.”

Remarks by pro-Israel stalwarts Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and Brad Schneider (D-IL) on a Jewish Democratic Council of America webinar on Wednesday highlighted the delicate line that some pro-Israel Democratic lawmakers are walking on the war in Iran.

Wasserman Schultz and Schneider, along with some of their Democratic colleagues, are longtime Iran hawks and have previously supported many of the stated aims of the war, but express deep skepticism of how the Trump administration is handling the operation and its decision not to seek congressional authorization. 

Both Democrats voted for a war powers resolution last week that sought to bring an immediate halt to the war.

Wasserman Schultz said that, in addition to legal and constitutional concerns, Trump made a “colossally stupid” decision in not coming to Congress because some lawmakers, including her, might have voted to support an operation against Iran if presented with the proper intelligence and a clear plan.

“I can tell you assuredly: had I been presented with an Authorization for Use of Military Force, that made sense, and that we were properly briefed, and there was a demonstrative, imminent threat — which we have really yet to be shown — I am someone on our side of the aisle that likely would have voted for an AUMF if all of those things were in place,” Wasserman Schultz said. “Instead, [President Donald Trump] has blown an opportunity to go in in the most prepared way.”

By sidestepping Congress, the administration left the U.S. unprepared for the implications and blowback from the war, Wasserman Schultz said, highlighting, among other issues, the administration’s failure to evacuate American citizens from the region before the war started.

“I am so frustrated because I think everyone on this call knows how dangerous, deeply evil Iran is as a regime,” Wasserman Schultz said. “I have been careful about just blanket-ly condemning everything [Trump is] doing here, but most certainly, the way that we got into this was really unacceptable, and my constituents are very concerned.”

While Wasserman Schultz said she supported diplomacy with Iran, she also expressed skepticism about its chances for success, explaining that the Iranian regime would likely have sought to string the U.S. along until Trump left office, buying time to continue building its nuclear and missile programs.

Schneider said he believes strongly that the U.S. needs to address the threat from Iran, as well “help the people of Iran free themselves” from the regime, but added that “the Constitution is clear” that only Congress can declare war, and the administration has still not clearly identified an imminent threat that would have allowed it to legally take action unilaterally. He also said he does not trust the administration to properly carry through the mission without oversight.

“We can agree on the objectives in confronting Iran. We have no idea what the goals of this war are, or the strategy for achieving those goals, or the endgame that is trying to be ultimately accomplished that would bring the war to an end,” Schneider said. “My biggest fear is Trump … declares victory and goes home with Iran’s regime still in place, the nuclear program not completely defeated, [the] ballistic missile program damaged but not eliminated.”

He said that he’s afraid that, if the administration doesn’t set clear objectives, it will stop the war prematurely and ultimately leave the Iranian regime “more entrenched, feeling more powerful.”

The Illinois congressman speculated that Iranian leadership, by gathering in one central location, could have “present[ed] an opportunity that was too good to pass up” in launching the war but said that the administration still hasn’t properly articulated to lawmakers its thinking and strategy, so he does not know if that is the case.

Schneider said that an ideal outcome would require removing Iran’s enriched uranium from the country, which would necessitate international inspectors and a diplomatic settlement.

“There is no military solution to get us where we ultimately need to be. It has to be a political solution,” he said. “The military action always needed to be on the table to help us achieve that political solution. But with this President, I think it’s more ready, fire, aim, as opposed to ready, aim, fire.”

Schneider also called for Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to be removed from his job, saying Hegseth has failed to prepare for easily anticipated Iranian responses like mining the Strait of Hormuz, or to ensure proper oversight to prevent civilian casualties.

Wasserman Schultz said that she would consider a supplemental funding request if and when the administration presents one, emphasizing that she wants to ensure U.S. troops have the resources they need because “it’s not their choice to be there,” even if she doesn’t fully agree with the administration’s approach.

Wasserman Schultz added that she’s concerned that the war is “compromising our ability” to protect the U.S. from Russia and China.

Asked about a supplemental request, Schneider emphasized that U.S. servicemembers have his strong support and are “doing their job, they’re succeeding, and we should all pray for the success of their mission and their safe return.”

But he said he’s disappointed with the political leadership in the administration, particularly its distribution of online videos intermixing footage from the war with movie clips and video games, even as U.S. servicemembers have been killed and injured. “No one should take glee in the killing of the enemy. It is a necessary act that is advancing our interests.”

JDCA itself also seems to be striking a delicate balance.

The group’s CEO Halie Soifer said JDCA agrees with the need to stop Iran’s missile and nuclear programs, but emphasized that Trump is going around Congress and that, while some Democrats might “support, perhaps, some of the short-term tactical gains” some also “believe the administration is lacking a long-term strategy for success in Iran.”

Schneider and Wasserman Schultz were also critical of comments by Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggesting that Israel had effectively dragged the U.S. into the war. Rubio has said those comments were mischaracterized. Both criticized that framing of the conflict as incorrect and as potential fodder for increased antisemitism.

“The president said it himself: He was not compelled, he may have compelled Israel,” Schneider said. 

But he added, “in the end, it doesn’t really matter,” predicting a similar rise in antisemitism as occurred around the 1973 Yom Kippur War — launched by Egypt — when people in the U.S. blamed Jews and Israel for rising gas prices.

“Because this administration did not have that conversation with Congress and, through Congress, with the American people, people are going to look for scapegoats,” he said. “And when folks are looking for scapegoats, Jews are almost always one of those targets.”

Wasserman Schultz said that Rubio’s comments were “unbelievable” and “dangerous.”

“It is incredibly dangerous for Jews worldwide, and … unacceptable for him to have basically set it up that, ‘Well, we had to do this because it’s the Jews’ fault,’” Wasserman Schultz said. “Once it’s said, the impact — it remains.”

Speaking broadly, she said that the picture presented to lawmakers in a classified setting was “more subtle.”

With no clear path to confirmation in the Senate a month after he was grilled and struggled to explain his past views and writings at a confirmation hearing, Jeremy Carl withdrew his nomination to be assistant secretary of state for international organizations on Tuesday.

Carl faced unified opposition from Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as Sen. John Curtis (R-UT), who said after the hearing he found Carl’s past comments downplaying the U.S.-Israel relationship and his “insensitive remarks about the Jewish people unbecoming of the position for which he has been nominated.”

The nominee had previously expressed a range of derogatory views about Jews, describing them as having a victim mentality, downplaying the significance of the Holocaust to the Jewish story and experience and musing about the need to address the what he called the “Jewish Question.” He also espoused a view of the United States as a white, Christian nation, claiming that white people are undergoing a “cultural genocide” and deliberate replacement.

Curtis’ opposition was sufficient to prevent Carl’s nomination from advancing out of the committee, leaving Carl with no clear path to confirmation.

“I am tremendously grateful to President Trump for nominating me and then (upon expiration of my original nomination) renominating me for this role, and I am also grateful to Secretary Rubio and his team for their continued support throughout this long and time-consuming process,” Carl said on X.

He added that, with no path to unanimous support from Republicans on the committee, he did “not wish to have the President, Secretary Rubio, or the rest of his team waste valuable time and energy attempting to change that decision.”

👋 Good Tuesday morning!

In today’s Daily Kickoff, we preview today’s special election in Georgia to succeed former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, and spotlight the high-stakes GOP primary in Kentucky, where Ed Gallrein, with backing from President Donald Trump and the Republican Jewish Coalition, is aiming to unseat Rep. Thomas Massie. We report on a threat from a group of six Senate Democrats to obstruct Senate proceedings in order to force hearings and debate on the Iran war, and spotlight siblings Dario and Daniela Amodei, the co-founders of Anthropic, as the AI company confronts the federal government. Also in today’s Daily Kickoff: Argentine President Javier Milei, Ari Emanuel and Lt. Gen. Joshua Rudd.

Today’s Daily Kickoff was curated by JI Executive Editor Melissa Weiss and Israel Editor Tamara Zieve, with assists from Danielle Cohen-Kanik and Marc Rod. Have a tip? Email us here.

What We’re Watching

• Today is the special election in Georgia’s 14th Congressional District for the seat that was previously held by former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). More below.
• Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine are slated to give a press briefing at 8 a.m. ET.
• The Senate Armed Services Committee is holding a classified briefing today on the U.S. and Israel’s military campaign in Iran.
• The Senate is voting this morning on the nomination of Lt. Gen. Joshua Rudd to be director of the National Security Agency and commander of U.S. Cyber Command.
• National Review and the Republican Jewish Coalition are co-sponsoring a daylong symposium on antisemitism. Speakers include Sens. Jim Banks (R-IN), Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), White House antisemitism envoy Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun, the Justice Department’s Leo Terrell, the Department of Education’s Noah Pollak, Brandeis Center founder Ken Marcus and Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

What You Should Know

A QUICK WORD WITH JI’S MARC ROD

Voters are casting ballots today in the special election for the ruby-red House seat previously held by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), but the final outcome will likely remain uncertain for another month. 

With 17 candidates on the all-party ballot, the race is expected to go to a runoff — unless any candidate receives 50% or more of the vote, making today’s race effectively a competition over which two candidates are likely to finish with the most support. 

On the GOP side, the race is dominated by two candidates. The first is Clay Fuller, a local district attorney, veteran and former White House fellow who is backed by President Donald Trump. 

The second, former state Sen. Colton Moore, a hard-line conservative rabble-rouser often at odds with his own party’s leadership, is running as the anti-establishment populist — a profile that more closely matches Greene’s. 

The district is one of the most Republican in the country: Trump carried the district by 37 percentage points in 2024, and paid a visit to the district in late February to throw his support behind Fuller.

A third Republican candidate, Brian Stover, a local businessman, has raised a significant amount of campaign cash and is a wild card. 

On the Democratic side, the likely leader is Army veteran Shawn Harris, who lost to Greene in 2024 by nearly 30 points. He’s pulled in $4.2 million from Democrats outraged by Greene and who’ve been attracted by a far-fetched pitch that he can flip the seat. But he’s likely to secure a runoff spot, given how many Republican candidates are on the ballot.

Fuller’s campaign has been touting Trump’s endorsement, and his own military service. Fuller’s Air Force career included work on counterterrorism operations, and he was deployed in 2024 to the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar supporting U.S. Central Command operations. He also has the support of the conservative Club for Growth.

He has backed the U.S.-Israeli offensive against Iran, and expressed support for Israel. “President Trump tried the peace route with Iran not once, not twice, but THREE separate times—and they refused. He’s the peace President, but you can’t negotiate with a death cult,” Fuller said, emphasizing he had supported operations against Iran and that the regime and its proxies had killed many Americans.

Read the rest of ‘What You Should Know’ here.

MIXED MESSAGES

Trump calls war ‘complete’ but also ‘just the beginning’

President Donald Trump drew two contradictory timelines for the ongoing war in Iran in remarks on Monday, saying that the conflict was both drawing to a close and in its early stages, Jewish Insider’s Lahav Harkov reports. In a call with CBS News, Trump said, “The war is very complete, pretty much. [Iran has] no navy, no communications; they’ve got no air force. Their missiles are down to a scatter. Their drones are being blown up all over the place, including the manufacturing of drones. … There’s nothing left in a military sense.”  

Timeline talk: The war has progressed faster than initially expected, the president added: “We’re very far ahead of schedule.” Also Monday, the Department of Defense posted on X that “we have only just begun to fight, with a graphic of a missile interceptor and the text: “No Mercy.” At a news conference after his CBS News interview, Trump was asked whether the war is “very complete” or “just beginning.” The president responded, “I think you could say both. It’s the beginning of building a new country. We could call it a tremendous success right now, or we could go further.” Trump added, “And we’re going to go further.”

Read the full story here.

More from Trump: The president also said repeatedly on Monday that he believed the Iranian regime was going to “take over the Middle East” and would have obtained a nuclear weapon “within weeks” had he not ordered the U.S. military operation against Iran, JI’s Emily Jacobs reports. 

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

BLUEGRASS BATTLE

Thomas Massie’s opposition to Iran war could cost him reelection

President Donald Trump is headed to Kentucky this week to rally with Ed Gallrein, his endorsed candidate to take on anti-Israel and isolationist Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) in the increasingly heated primary between the two men, Jewish Insider’s Marc Rod reports.

The latest: The campaign stop comes at a time when Massie has made himself the face of GOP opposition to the war in Iran — among the litany of other issues on which he has also broken with the president. Massie was one of two lead sponsors of a failed effort in the House last week to stop the war in Iran, while Gallrein said in a statement that the war was justified and would prevent further attacks on U.S. servicemembers and the nation. In a ruby- red district, Massie’s opposition to the war could cost him politically, as polling shows Republicans have rallied strongly behind the administration and its efforts. For its part, the Republican Jewish Coalition is taking aim at Massie over his opposition to the war in a significant ad campaign.

Read the full story here.

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

EXECUTIVE ACTION

White House moves to designate Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist group

The Trump administration on Monday moved to designate the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood (SMB) as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) entity and announced plans to impose a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) designation on March 16, Jewish Insider’s Matthew Shea reports.

Rubio’s statement: “The Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood uses unrestrained violence against civilians to undermine efforts to resolve the conflict in Sudan and advance its violent Islamist ideology,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a press release. “The United States will use all available tools to deprive the Iranian regime and Muslim Brotherhood chapters of the resources to engage in or support terrorism.” Experts have previously told JI that the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) is heavily influenced by the SMB, working alongside several Islamist militias and receiving attack drones from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which has been designated as a terrorist organization by both the U.S. and the European Union. 

Read the full story here.

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

CLAUDE’S PARENTS

The Amodei siblings leading Anthropic clash with the White House over AI safety

Siblings Dario and Daniela Amodei are like countless other Americans who have built a family business together. Except that the business the Jewish siblings have built is artificial intelligence giant Anthropic, one of the fastest- growing companies in America — and in the five years since they left cushy jobs at rival OpenAI to start it, they have each amassed billions in wealth. But a dispute over Anthropic’s stated commitment to safety has now put the company squarely in conflict with the Trump administration, Jewish Insider’s Gabby Deutch reports.

Legal battle: On Monday, Anthropic sued Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and several other Trump administration officials over Hegseth’s decision to designate Anthropic a national security “supply-chain risk” last month, after the company told the Pentagon that it would not allow its technology to be used for mass domestic surveillance or in fully autonomous weapons. Hegseth is “within his right to cancel the contract. But I think that the people in the Department of War, they’re trying to turn the screw. They’re trying to make it tough for Anthropic to survive,” Will Rinehart, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who researches tech policy, told JI. 

Read the full story here.

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

RUNNING INTERFERENCE

Group of Democrats threatens to obstruct Senate business to secure hearings, debate on Iran war

A group of six Senate Democrats is threatening to immediately begin obstructing proceedings on the Senate floor in order to force public hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee and Foreign Relations Committee and debate on the chamber floor on the war in Iran, Jewish Insider’s Marc Rod reports.

The plan: JI first reported that several of those lawmakers — including Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) — introduced a series of five new war powers resolutions late last week. The senators indicated in a meeting with reporters on Monday that they plan to force votes on those, and possibly additional, war powers resolutions when they become eligible for votes next week, but that those resolutions are just part of a broader strategy to disrupt normal Senate business in an attempt to force greater public discussion about the war in Iran.

Read the full story here.

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

TERROR PROBE

Alleged perpetrators of attempted bombing at anti-Mamdani protest claim ISIS as inspiration

The two Pennsylvania men who allegedly hurled improvised explosive devices toward a protest against New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani will face federal charges for “ISIS-inspired terrorism,” NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch revealed Monday, Jewish Insider’s Will Bredderman reports.

ISIS inspiration: Mamdani and Tisch addressed the press near the scene of the crime, the mayoral residence of Gracie Mansion, where far-right provocateur Jake Lang held a protest on Saturday to “Stop the Islamic takeover of New York City.” Tisch said Lang and his supporters were the targets of two homemade bombs that Emir Balat, 18, who had traveled from Pennsylvania with his accused accomplice Ibrahim Kayumi, 19, flung from amid the counter-demonstration. Tisch confirmed earlier reporting that the Islamic State appears to have inspired the alleged perpetrators’ actions — but maintained nothing at present pointed to any link between the attempted attack and the ongoing U.S. and Israeli military campaign against Iran.

Read the full story here.

Bonus: Mamdani posted a photo of his wife, who has come under fire in recent days for her social media support for Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks, and former Columbia protest leader Mahmoud Khalil, who is facing potential deportation for his role in anti-Israel activity on the campus, having an iftar meal at Gracie Mansion.

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

Worthy Reads

Wolpe’s Wit: In a tongue-in-cheek essay in The Atlantic, Rabbi David Wolpe responds to a statement from California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office reaffirming his belief in Israel’s right to exist, issued after the governor came under fire for a series of anti-Israel remarks. “Given this statement, I feel it is appropriate to affirm that I believe that Gavin Newsom also has the right to exist, and I further believe that California itself has the right to exist. And the right to defend itself, specifically from Nevada, but not necessarily from Oregon. … As a spiritual leader, it is my responsibility to follow my conscience and not the shifting polls, which, coincidentally, currently align with my conscience. Yes, this position may arouse some ire. Many insist that California is a colonial enterprise, and much of it was stolen from its original inhabitants, the members of the liberal-arts faculty of UC Berkeley.” [TheAtlantic]

Chaos Be Damned: In The Washington Post, Douglas Feith, who served as undersecretary of defense for policy from 2001-2005, posits that President Donald Trump is attempting a new strategy in Iran. “Trump shows no concern about chaos. He is giving the Iranians a chance to take control away from the ayatollahs. Trump sees that as a gift — he doesn’t think the U.S. owes Iranians an on-the-ground effort to prevent chaos or to make their country stable, let alone democratic and prosperous. The president’s goal is to deprive Iran of the power to hurt the U.S. and its interests. If dangers develop down the road, he expects to be able to deal with them far more easily than if he had left in place the Islamic regime that was pursuing nuclear weapons and developing ever-longer-range missiles.” [WashPost]

Doha’s Decision: In his Substack “The Abrahamic Metacritique,” Hussein Aboubakr Mansour observes the developing inflection point in Qatar as the Arab state’s leaders determine its political and diplomatic future. “The question we should ask is whether Qatar will use this moment of crisis to do what its critics have demanded for years: sever its ties to political Islam, expel the Muslim Brotherhood networks it has funded and housed since the 1990s, abandon the Hamas patronage that made it indispensable as a mediator but also made it a target, and, perhaps, reposition as a clean, reliable American partner. The question sounds simple, but the answer is not.” [AbrahamicMetacritique]

Ari the Interviewer: The New York Times’ Brooks Barnes spotlights former Endeavor CEO Ari Emanuel following the launch of the Hollywood agent’s new podcast, in which he takes center stage as an interviewer. “For people who have dealt with the combative Mr. Emanuel over the decades, this can be a bit like watching a body-swapping comedy: Who are you, and what have you done with Ari Emanuel? In contrast to his reputation, Mr. Emanuel comes across on ‘Rushmore’ as eminently likable. He’s polite and thoughtful. He’s able to maintain his focus for more than 90 seconds. Mr. Emanuel even allows himself brief moments of vulnerability — when the armor slips, and he’s not the alpha.” [NYTimes]

Word on the Street

The Wall Street Journal does a deep dive into President Donald Trump‘s potential backing of either Vice President JD Vance or Secretary of State Marco Rubio — the latter of whom the president has expressed a growing preference for — as the GOP’s 2028 presidential candidate…

Politico looks at the diplomatic efforts of White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner as they represent a presidential administration that “views diplomacy like a real-estate venture, requiring a business mindset and a small team tasked with securing a big development deal”...

The Wall Street Journal spotlights the Florsheim loafers being gifted by Trump to all manner of White House visitors, noting that while at the White House in January, far-right commentator Tucker Carlson was given a pair of brown wingtips…

The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg reflects on the consequences of “Signalgate” a year after he was accidentally added to a group chat of senior Trump administration officials ahead of and during a U.S. operation targeting the Houthis…

Led by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), 31 Senate Democrats pressed the administration for accountability for the death of a U.S. citizen in the West Bank, writing that there has been “a consistent pattern in which Americans are being killed in the West Bank by settlers or the IDF without justice or accountability, despite promises from U.S. officials”…

The Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board rejected for the second time in as many months a proposal for a virtual Jewish charter school, citing a state Supreme Court ruling that charter schools must be non-sectarian…

A mayoral candidate in Ann Arbor, Mich., featured an open Hamas supporter in his campaign video, JI’s Haley Cohen has learned…

A kosher concessions stand is setting up shop at Camden Yards for the Baltimore Orioles’ upcoming season; Birdland Kosher will sell ballpark and American Jewish fare, including hot dogs, chicken nuggets, soft pretzels, hot pastrami sandwiches on rye, potato knishes and chocolate chip cookies…

Australia will grant asylum to five members of Iran’s national women’s soccer team who had been in the country when the war broke out; the move came after President Donald Trump called on Canberra to help the women and offered them asylum in the U.S….

Team Israel was eliminated from the World Baseball Classic following its 10-1 loss to the Dominican Republic on Monday; the Israeli team will still play against the Netherlands today in Miami…

Comic book colorist Tatjana Wood, who survived the Holocaust in hiding at a Quaker school in the Netherlands before immigrating to the U.S. and becoming an award-winning artist, died at 99…

Pic of the Day

Argentine President Javier Milei was the featured guest at Yeshiva University last night for the latest in its “Great Conversations” series hosted by the school’s president, Rabbi Ari Berman (right). 

Birthdays

Co-founder of Twitter and then Jelly, which he headed from 2014 until its acquisition by Pinterest in 2017, Christopher Isaac “Biz” Stone turns 52… 

Member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, he played for the San Diego Chargers of the AFL and then for the Oakland Raiders of the NFL, Ron Mix turns 88… Long Beach, Calif., general surgeon, Leonard M. Lovitch, MD… Former chairman and president of Purdue Pharma, he and his family are the subject of multiple lawsuits relating to the opioid crisis, Richard Sackler, MD turns 81… Author and publisher of the Phoenix Scottsdale Jewish Friendship Trail Guidebook, Michael Alan Ross… Senior cryogenics engineer at Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, Ariz., he is also an adjunct professor at the University of Arizona, Lawrence Sobel… Founder and CEO of Cambridge, Mass.-based Pegasystems, Alan N. Trefler turns 70… Editor-at-large of Mishpacha Magazine, Binyamin Rose turns 70… Founder of two Israeli companies, Strategy3i Ltd. and Fluenzy, Jeffrey Kahn turns 68… Winner of four gymnastics medals in the 1984 Summer Olympic Games, now in the reverse mortgage business in Sarasota, Mitch Gaylord turns 65… Record producer, former co-president of Columbia Records and a co-founder of Def Jam Records, Frederick Jay “Rick” Rubin turns 63… Financial journalist for CNBC and one of the co-hosts of its morning show “Squawk on the Street,” David Faber turns 62… Executive director until 2024 of the America Israel Friendship League, Wayne L. Firestone turns 62… Stage, screen and television actor, he is the son of novelist Norman Mailer, Stephen Mailer turns 60… Investigative reporter for The New York Times since 2000, Danny Hakim… Former White House official in the Clinton administration, she is now the first lady of Pennsylvania, Lori Shapiro turns 53… Real estate agent on Bravo’s “Million Dollar Listing,” Josh Altman turns 47… Former IDF officer, then a financial executive, Aliza Landes… Former deputy assistant secretary at the U.S. State Department, now executive director at The Vandenberg Coalition, Carrie Filipetti… Actor and director, he is the son of Kate Capshaw and Steven Spielberg, Sawyer Avery Spielberg turns 34…

A group of six Senate Democrats is threatening to immediately begin obstructing proceedings on the Senate floor in order to force public hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee and Foreign Relations Committee and debate on the chamber floor on the war in Iran.

Jewish Insider first reported that several of those lawmakers — including Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) — introduced a series of five new war powers resolutions late last week.

The senators indicated in a meeting with reporters on Monday that they plan to force votes on those, and possibly additional, war powers resolutions when they become eligible for votes next week, but that those resolutions are just part of a broader strategy to disrupt normal Senate business in an attempt to force greater public discussion about the war in Iran.

“We’ve had no oversight whatsoever over what the executive is doing, as they’re spending a billion dollars a day. And we have failed to have any real substantive debate or discussion,” Booker said. “We are not going to let business as usual go on in the Senate … we are demanding that the Republican leadership of the Senate hold the adequate hearings and oversight, as well as to allow a debate that brings transparency to this onto the Senate floor.”

Booker declined to discuss their specific plans, but said that the senators would “use the levers that we have,” citing efforts over the years by Republican colleagues to block or slow down Senate procedure to compel votes on various issues.

“Each individual senator has a tremendous amount of power to disrupt the normal functionings of the Senate, as well as certain privileges that we can exercise,” Booker said. “And what we have agreed on right now is that we are not going to let the Senate continue its business as usual.”

Though the war powers resolutions won’t be eligible for Senate floor votes until next week, Booker indicated that the senators plan to begin other obstructionist tactics immediately, unless hearings are announced.

Murphy highlighted that the lawmakers have the ability, should they choose to do so, to “force a vote and debate every single day in the Senate” on the war powers resolutions. But Baldwin indicated that the lawmakers might not force the war powers votes if Republicans do schedule the hearings they request.

Booker said that the group is not necessarily speaking for the entire Senate Democratic caucus.

Murphy asserted that public hearings with administration officials, tasked with defending and explaining the war effort to the public, would only make the operation less popular with the American public. The Democrats also highlighted other costs, including increasing gas prices, associated with the war.

Kaine argued that the question for the Senate and the American people is not whether “Iran [is] a bad actor” or whether “in the abstract, [they have] done terrible things,” it is whether the war is worth risking American lives. Seven U.S. servicemembers have died in the course of the campaign so far.

Murphy and other Senate Democrats had also been pushing for a Senate vote on an authorization for use of military force regarding Iran. But on Monday, the six Democrats involved in this effort said they had ruled out the idea of a Democratic-led AUMF, arguing that the burden is on Republicans and the administration to put forward such a proposal and define its scope.

“They have to tell us and bring evidence to us that this war is worth an AUMF,” Duckworth said. “I personally don’t even want to have the discussion about an AUMF, because they haven’t even gone to the first step yet” of proving the need for the war.

Kaine said that the lawmakers, including Murphy, had “explored the procedural option” of an AUMF, but said that the “burden” to write such a bill should not be on the Democrats “who think this war is a bad idea.”

“It would be too unusual for the opponents to file the AUMF,” he continued. “The proponents are the ones that carry the burden of proof with the American public. They need to file it.”

The six Democrats did not appear to be entirely in agreement about how they would handle a potential request by the administration for supplemental funding to support the war effort or replenish U.S. armaments expended in it.

Kaine said he would withhold judgement on the issue until such a request was presented, explaining, “I want to end the war, I want to protect our troops.”

Schiff argued that the military has “plenty of money” from last year’s reconciliation bill, and also said that a congressional appropriation for a military effort could, legally, be considered an authorization for use of military force.

Should they secure the hearings they seek, the senators said they want to press administration officials on the goals and timeline for the war, the rules of engagement and restrictions imposed on U.S. forces, the circumstances that led to a deadly strike — which some have attributed to the U.S., though the administration disputes this — on a girls’ school, potential plans to support separatist movements inside Iran and the administration’s plans to support and protect Iranian demonstrators should another mass uprising occur.

“My goal is to end this war, to stop wasting millions of dollars and to protect further servicemembers from dying, and I think the way that you do that is by exposing to the public the fact that this is a war of choice, the fact that this president has ignored the law and the Constitution and the people through us, hold him to account,” Baldwin said.

The rapid turn within the Democratic Party against Israel — especially from several of its prospective presidential candidates — is awfully reminiscent of right-wing Republicans’ growing agitation against Ukraine several years ago when the Biden administration provided support to Kyiv as it defended itself from Russian aggression.

Both situations involved an activist faction of the party out of the White House speaking out against a longtime ally, fueled by conspiracy theories and memes floating online. It was propelled by a growing isolationist vibe within both parties that the country should focus on domestic concerns instead of dealing with national security challenges abroad. And it led many politically ambitious elected officials who knew better to spout some of the most poisonous slander against close partners who are (literally) under fire from enemies. 

In our polarized political landscape, support for Israel and Ukraine are now becoming partisan issues — Republican elected officials and voters are overwhelmingly supportive of Israel, while Democrats are standing by Ukraine.  

As The Atlantic’s David Frum put it: “The two most militarily capable US allies are Ukraine and Israel. Weird to have a political system where one of the two parties despises the first, and the other is deciding it hates and resents the second. America needs and benefits from both those friendships!” 

There were plenty of senior Republican figures who withstood political pressure to vote for military funding for Ukraine despite the tough internal politics, and now Democrats are facing that same type of pressure to abandon the Jewish state for short-term political gain. 

Given that California Gov. Gavin Newsom — one of the leading Democratic presidential candidates — is now saying the U.S. should reconsider its military support for Israel, and that it’s reasonable to consider Israel as an apartheid state, it’s clear that the party is facing a moment of choosing. 

Newsom has generally been a supporter of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and governs a state with a sizable Jewish constituency. But as Israel’s support within the Democratic Party drops, many elected officials are willing to jettison their long-held views on foreign policy for short-term political expedience. Newsom’s anti-Israel turn was so extreme and so sudden that he received praise from antisemitic podcaster Tucker Carlson on his most recent show. 

If the consensus in the aftermath of the 2024 election was that the party needed to moderate and reject the left-wing activists that cost Kamala Harris the presidential election, the vibes have shifted dramatically since then. Moderate candidates like Gov. Josh Shapiro, Gov. Andy Beshear and former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel emerged as trendy presidential candidates eager to speak out against the excesses of the far left. 

Just look at all the developments since the resistance wing of the party has reasserted itself, capped by the election of an anti-Israel mayor in New York City. Graham Platner, an anti-Israel Maine Senate candidate who had a Nazi tattoo (that he later covered up when it was revealed) and has associated with antisemitic figures, is the unlikely star of the party’s leftward pivot. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) entered the Senate as a pro-Israel moderate, and he’s now testing out tropes accusing Israel of leading the U.S. into war with Iran. 

Party leaders are treating AIPAC, which advocates for a close U.S.-Israel relationship, as a slur in primaries across the country. 

This is happening amid the rise in explicit antisemitism from the online far right, from Carlson’s routine blood libels against Jews — including an ugly slur against Chabad on his most recent show — to racist and antisemitic group chats percolating among young conservatives from New York to Florida. 

A number of leading Republican elected officials, like Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and John Cornyn (R-TX), have spoken out forcefully against rising antisemitism on the right, but far too often the response to some of the most egregious hate has been silence — even from typical allies. 

The rise of anti-Jewish hate and conspiratorial anti-Israel nuttiness isn’t trivial. As we note in these pages, there has been a 95% increase in violent online posts targeting the Jewish community since the U.S. war against Iran has begun. Chabad, which Carlson is now going after, just faced a horrifying terror attack on Hanukkah that killed 15 in Australia — and recently experienced a car ramming at its Brooklyn headquarters closer to home. 

Playing footsie with radical actors for short-term political gain or clicks — even if it feels advantageous in the moment — could carry all-too-serious consequences.

In a surprise vote on Thursday afternoon that baffled some observers in Washington, 53 House Democrats voted against a resolution “reaffirming Iran remains the largest state sponsor of terrorism.” For some, their opposition traces to a desire not to give President Donald Trump rhetorical, or potentially legal, justification for continuing the Iran war, lawmakers said.

The resolution passed by a vote of 372-53, with two members voting “present.” 

Most of the lawmakers voting against the resolution — like Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Joaquin Castro (D-TX), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) —  are progressives, many of them frequent critics of Israel.

But a handful of others who ended up voting against the resolution are relative moderates who have taken more hawkish stances on Iran, such as Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), Rob Menendez (D-NJ) and Steve Cohen (D-TN), who also voted against the resolution. 

Many of the more moderate lawmakers who voted against the resolution are facing either competitive reelection races with challengers from their left or, in Krishnamoorthi’s case, running for higher office.

Newly elected Rep. Christian Menefee (D-TX), who had thus far not encountered any House votes on Middle East policy and faces Rep. Al Green (D-TX) in a member-on-member primary runoff, also voted no, as did Green.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), a Democratic rising star who is the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, told Jewish Insider he felt the legislation was meant to provide additional support for the war.

“Right now there’s an active situation that I oppose,” Garcia said. “That [resolution is] just meant to provide more pressure on that action. I think that right now, it’s a purely political stunt, and something that I won’t agree with.”

Another House Democrat, who asked to remain anonymous, explained that they were concerned about two clauses in the legislation, which they said could provide Trump with legal justifications for continuing the war.

One clause notes that “Tehran continues to harbor a network of senior al-Qaeda leaders, providing them with sanctuary space to fundraise in support of its fighters.” Given that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force that approved the Afghanistan war includes language allowing the use of military power against any nations that harbored the organizations or individuals responsible for planning, carrying or aiding in the 9/11 attacks, the Democrat said that Trump could use the language “as a legal justification” for the war.

The other clause describes Iran as a “direct and persistent threat to the United States,” which the Democrat said could trigger the president’s self-defense authorities under Article II of the Constitution.

“Iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism led by a regime that represses its own people and poses real dangers we must confront. We must ensure it never obtains a nuclear weapon. I will continue to support targeted efforts to counter the threats posed by Iran, but I voted against a separate resolution on Iran that President Trump may soon use to politically justify this war,” Krishnamoorthi said.

“Iran is obviously a state sponsor of terrorism. There’s no debate on that. The issue is that Republicans are using this to claim that Iran is harboring Al Qaeda (sound familiar?) and is a direct and persistent threat to the U.S. so they can legally justify this reckless war,” Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) said on X.

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), a progressive Israel critic who voted against the resolution, called it a “political messaging bill” designed to take attention away from the war powers resolution that failed in the House shortly after.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee — who supported the resolution — said in a statement, “I agree with the principal assertion of this resolution that Iran is a bad actor. Iran’s malign and destabilizing actions in the region and treatment of its own citizens should be denounced. I have never contested this. What I do contest is that going to war is the reasonable response to this assertion. I support this resolution. I do not support the president’s war of choice with Iran.”

A day after Republican senators blocked a vote to end the U.S.-Israeli operations in Iran, the House voted 219-212 to defeat a similar war powers resolution, with four Democrats breaking with their party to oppose an immediate end to the war, and two Republicans voting with other Democrats to oppose military action.

Reps. Greg Landsman (D-OH), Jared Golden (D-ME), Henry Cuellar (D-TX) and Juan Vargas (D-CA) were ultimately the only Democrats to vote against the resolution, which was led by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY). Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), who said they would oppose the resolution before the war began, ultimately voted in favor.

On the Republican side, Massie and Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), both of whom have isolationist leanings, were the only members of the GOP to support the resolution.

Moskowitz had argued before the war that voting preemptively on the resolution would remove U.S. leverage in negotiations, but argued that the situation has since changed and that the U.S. is now in a full-scale war.

“I didn’t flip at all,” Moskowitz told Jewish Insider. “Circumstances have changed since my first statement two weeks ago.”

In a statement, he condemned Iran and its regime, saying he is “happy that [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] is no longer able to reign terror on his country,” but added, “Regardless of how one feels about this war, or this President, Congress’s constitutional role in any declaration of war is a completely separate issue,” expressing concern at the erosion of congressional war powers over the past year. 

“We must reestablish our Article I authority which grants Congress all legislative powers,” Moskowitz said, adding that he did not believe the resolution would prevent continued efforts to protect U.S. bases and personnel nor intelligence sharing with allies.

Gottheimer emphasized in a statement that the U.S. “simply can’t afford to get this wrong — we must win and crush” the Iranian regime’s military capabilities, emphasizing that he is not, in principle, opposed to military action against Iran and that the regime “deserves the punishment they’re receiving.

“With the defeat of the War Powers Resolution in the Senate, the vote in the House today shifted from an unacceptable call that could put our troops in harm’s way to a clear call for this Administration to articulate the goals for the mission, the end game, and their plan to avoid a protracted conflict,” Gottheimer continued — suggesting that he voted for the resolution because it was, in essence, symbolic given that it did not pass the Senate.

“Unlike some of my colleagues who are opposed to combatting the Iranian regime, the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, I’m supporting this resolution to send a clear message to the Administration: the American people deserve a coherent explanation of what precipitated this war, what success looks like, and how we will know when the mission has been achieved,” he continued, criticizing “shifting justifications and objectives” from the administration. “I’m not opposed to taking action against Iran. I believe that steps to address the persistent threats are merited and necessary to protect our broader national security interests.”

He pledged to make sure the military has sufficient resources, signaling that he may support supplemental funding for the mission if and when requested.

The beginning of combat operations, the loss of some American soldiers and the administration’s inconsistent messaging and strategy — as well as an aggressive push from Democratic leadership — likely helped Democrats close ranks on the war powers resolution.

After the vote, Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that he would call up another war powers resolution 60 days from the start of the war, the limit under which an administration can conduct military operations without congressional authorization under the War Powers Act.

“Members who voted against today’s WPR on the assumption that Trump’s war will be swift or limited will not have that excuse once we’ve entered the third month of open-ended hostilities,” Meeks said.

Like Moskowitz and Gottheimer, a handful of other Democrats who have offered a degree of support for the U.S. operations in Iran ultimately voted for the resolution. Some have pointed to concerns about constitutional process and the administration’s failure to seek congressional approval for the war, rather than opposition to the war in general.

“I will vote for the war powers resolution because I cannot support unchecked authority for the administration to engage, indefinitely, in an already deadly war with unknown size and scope, especially considering Secretary [of Defense Pete] Hegseth’s suggestion that he is willing to” use ground troops in the operation, Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), a moderate House Democrat, said.

At the same time, Suozzi said that “Iran is weaker and the regime’s leadership has been decimated — those are good things. If these operations make the region more secure and America safer, those would also be good things.” He added that the war powers resolution would not prevent Congress from authorizing the use of force in Iran “if necessary and properly presented to Congress.”

Davidson, one of the two Republicans who voted for the resolution. said on the House floor on Wednesday that operations against Iran were just, and potentially necessary, but unconstitutional.

“For some this debate will be about whether we should even be fighting in Iran. For me, the debate is more fundamental: is the president of the United States, regardless of the person holding the office, empowered to do whatever he wants?” Davidson said. “That’s not what our Constitution says. … I rise in support of this war powers resolution today because the moral hazard posed by a government no longer constrained by our Constitution is a grave threat.”

Davidson argued that his Republican colleagues were ignoring the clear definition of what constitutes a war, and repudiating Trump’s campaign promises.

The House resolution, unlike the Senate version, included no specific protections to allow for continued U.S. intelligence sharing with Israel and other allies, and defensive operations to protect allies like Israel and U.S. forces.

Earlier this week, Gottheimer, Landsman, Suozzi, Cuellar, Golden and Reps. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), Jim Costa (D-CA), Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX) and Adam Gray (D-CA) had introduced an alternative resolution that would give the administration 30 days from the start of the war to wind down operations in Iran, rather than demanding an immediate halt, while banning any ground operations.

Gottheimer said in his statement he plans to call up his resolution during the week of March 23, but he hopes that, “Between now and then, I hope either the conflict has reached its objectives or the Administration has made a strong case to Congress and the American people for why this mission must continue.”

But most ultimately voted for the Massie-Khanna resolution.

Suozzi said that the Gottheimer resolution “would prevent a reckless and potentially unsafe removal of our forces and allow us to continue to protect American troops and our allies in the region during this perilous time,” a seeming indictment of the war powers resolution he nevertheless supported.

Top lawmakers supporting the war powers resolution have largely failed to articulate what the implications of immediately ending operations would be, with some claiming, in spite of the resolution’s language, that U.S. forces would be allowed to finish their mission and wind down.

Some former Democratic officials argued that Gottheimer’s alternative effort would be a more prudent path, with U.S. forces and embassies under fire from Iran, and that any realistic and safe withdrawal would take time. One also argued that the resolution, if brought to a vote, might pick up enough Republican support to pass.

Daniel Silverberg, a former advisor to Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), emphasized that a similar effort to cut off the U.S.’ Libya operations led by “one of the most ardent anti-war activists in the House,” then-Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), included a 15-day wind-down provision.

“The Massie-Khanna resolution lacks it. The notion that Democrats would not, at a minimum, support that amendment to allow for a responsible withdrawal of forces is problematic from a national security perspective and from a messaging perspective,” Silverberg said.

Jeremy Bash, a former chief of staff at the Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency under the Obama administration, told JI that the Khanna-Massie resolution “requires [a] very strange outcome” that would be “dangerous for our troops” and that it was not “credible” because it lacked any buffer period.

The Anti-Defamation League on Thursday urged public figures to refrain from promoting antisemitic rhetoric amid the U.S. and Israel’s operation against Iran, as some leading Democrats have invoked anti-Israel sentiment since the war began last week.   

“Since the start of hostilities with the Islamic Republic of Iran last weekend, we are witnessing an alarming pattern of escalating, inflammatory rhetoric from voices across the political and ideological spectrum,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL. “This rhetoric distorts reality and fuels dangerous antisemitic narratives.”

The ADL’s statement comes as several Democratic elected officials have condemned the joint U.S.-Israel ongoing strikes in Iran.  

Greenblatt expressed concern that “too many voices” have “engaged in this dangerous game,” which he said includes statements calling Israel an “apartheid state” or accusing it of “genocide,” which “inflame hatred.” 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said on Tuesday on the liberal podcast “Pod Save America” that the U.S. should reconsider its military support for Israel. Amid the Iran operation, he told the podcast’s hosts that Israel could “appropriately” be described as an apartheid state.   

The comments marked a shift for Newsom — widely considered a 2028 presidential contender — who traveled to Israel less than two weeks after the Oct. 7 terror attacks in 2023 and said in an October 2025 interview that he would not consider eliminating U.S. military aid to Israel.   

Additionally, the ADL condemned rhetoric that claims pro-Israel organizations and supporters are “anti-American” for advocating for a U.S.-Israel relationship, as well as rhetoric that blames Israel or frames American policy as manipulated by Jewish influence. 

During an address at J Street’s convention in Washington on Sunday, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) said the pro-Israel advocacy group “may call itself pro-American. They may call themselves pro-Israel. But they are neither.” 

“It is a sad irony that an operation against the world’s largest sponsor of antisemitism has prompted so much antisemitism,” said Greenblatt.

The ADL’s statement, which does not mention Newsom or any other figures by name, is a contrast from one put out by the American Jewish Committee on Wednesday, which directly condemned the governor.  

“Governor Newsom’s recent comments about Israel were confusing and problematic at a critical moment, as the United States, Israel, and their regional partners confront significant threats from the Iranian regime,” the AJC said.


“Invoking the term ‘apartheid’ is wrong and inflammatory, does not reflect the complex realities on the ground, and only risks inflaming tensions.
Policy disagreements between Israeli and U.S. leaders should not undermine the enduring importance of the U.S.–Israel relationship, grounded in shared values and strategic interests.” 

Democratic lawmakers speaking at the Monday evening gala of J Street’s Washington conference argued that the joint U.S.-Israel operation that killed many top Iranian leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would ultimately make Iranians, Israelis and the United States less safe.

“I do not believe that the United States or Israel should be leading a regime change operation in Iran. It will not bring safety or security to the people of Iran, to the region or to the United States, and it’s important that all of us here in this room continue to stand up and say that,” Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) said. “We’ve lived through this before. Regime change often backfires. It creates power vacuums, leads to even harder-line leaders and civil wars and failed states.”

She also argued the U.S. set Iran on the path toward the current regime’s leadership by backing the 1953 overthrow of the Mossadegh government in Iran.

Expressing her support for the war powers resolution vote taking place in the House later this week, Jacobs said, “We can’t be equivocal, that we have to say strongly and clearly that what is happening is not OK, and it is not making Jews in Israel or here in the United States any safer.”

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said that he does not mourn Khamenei nor the other Iranian leaders who have been killed, “but we have not just cut off the head of the snake. We have almost certainly kicked up a hornet’s nest, one with remaining capabilities and appetite for revenge. Now we ask, what comes next?”

He said that the administration entered into the operation without any clear plan to effect the regime change it appears to desire, nor how to protect and support the Iranian civilians the Trump administration has urged to rise up against the regime.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), the lead sponsor of the war powers resolution set for a vote this week in the Senate, made the case for his legislation, saying, “That vote in front of the American people is a way of clarifying what’s at stake and deciding if the mission is so important that we should risk our own kids’ lives.”

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said that the “vote is not about whether we should go in or not. The vote is that you cannot go in unless Congress gives you the [authority],” framing the vote as an affirmation of Congress’ constitutional power to declare war.

Kaine emphasized that J Street’s influence within the Democratic Party has grown, saying that “virtually all” Democratic senators now seek the group’s endorsement.

Throughout the Purim-themed evening, speakers repeatedly drew comparisons between Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and members of Trump’s administration and Haman, the villain of the Purim story.

“This is a moment not unlike the scenes that gave us the story of Purim: a hedonistic king less interested in justice than in his own pride and pleasure. A ruler flanked by evil advisors, his toxic grip on power unleashing danger and violence,” Schiff said. “It is all too reminiscent of the plots against the Jews driven by him.”

And in an unusual moment, Kaine capped off his remarks with a sing-along rendition of Woody Guthrie’s “This Land is Your Land,” playing his harmonica through the choruses.

A number of Republican lawmakers rallied behind President Donald Trump’s military strikes against Iran on Saturday, while leading Democrats expressed quick and strident opposition to the administration’s decision to attack Iran.

Democrats are also demanding Congress reconvene promptly next week to vote on war powers resolutions to block further military operations in Iran without congressional approval. The resolutions were already expected to come up for votes in the coming week.

A few Democratic lawmakers sounded more open-minded about the attack against Tehran. Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), one of the few foreign policy hawks in his party, said the president “was absolutely” correct to attack Iran in an appearance on Fox News. “God bless the United States, our great military, and Israel,” Fetterman said.

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH), who told Jewish Insider earlier this week that limited strikes on Iran could be necessary and productive, echoed that stance on Saturday. He said that he would oppose the war powers resolution.

“I hope these targeted strikes on the Iranian regime’s military assets end the regime’s mayhem and bloodshed and makes way for this lasting peace in the region,” Landsman said. “Thank you to our brave service members who are leading this effort, and I pray their work will finally free the people of Iran and those in the region from more violence or war. May peace emerge from all of this.”

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), who had been planning to oppose the war powers resolution, praised the attack while highlighting the administration’s obligations under the War Powers Act, which limits the duration for which the president can unilaterally commit forces to armed conflict without congressional approval.

“Today, the United States, with our key democratic ally Israel, took decisive action to defend our national security, fight terror, protect our allies and stand with the Iranian people who have been massacred in the streets for demanding freedom from the murderous Iranian regime,” Gottheimer said. “I applaud the extraordinary bravery and professionalism of our servicemembers and pray for their safety as Iran and its terrorist proxies retaliate against American bases and our partners in the region.”

“Confronting the Iranian threat is essential to America’s national security and to global stability. The world is safer because of the courage and skill of our service members. I am praying for their safety and the safety of all of our allies who have been targeted by Iranian retaliation,” he continued.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) offered more muted support for the operation, praising U.S. servicemembers while saying she “stand[s] with the Iranian people in their hope for a better future and will continue to work in a bipartisan way in Congress to provide them the support they need.” She called for an immediate and detailed briefing on the administration’s plans, and highlighted Iran’s long record of malign activity and attacks on its own citizens.

But Rosen also warned against a protracted conflict and criticized the lack of congressional authorization.

Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), among the most moderate Democrats in the House and a potential swing vote on the war powers resolution, said Trump needs to seek congressional authorization for the operation, while offering support for the administration’s goals.

“I agree with the President’s objectives that Iran can never be allowed to obtain nuclear capabilities. The President must now clearly define the national security objective and articulate his plan to avoid another costly, prolonged war in the Middle East,” Suozzi said. “Iran remains the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the region and must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Preventing that outcome is vital to our national security, the safety of our allies, and the stability of the Middle East.”

Most of the leading voices in the Democratic Party, however, are rallying against the Iran attack.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), who is leading a war powers resolution in the Senate that he planned to call up for a vote next week, said in a statement, “Every single Senator needs to go on the record about this dangerous, unnecessary, and idiotic action,” calling the strikes a “colossal mistake,” accusing the president of having “learned nothing from decades of U.S. meddling in Iran and forever wars in the Middle East” and of being “mentally incapacitated.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who is leading similar legislation in the House, said that “the American people are tired of regime change wars that cost us billions of dollars and risk our lives. We don’t want to be at war with a country of 90 million people in the Middle East.”

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), one of the few GOP isolationists in Congress and Khanna’s cosponsor on that resolution, also said he opposes the operation.

“This is not ‘America First,’” Massie said. “When Congress reconvenes, I will work with @RepRoKhanna to force a Congressional vote on war with Iran. The Constitution requires a vote, and your Representative needs to be on record as opposing or supporting this war.”

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), another isolationist-minded Republican who indicated this week that he was leaning toward voting for the war powers resolution, sent similar signals on Saturday.

“We need a government small enough to fit within the Constitution. We need a government effective enough to solve problems and serve its own people. Or, we need a new Constitution,” Davidson said.

The House is not scheduled to reconvene until Wednesday.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who was one of the handful of congressional leaders briefed on the administration’s plans earlier this week, said that “everything I have heard from the administration before and after these strikes on Iran confirms this is a war of choice with no strategic endgame.”

He said he expressed his concerns to Secretary of State Marco Rubio during the briefing this week.

Republicans are largely lining up behind the administration, with the exception of Massie.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who had urged Trump to take action, praised the administration, saying Trump had “met the moment.”

“My mind is racing with the thought that the murderous ayatollah’s regime in Iran will soon be no more. The biggest change in the Middle East in a thousand years is upon us,” Graham said. “The likelihood of normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel getting back on track is exceedingly high –  a subject I brought up last week to the key players in the region who concurred if the ayatollah goes down, historic peace advances.”

Graham met with leaders in Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates this month and said on Fox News on Saturday morning that he plans to return soon. Following retaliatory strikes by Iran on U.S. military facilities in several Arab states, Saudi Arabia issued a statement condemning Iran and offering its support for measures the Arab states may take in response.

“This operation has been well-planned,” Graham continued. “It will be violent, extensive and I believe, at the end of the day, successful. Again the demise of the ayatollah’s regime with American blood on its hands is necessary and more than justified.”

He later urged Arab and other allies to “get behind President Trump and go all in to ensure the ayatollah’s Iran, which has become the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world is no more.”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who was also briefed, said, “The butcher’s bill has finally come due for the ayatollahs. May God bless and protect our troops on this vital mission of vengeance, and justice, and safety,” highlighting the regime’s long record of attacks against Americans.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said Iran is “facing the severe consequences of its evil actions,” and said Trump had “made every effort” at diplomacy. “For decades, Iran has defiantly maintained its nuclear program while arming and funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and other internationally recognized terrorist organizations. Iran and its proxies have menaced America and American lives, undermined our core national interests, systematically destabilized the Middle East, and threatened the security of the entire West.”

“The Gang of 8 was briefed in detail earlier this week that military action may become necessary to protect American troops and American citizens in Iran. I received updates from Secretary Rubio thereafter, and I will remain in close contact with the President and the Department of War as this operation proceeds,” Johnson continued.

Other rank-and-file Democrats, including some moderates, drew parallels with the Bush administration’s war against Iraq in their criticism. 

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that the strikes raise “serious legal and constitutional concerns.”

“The American people have seen this playbook before — claims of urgency, misrepresented intelligence, and military action that pulls the United States into regime change and prolonged, costly nation-building,” Warner continued. “We owe it to our service members, and to every American family, to ensure that we are not repeating the mistakes of the past. The president owes the country clear answers: What is the objective? What is the strategy to prevent escalation? And how does this make Americans safer?”

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), an Iraq war veteran representing a GOP-leaning state, expressed concern for U.S. forces, who Trump acknowledged could be lost in the ensuing war.

“I lost friends in Iraq to an illegal war. Young working-class kids should not pay the ultimate price for regime change and a war that hasn’t been explained or justified to the American people,” Gallego said. “We can support the democracy movement and the Iranian people without sending our troops to die.”

Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), a co-chair of the House Jewish caucus and a key pro-Israel leader, criticized the administration’s move and said he would support the war powers resolution. “The President of the United States is not allowed to take our nation to war without authorization from Congress.”

“This is a moment of peril and opportunity,” Schneider said. “Congress must step up to meet the moment, fulfill its constitutional duties, and ensure American action — with our allies in the region and around the world — leads to a more stable and peaceful Middle East, not another generational entanglement ending in failure.”

Former Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA), among the House’s most vocal Democratic Iran hawks while she was in office and who is now running to reclaim her former seat, also said Congress should “immediately return to Washington” to vote on Kaine’s war powers resolution.

Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) said that Trump has “no credibility on either the strategy or law guiding foreign policy” — pointing to the president’s delayed promise to Iranian protesters earlier this year that help would be coming — and said he plans to support the war powers resolution.

“I am ready to work across the aisle to craft congressionally directed strategy on Iran, especially for securing American air supremacy in the region and supporting the Iranian people’s right to self determination,” Auchincloss said. “But first congressional Republicans must call the question on this fundamental issue of war powers by voting against a reckless commander-in-chief and for the Constitution.”

Democrats running for the open Senate seat in Illinois are increasingly trying to differentiate themselves on Israel policy ahead of next month’s primary. In the final weeks of the campaign, Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton appears to be trying to straddle a line on Israel policy between Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), who has a largely pro-Israel record, and Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL), who has been increasingly critical of Israel.

Stratton, of the three, has the least established record on Middle East policy issues, and her approach was on display at a debate last week with fellow candidates, where she did not offer direct answers to questions on whether additional conditions should be applied to U.S. aid to Israel or whether the war in Gaza constituted a genocide.

Asked about conditions on aid to Israel, Stratton said that the “devastation” both on Oct. 7, 2023, and during the ensuing war in Gaza has been “horrifying” and she wants to “see the suffering end.”

“I can tell you that as our democratic ally in the Middle East, I believe that Israel has a right to safety and security, but at the very same time, I totally disagree with the way that [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu has responded to those attacks, and I believe that he should be removed from power, or he should step down, and there should be elections, as the people have been calling for,” Stratton said. 

Israel is set to go to elections in October.

Stratton also called for aid to Gaza and for Palestinian leadership that can push toward a two-state solution.

Asked whether she would vote for a resolution led by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) describing the war in Gaza as a genocide, Stratton said the war was “devastating and it was horrific” and that “we must do everything we can to make sure that we can be on a real, sustained path to peace,” but avoiding directly answering the question.

Krishnamoorthi emphasized that U.S. aid to Israel and all other allies is already subject to various conditions, which he said should be enforced. He “strongly condemned” both Hamas for the Oct. 7 attacks and Netanyahu for Israel’s conduct during the war.

“We need to take the next step,” Krishnamoorthi said. “That means Israel needs to withdraw from the Gaza Strip. Hamas needs to be demilitarized. An international stabilization force has to arrive, and then massive construction aid has to come in, to the point where we have a chance at a road to a two-state solution of Palestinian and Israeli states living side by side.”

When asked about classifying the war as a genocide, he said that the parties in the region “don’t agree on a credible assessment of what exactly happened” and suggested that debate over or the use of the term would be an obstacle to progress in the ceasefire agreement first implemented in October 2025.

“I want to see the language [of the Tlaib resolution], but I need to be comforted right now that this type of resolution doesn’t get in the way of progress right now for Gazans, because right now they’re going through hell as it is, and we got to get to a better place,” he responded, when pressed on whether he would vote for the Michigan congresswoman’s resolution.

Kelly touted her support for the Block the Bombs Act that would place sweeping restrictions on U.S. arms sales to Israel, and joined Stratton in calling for Netanyahu to resign, calling his leadership a “reign of terror.”

“A lot of people would say what happened on Oct. 7 was horrible, but there were a lot of things that happened before Oct. 7 also,” Kelly said. “I’m the only one on this stage that supported something like Block the Bombs and I’m the only one on the stage that said, it may not have started off like this but … genocide was the result.”

All three candidates said that a preemptive U.S. strike on Iran without congressional authorization would be illegal.

Krishnamoorthi emphasized that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon, but argued that the U.S. must find a diplomatic solution to address the Islamic Republic’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

He added that any military action must be authorized by Congress and that he plans to support an upcoming war powers resolution to block military action against Iran without such authorization.

Stratton said that “we certainly don’t want to see a nuclear Iran … but what we also can’t have is a president who just decides whenever he gets a whim … and threatens to strike or commit some act of war. We need Congress to rein him in.”

Kelly accused Trump of seeking out war as a “distraction” from alleged failures on the home front, and demanded a diplomatic path using any tools and partners available.

Stratton is supported in the Senate race by Gov. JB Pritzer, who last week condemned AIPAC as a “pro-Trump organization.”

A Democratic strategist in the state said that it’s hard to tell where the race stands, but that public polling has put Krishnamoorthi in the lead. He noted that Krishnamoorthi is running an ad contrasting him with Stratton, indicating his campaign thinks Stratton may be making up some ground.

Pritzker’s super PAC recently began spending big backing Stratton and attacking Krishnamoorthi.

The strategist said that Kelly hasn’t been keeping up with the other two candidates in television advertising, but there are still opportunities to make up ground and increase her vote share. Kelly has largely been trying to court the most progressive voters and carve out the left-most lane for herself, but otherwise, the strategist said, there’s been little ideological difference among the candidates overall.

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL) and 25 Democratic co-sponsors introduced a bill on Monday that would implement wide-ranging new conditions and restrictions on U.S. aid to Israel.

The Ceasefire Compliance Act would require the administration to assess and report to Congress every 90 days on whether Israel is complying with the October 2025 ceasefire agreement in Gaza, including halting military operations and bombing campaigns.

The legislation does not appear to contain exceptions for the strikes Israel has taken in retaliation for Hamas’ own violations of the ceasefire deal, nor mention its targeting of individual Hamas leaders.

Under the terms of the legislation, if Israel does not meet the conditions included in the law, the U.S. would be banned from selling or transferring any U.S. military systems to Israel for use in Gaza or the West Bank, any further transfers would be subject to a specific agreement by Israel that the weapons would not be used in Gaza or the West Bank and the administration would be required to reach an agreement with Israel that U.S.-origin systems already in Israel’s possession would also be banned from use in Gaza or the West Bank.

Those restrictions would remain in effect until Israel is in compliance with all conditions. The legislation establishes an end-use monitoring group within the administration to monitor whether U.S.-provided systems are in use in Gaza or the West Bank.

The legislation includes language guaranteeing that U.S. defensive assistance to and intelligence sharing with Israel, as well as provision of missile-defense systems to Israel, are exempt from the conditions. The bill would sunset after five years.

Other conditions would require Israel to work to implement President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan; allow humanitarian aid into Gaza; cooperate in the establishment of a temporary Palestinian government and ultimately a Palestinian Authority government in the West Bank; take “material steps” to prevent settler attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank; and ban any forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, annexation of Gaza or “de facto or de jure annexation” of any part of the West Bank.

The Israeli government, and a broad swath of Israeli society, oppose the establishment of a Palestinian Authority government in Gaza given the group’s ongoing payments to the families of terrorists, among a raft of other concerns.

“As one of the United States’ most important allies, Israel must ensure that its policies and the use of U.S. military assistance align with American values, interests, and the law,” Casten said in a statement. “That starts with requiring compliance with the October 10, 2025, ceasefire agreement and the steps laid out in the 20-point plan, curbing settler violence, and rejecting annexation in the West Bank.”

The legislation includes a limited presidential waiver of the conditions for transfers and sales “vital to the national security of the United States.” The president would be required to provide a detailed justification to Congress 15 days before invoking such a waiver explaining why it is necessary and unavoidable.

“This bill redefines the system of US military aid to Israel, transforming it from a blank check to an accountability-based system that advances US strategic interests in the Middle East, aligns with American values, enhances Israel’s security, and protects Palestinian civilians,” a release by Casten’s office about the bill states. “Through thorough oversight and tough enforcement mechanisms, it makes clear that actions undermining shared U.S. and Israeli interests and values will have consequences.”

The bill is co-sponsored by Reps. Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Veronica Escobar (D-TX), Chris Deluzio (D-PA), Becca Balint (D-VT), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Ro Khanna (D-CA), John Garamendi (D-CA), Don Beyer (D-VA), Jill Tokuda (D-HI), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Valerie Foushee (D-NC), Mike Thompson (D-CA), Sylvia Garcia (D-TX), Doris Matsui (D-CA), Derek Tran (D-CA), Emily Randall (D-WA), Jared Huffman (D-CA), Mark Takano (D-CA), Troy Carter (D-LA), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Betty McCollum (D-MN) and Joaquin Castro (D-TX).

The legislation also includes specific language emphasizing that the administration has no authority to transfer U.S. funds to the Board of Peace — after Trump pledged a $10 billion U.S. commitment last week — or to provide the Board of Peace with authorities that “[supersede] the role or authorities of the United Nations.”

One source familiar with the situation told Jewish Insider that J Street, which is backing the bill alongside New Jewish Narrative and Foreign Policy for America, is making the legislation its top priority. The group is holding a conference in Washington later this month.

“The Ceasefire Compliance Act puts into law the common sense principle that American weapons cannot be used by the Israeli government in Gaza and the West Bank in ways that fundamentally violate American values and directly contravene U.S. interests,” J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami said in a statement. “US assistance — whether aid or arms — should never come as a blank check. The CCA will ensure the Israeli government is held to agreements it has signed and abides by the ceasefire, allows a Palestinian governing council to take control of Gaza, and cannot annex the West Bank.”

Though the bill is unlikely to pass Congress under Republican control, it could provide a model for Democrats critical of Israel shy of the terms of the Block the Bombs Act and other efforts to impose a full offensive arms embargo on the Jewish state.

The debate over Israel within the Democratic Party has long been a particularly acute source of tension, in the wake of a protracted war in Gaza that deepened internal divisions over  America’s increasingly contested relationship with one of its closest allies.

Recently, however, many Jewish and pro-Israel Democrats say they have observed a distinct and troubling new shift in that debate, as the range of politically acceptable opinions on Israel has strayed far outside the mainstream, with little pushback from party leaders.

Amid growing claims of Israel committing genocide as settled fact, openly pro-Hamas demonstrations, ongoing efforts to demonize pro-Israel engagement in Democratic primaries and rejections of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, the political atmosphere is raising questions about whether the party is willing to collectively draw red lines around creeping extremism or if it is now accommodating anti-Israel sentiment that until not long ago had been more commonly viewed as off-limits.

While hostility toward Israel has been building for some time over its military assault in Gaza sparked by Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks, Jewish Democrats warn that the party’s acquiescence to its anti-Israel wing risks alienating a core constituency that could have negative consequences in the midterms as well as the upcoming 2028 presidential election.

Their worries have dovetailed with a sharp rise in anti-Israel and antisemitic invective from the right that some Jewish Democrats contend is inseparable from a deeper antipathy that transcends traditional party lines.

“For those of us who care about a strong U.S-Israel relationship, there is reason to be concerned,” said Howard Wolfson, a longtime advisor to former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. “The challenge is profound.”

Even as he said that challenge also extends to the right, Wolfson voiced apprehension that in his own party, “there are Democrats thinking of running for president who have said that they won’t take money from pro-Israel” political donors “and have thrown around the word genocide” while describing Israel’s conduct in Gaza. The Jewish community “has a real problem,” he lamented to Jewish Insider in a recent interview. “It is a subject of considerable angst and debate.”

Sara Forman, the former executive director of the New York Solidarity Network, an advocacy group that backs pro-Israel Democrats for state and local office, said, “The willingness to accommodate absurd assertions about Israel is a cancer that is spreading unchecked” within “the left ranks of the Democratic coalition” in addition to “factions of the Republican right wing,” a dynamic she and others attributed, in part, to the polarizing influence of online algorithms that frequently reward incendiary content.

“Right now,” she added, “I hate to say we are in an extremely frustrating situation where the identity of the Democratic Party is being redefined, and where a majority of center-left traditional liberal Jews are left somewhere in the wilderness.”

“To me,” she concluded, “it’s depressing.”

“It is very troubling for American Jews that we are even having to have this conversation,” Jon Reinish, a Democratic strategist often involved in Jewish and pro-Israel causes, told JI. “Putting aside what one thinks” about Israel, he added, “to see it become a flashpoint in politics feels pretty shitty, to be sure.”

The Jewish state, he told JI last week, “is something that transcends language in a political primary and goes back to something deep within us emotionally, in terms of our family and how we think of our own history.”

“In the last presidential election we saw Jews, especially in the suburbs, swing more toward the Republican candidate than they had since” Ronald Reagan in 1980, Reinish noted. “If I’m Democratic leadership, I would be looking very closely at that.”

Over just the past few weeks, the scope of tolerable views on Israel has slid into markedly antagonistic territory, according to interviews with more than a dozen Jewish and pro-Isrsel Democrats who voiced a growing sense of alarm over the party’s direction.

Earlier this month, for instance, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) used her first appearance at the Munich Security Conference to not only repeat calls for conditioning U.S. aid to Israel but also to suggest that such support had enabled a genocide in Gaza. Though her comments were not new, that she had made them on one of the world’s most high-profile foreign policy stages underscored how her positions are continuing to gain greater currency in the party. 

Some observers were also unnerved by Ocasio-Cortez’s decision to level an accusation toward Israel of genocide while in Germany, seen as insensitive to the history of the Holocaust.

Jewish Democrats say they have been unsettled by the growing ease with which anti-Israel critics have invoked charged claims of genocide without understanding its meaning or historical significance. “The genocide conversation,” according to Steve Fulop, the former mayor of Jersey City who now leads the Partnership for New York City, an influential business advocacy group, “has unfortunately monopolized the left and has become more commonplace and accepted.”

Fulop, a grandson of Holocaust survivors, said the issue was not a major focus of conversation when he ran an unsuccessful primary campaign for governor of New Jersey last year. “In the last six months,” he told JI last week, “it has become more prevalent and more of a talking point.”

This month, the subject emerged in a special election for a House seat in a wealthy northern New Jersey suburb, where a far-left candidate, Analilia Mejia, clinched the Democratic nomination — beating a former congressman, Tom Malinowski, who had faced outside spending from AIPAC due to his support for conditioning aid to Israel.

While AIPAC drew widespread backlash for its role seen as unwittingly helping to elevate a harsher critic of Israel to the House in Mejia, many pro-Israel Democratic elected officials in the state have since coalesced behind the nominee, suggesting her staunchly anti-Israel views are little impediment to winning the party’s broad support. In addition to accusing Israel of genocide, the only candidate in the primary to do so, Mejia, a progressive activist, denounced Israel after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks without mentioning Hamas and expressed “incredible discomfort” with Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. 

Even as Malinowski, for his part, disagreed with Mejia’s anti-Zionist sentiments, he echoed other Democrats who chose to endorse Mejia in the April special general election because, he wrote last week, he “strongly” believes that the “seat must remain in Democratic hands.”

Speaking broadly about anti-Israel currents now shaping the party, one Jewish Democratic member of the House said they have been unnerved by what they called an “obsession” with Israel among many far-left activists and candidates that reflects “litmus tests” not evenly applied to other key foreign policy issues.

“The line of what’s acceptable has shifted massively, especially since Oct. 7,” the House member, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the party, told JI last week. 

“What I’m watching right now, in 2026, is a breakdown in respectful language toward the Jewish community,” Joel Rubin, a progressive strategist and former State Department official, explained in an interview with JI last week. “It is very troubling and implies hostility that is undeserved — considering nobody should be treated to that kind of language. But it is also really dangerous for the Democratic Party and our electoral prospects to have this internal hostility and disunity.”

In New York City, which elected a fierce critic of Israel as mayor last November, Jewish Democrats say that line has moved in a particularly troubling direction. More recently, for example, Brad Lander, a former city comptroller now challenging Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) in a heavily Jewish House district, drew scrutiny for hiring a campaign consultant who had boosted antisemitic conspiracy theories using a pseudonymous X account that also celebrated Iran and Hamas, among other controversial social media posts.

Even as Lander fired the consultant, Kaif Gilani, after his online activity was uncovered by JI earlier this month, the episode still fueled questions about whether he was adequately vetted, given that the consultant had established a profile as a well-known promoter of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani during the recent election. It also underscored just how common such extremism has now become in New York City — where protesters have in recent months openly chanted their support for Hamas outside synagogues.

Meanwhile, leading progressive lawmakers such as Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), both of whom are seen as potential presidential contenders, have avoided publicly distancing themselves from a popular far-left streamer, Hasan Piker, who recently sided with Hamas while sharing his views on one of those protests, near a synagogue in Queens hosting an event promoting Israeli real estate investment.

Joel Rubin, a progressive strategist and former State Department official now at work on a book about Democratic foreign policy, said he interprets such rhetoric as part of a broader “political tactic by some folks in the base to try to silence Jewish voices and to intimidate them into not advocating on these issues.”

“What I’m watching right now, in 2026, is a breakdown in respectful language toward the Jewish community,” he explained in an interview with JI last week. “It is very troubling and implies hostility that is undeserved — considering nobody should be treated to that kind of language. But it is also really dangerous for the Democratic Party and our electoral prospects to have this internal hostility and disunity.”

“There has always been this struggle within the Democratic Party of the argument, on every issue, of what is acceptable and what is not,” Sam Lauter, a political consultant and pro-Israel activist in the Bay Area, told JI. “With regard to Israel, that argument is not new, but what is new is how much it’s increased and what has become acceptable and what has been just dismissed.”

The increasingly charged tenor of conversation around Israel “is not the way Democrats should be thinking about communicating to voters if we want to win elections outside of deep blue areas,” Rubin suggested. “My biggest fear is that people are afraid to stand up and speak out.”

Kenneth Baer, a former Obama administration official who now directs a communications firm, sounded a similar note of caution. “Democrats are running to outdo each other to criticize Israel to curry favor with the massively online left and the interest groups that constitute the party,” he told JI recently. “The political dynamics of 2026 may mean this doesn’t matter in November, but in 2028 and beyond, running to the extremes is not a political winner.”

“There has always been this struggle within the Democratic Party of the argument, on every issue, of what is acceptable and what is not,” Sam Lauter, a political consultant and pro-Israel activist in the Bay Area, told JI. “With regard to Israel, that argument is not new, but what is new is how much it’s increased and what has become acceptable and what has been just dismissed.”

Still, he argued, pro-Israel Democrats have also “missed out” on the opportunity to forcefully defend their positions. “It has been very clear for years that people who disagree with us have been organizing at a grassroots level while building up support and making their viewpoint a part of the party mainstream,” he said. “And our community stopped engaging at that level years ago, which is why many of us have been screaming that this is a huge problem.”

Former Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), who previously helmed the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, attributed the changing landscape in large part to what he views as a demographic shift driven by younger voters “generations away from romantic images of Israel” that are now “replaced by algorithm-fueled social media portraying Israel dropping bombs on schools and hospitals in Gaza.”

“In politics, perception is reality, and the reality for younger people is that Israel is wrong,” he told JI.

But he said it would be a miscalculation to disengage from that conversation. “Pro-Israel activists who don’t understand the need to push back proceed at their own peril,” he said. “You can’t surrender the narrative, which means supporters of Israel on both sides of the aisle need to find a much more effective narrative, particularly toward young voters.”

Many pro-Israel activists are at a loss, however, for how to recapture the debate, as Middle East policy now appears likely to be a focus of the next presidential election.

“It’s easy to observe a problem and then not have specific ideas on the solution,” Israel told JI. “That is a fundamental question now.”

“I don’t have a great answer, to be honest with you,” said Wolfson, the Bloomberg advisor. “I find it is far easier to identify the breadth of the problem than to identify a solution.”

According to Lauter, “the Overton Window has shifted” for Democrats, “and what needs to also shift is our community’s understanding of how to deal with it and approach it.”

“Let’s see how the midterms go and which candidates jump in,” said Aaron Keyak, the deputy special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism in the Biden administration who now serves on the board of Combat Antisemitism Movement. “But in the lead-up to 2028,” he told JI, “the Middle East policy discussion will certainly be more prominent.”

“Regardless of what we think or say today, the particular policy conversation leading up to 2028 is going to be driven by the candidates, so until we can fill out the answer to the ‘what’ and ‘why’ questions, we need to be able to answer the ‘who’ one,” Keyak added.

In the meantime, said former Rep. Kathy Manning (D-NC), who is now the board chair of Democratic Majority for Israel, the party still boasts a number of pro-Israel elected officials as well as candidates, including some her group recently announced it is endorsing in a range of contested House primaries.

“There is no doubt that we are living through very difficult times for American Jews,” she told JI in a recent interview, pointing to what she described as “unprecedented condemnation” of the U.S. alliance with Israel from both sides of the aisle. “What gives me hope,” she said, “is I know from my experience campaigning in a purple state in a competitive seat that the vast majority of Democrats still believe that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state and has the right to defend itself and its people.”

“We don’t have to love Israel,” but voters should understand the strategic benefits of working with a key Middle East ally, Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic strategist in New York City, said. “It ain’t about Jews,” he told JI. “It’s about the future of the United States of America.”

As the midterms near, Manning maintained that nominating pro-Israel Democrats will be a crucial step toward reclaiming the House. “The seats that are going to make the difference to taking back the majority are seats where candidates have to appeal not just to Democrats but also to independents and Republicans,” she said. “I think that it’s important for us to understand where voters are, regardless of what the loudest voices online or on the stage might be saying.”

Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic strategist in New York City, agreed with that sentiment, arguing that pro-Israel party members should be seeking to push the debate “back to the middle” and pressing a “straightforward geopolitical argument” to highlight the advantages of the U.S.-Israel relationship rather than relying on expenditures that have proven to be divisive in primaries.

“We don’t have to love Israel,” but voters should understand the strategic benefits of working with a key Middle East ally, Sheinkopf said. “It ain’t about Jews,” he told JI. “It’s about the future of the United States of America.”

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) told Jewish Insider on Friday afternoon that he’ll vote against a resolution blocking military action against Iran, expected to come to a vote on the House floor next week.

Moskowitz joins Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), who issued a joint statement with Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) earlier in the day, as the only Democrats who are thus far publicly opposing the war powers resolution, which Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) plan to introduce. 

Gottheimer and Moskowitz are among the strongest Democratic Iran hawks in the House, but others could join the two.

“I am a no [vote]. I am not willing to preemptively tell the supreme leader that he has nothing to worry about, no reason to negotiate because you are totally safe, and that the people of Iran can’t depend on us. They should just rename it the Ayatollah Protection Act because that’s what it does,” Moskowitz told JI.

In their joint statement, Gottheimer and Lawler emphasized that Iran poses a threat to the United States and to global stability through its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, efforts to “aggressively” reconstitute its ballistic missile arsenal and sponsorship of global terrorism, and said the regime is “waging war on its own people.”

“This record represents only a fraction of Iran’s long pattern of aggression, and it makes clear why we must preserve the ability to defend our troops and our homeland,” Gottheimer and Lawler said. “We stand with the Iranian people who are demanding basic rights and dignity, and we are committed to protecting them from the regime’s savagery.”

“That is why we oppose the Massie-Khanna War Powers Resolution to prohibit the use of force against Iran,” They continued. “We respect and defend Congress’s constitutional role in matters of war. Oversight and debate are absolutely vital. However, this resolution would restrict the flexibility needed to respond to real and evolving threats and risks signaling weakness at a dangerous moment.”

The lawmakers called for the administration to brief Congress on any planned military action in compliance with the law, but said that “Congress must not limit our ability to protect Americans and our allies.”

Most House Democrats have been vigorously urging the Trump administration against military action against Iran, and are expected to support the resolution. It’s unclear whether any other House Republicans will support the resolution.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), who broke with most Republicans to support a similar resolution blocking further military action in Venezuela, signaled last week he is likely to oppose the Iran war powers resolution and expressed outright support for military action.

“I’ll study the bill before committing on how I’ll vote. But I do think the President must take military action. He promised the Iranians that we would support them if they stood up against the regime,” Bacon said in a statement. “The Iranians did and now an estimated 50,000 people have been executed. There cannot be empty promises.”

Several other House Democrats who have records of breaking with their party on Middle East issues or who supported last summer’s U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities did not preview how they plan to vote when asked by JI on Friday.

Rep. Laura Gillen (D-NY), a hawkish moderate Democrat from Long Island, didn’t offer a definitive stance on the vote.

“The Iranian regime is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, brutally oppresses its own people, and can never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons to threaten the U.S. and our ally Israel,” Gillen told JI. “Only Congress has the responsibility to decide whether to declare war, and given the risks to American troops in the region, the Administration should immediately brief Congress on its strategy on Iran.”

Reps. Greg Meeks (D-NY), Adam Smith (D-WA) and Jim Himes (D-CT), the top Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs, Armed Services and Intelligence Committees issued a joint statement Friday “strongly oppos[ing] preemptive military action against Iran, which endangers U.S. personnel and risks drawing Israel and Gulf partners into a wider conflict.”

They called for continued diplomacy and said that the U.S. should not walk away from the talks for “a short-term, unauthorized show of military force that leaves Americans less secure,” adding that any decision to take military action must be approved by Congress.

A raft of Democrats — including 23 members of the 51-seat New York City Council, multiple state lawmakers and four candidates for Congress — have joined forces with a Beijing-aligned tech tycoon to bail out the fuel-starved dictatorship in Cuba.

The officials in question lent their names to the “Let Cuba Live” campaign, which denounces President Donald Trump’s oil embargo on the island nation and seeks to triage solar panels and generators to defray the crippling impact on its energy production. 

All donations for the effort run through the People’s Forum, a Manhattan-based nonprofit established and financed by Shanghai-based magnate Neville “Roy” Singham, part of his sprawling web of organizations promoting the interests of China and its allies Russia and Iran. 

The People’s Forum and Singham, a devout Maoist who reaped a fortune from the sale of his software firm Thoughtworks, were at the center of a House hearing last week on foreign influence operations and overseas funding of activist groups.

Let Cuba Live’s website reveals the involvement of other Singham-linked groups, including CODEPINK — co-founded by his wife, Jodie Evans — and the ANSWER Coalition, both of which spearheaded anti-Israel protests beginning the day after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel. Jewish Voice for Peace and the Democratic Socialists of America are also signatories, along with well-known left-wing celebrities such as Susan Sarandon and Roger Waters who have long been vocally hostile to Israel.

But unlike Singham’s other attempts to influence U.S. policy and promote its geopolitical foes, this effort has attracted backing from dozens of leading Democrats, the vast majority of them representing parts of New York City. 

Several of the elected officials who have joined the crusade are DSA members: Councilmembers Alexa Aviles, Tiffany Caban, Chi Ossé, Shahana Hanif, state Sen. Julia Salazar and Assemblymembers Diana Moreno and Claire Valdez. 

Moreno was Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s handpicked successor to his old seat in the New York  Legislature, while Mamdani has endorsed Valdez to replace Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) in Congress. 

However, the bulk of the New York co-signers are not card-carrying DSA members, but simply members of the Council’s long-standing left-of-center Progressive Caucus. These include Councilmembers Harvey Epstein, Gale Brewer, Althea Stevens, Amanda Farias, Crystal Hudson, Christopher Marte, Elsie Encarnacion, Farah Louis, Jennifer Gutiérrez, Kayla Santosuosso, Pierina Sanchez, Sandy Nurse, Rita Joseph, Shanel Thomas-Henry, Shekar Krishnan, Shirley Aldebol, Julie Won — also a candidate for Velazquez’s soon-to-be-vacant seat — and Deputy Council Speaker Nantasha Williams.

Other prominent Democrats who have joined the Singham campaign include congressional hopefuls Jake Levine and Byron Sigcho-Lopez, seeking the seats of Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) and Rep. Chuy Garcia (D-IL), respectively. Levine did not respond to a request for comment. Sigcho-Lopez, a Chicago city alderman, told Jewish Insider that he had signed on at the request of DSA, of which he is a member. 

He said he was aware of CODEPINK’s participation in the campaign, but not of the larger Singham network’s involvement, though he expressed no regrets joining.

“Outside of the geopolitical struggle, it is important that we protect the well-being and lives of anyone,” Sigcho-Lopez said. “I think they’re fighting for the same things we’re fighting for in Chicago: we want to protect people’s humanity.”

None of the elected officials responded to JI questions, although two New York City Council sources — who requested anonymity to avoid jeopardizing their positions — said that the Progressive Caucus had urged members to sign on.

Several of the other names attached to “Let Cuba Live” are leading members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, a small but prominent fringe party that has spearheaded anti-Israel protests, promotes the interests of Tehran, Moscow and Beijing, and provides staff and support to Singham’s network. The Justice Department has identified the PSL as a key force in organizing the wave of protests that have targeted synagogues in recent months.

As of Wednesday evening, the campaign was about $60,000 away from hitting its $200,000 fundraising goal, funds it has vowed to expend. “We are rushing solar generators and panels to our neighbors 90 miles away so that hospitals can keep their doors open and their lights on.”

Top New Jersey Democrats lined up behind far-left, anti-Israel activist Analila Mejia on Tuesday in New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District — even as a moderate Jewish state assemblymember publicly is mulling a bid against Mejia in the June regular election primary.

Gov. Mikie Sherrill, who previously held the seat, and Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Andy Kim (D-NJ) all endorsed Mejia, the surprise winner of last week’s special election primary race. Former Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ), who conceded the race to Mejia Tuesday morning, also backed her, as did several members of New Jersey’s House delegation.

Sherrill said in a statement she is “very proud to endorse” Mejia’s campaign.

“New Jersey’s 11th District has gone from a Trump district to once again showing the country that a commitment to working families and our Democratic values is a winning playbook,” Sherrill said. “I am grateful to the talented field of Democrats who stepped up to take on the threats and chaos coming from Washington. Now, we must turn to the critical work at hand: ensuring that we keep this seat blue and standing up to Trump’s attacks on our rights and economic opportunity.”

Booker, a pro-Israel Democrat, said Tuesday that the district “deserves a representative who will stand up against the harm Trump and Republicans are doing to our state.”

“I’m proud to support Analilia and her people-powered campaign to ensure we keep the 11th district blue on April 16th,” he continued.

Kim also backed Mejia, taking a veiled shot at the AIPAC-linked United Democracy Project’s spending against Malinowski, as well as the New Jersey political machine.

“NJ politics is clearly in a new era where the voters get to decide instead of having the choice made for them,” Kim said. “Let’s keep fighting against machine politics and dark money and get [Mejia] into Congress. There is so much at stake in our country.”

In a later joint statement, Booker and Kim explicitly endorsed Mejia in the June primary as well.

Malinowski, in his statement, praised Mejia for her campaign, but traced his loss in large part to the ad campaign against him by UDP, which spent more than $2 million to oppose him.

“The outcome of this race cannot be understood without also taking into account the massive flood of dark money that AIPAC spent on dishonest ads during the last three weeks,” Malinowski said in a statement. “I wish I could say that this effort, which was meant to intimidate Democrats across the country, failed in NJ-11. But it did not.”

Malinowski said that “if AIPAC backs a candidate — openly or surreptitiously — in the June NJ-11 Congressional primary, I will oppose that candidate and urge my supporters to do so as well. The threat unlimited dark money poses to our democracy is far more significant than the views of a single member of Congress on Middle East policy.”

New Jersey Democratic Reps. Rob Menendez, Bonnie Watson Coleman and LaMonica McIver also endorsed Mejia in a joint statement, offering their backing both in the special general election and the June primary.

“Analilia is the fighter the 11th District needs — from taking on the Trump Administration to championing workers’ rights — and we are proud to support her as the next Congresswoman for this district,” the statement reads. “Unifying behind Analilia is critical to our efforts for a Democratic House majority and defeating House Republicans’ agenda of chaos and terror. We should all be united in our support for her as she joins our delegation in the battle for the soul of our nation.”

Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin also offered Mejia his congratulations and support.

Meanwhile, Assemblywoman Rosaura Bagolie, who is Jewish and an immigrant from the Dominican Republic, told Politico on Monday that she was considering a challenge to Mejia in the June primary, with few if any of the candidates who ran against Mejia in the February primary likely to run.

Bagolie said that she is “definitely considering” a bid for the seat, calling Mejia “not representative of the moderate Democrats of this district,” and saying that a race between her and Mejia would be an “election is between two women who come from the same walk of life and have a different view on politics.”

UDP indicated following the primary last week that it would be considering further spending in the June primary. Bagolie told Politico that she would “actively not be seeking” support from any outside groups.

It’s unclear whether the near-unified support for Mejia from state Democratic leaders will impact her plans.

In the state Assembly, Bagolie, who represents Livingston, Montclair and Milburn, has been one of the lead sponsors of legislation codifying the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism into state law, and was the lead sponsor of a 2024 resolution offering support for Israel after Hamas’ attacks.

Alongside other legislators, she visited Israel in March 2024.

Speaking with hostage families and visiting the sites of Hamas’ attacks, Bagolie said she felt “anger, triggered by the acknowledgment of humans committing profoundly evil acts, stems from our compassion and the innate pursuit of justice and mercy. Confronting this darkness challenges our belief in humanity’s inherent goodness.”

In a speech at a celebration of Israel’s 77th Independence Day, Bagolie described Israel as a “miracle” and a “homeland reborn from the ashes of history. A beacon of democracy, innovation and resilience in a region that too often only knows turmoil. A place where Jewish lives thrive, no matter where you come from, and where people of all faith identities can live with dignity. Israel is not just a place on a map. It’s a living, breathing promise that the Jewish people would never again be without a home, and we will continue to fight every day to maintain our home.”

She said that supporting a “strong, secure Israel” is good for the United States’ national interests as well.

Bagolie said she felt it was important for her to visit Israel in person “so that when those try to convince me that I’m wrong, or that what I am feeling and seeing is wrong, I can tell them I’ve walked it. I’ve lived it. I’ve seen it. And I feel it in my heart till this day, and you are not going to change my mind.”

She said she felt a particular connection to Edan Alexander, the hostage who grew up in New Jersey, seeing similarities between him and her own son. “Seeing the video of the torture Edan is going through and having held his mother in my arms … my heart fell.”

She also vowed not to be silent about the antisemitism growing in the state, arguing that fighting antisemitism and supporting Israel cannot be partisan issues. She highlighted the pervasive fear and threats that her family and the entire Jewish community face.

Former Lt. Gov. Tahesha Way, who was endorsed by Democratic Majority for Israel in the special election primary and had not ruled out running in the June primary as other special election candidates did, has not announced her plans, and did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Ohio was once a perennial swing state but, as Democrats have lost ground with working-class voters, it has been a Republican stronghold over the last decade. But it could once again emerge as a political bellwether in 2026, as a test of whether Democrats can make inroads in rebuilding a coalition that can win back national power.

If Democrats want to have hope of regaining the confidence of the silent majority that propelled President Donald Trump to victory in 2024, they’ll need to be able to compete in the Buckeye State. And if Democrats hope to have any outside shot at retaking a Senate majority, the path runs through Ohio as well. 

The state is holding two major races: appointed Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH) is facing off against former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who lost his reelection in 2024. Early polling shows the race is competitive. Of note: Brown significantly outraised Husted in fundraising over the last three months of the year, $7.3 million to $1.5 million, and already has more cash-on-hand than the sitting senator.

Brown had been the only statewide Democratic politician to maintain some support with the blue-collar voters that drifted away from the party in the Trump era. Husted, the state’s former lieutenant governor and secretary of state, is a traditional Republican politician with a party-line voting record but is facing the prospect of rough political headwinds this year for the GOP.

And in an open gubernatorial race to succeed the term-limited GOP Gov. Mike DeWine, Democrat Amy Acton is facing off against Republican Vivek Ramaswamy, two candidates whose time spent in public service and politics have been quite polarizing.  

Acton, who was head of the state’s Department of Health during the COVID pandemic, ended up leaving the role early amid a chorus of conservative complaints about her heavy-handed approach to coronavirus regulations and safety protocols. Acton, who is Jewish, is hoping her medical background and role as a political outsider will matter more than the polarizing public health controversies. 

Ramaswamy, who made an unlikely jump to presidential politics in 2024 after a career as a biotech entrepreneur, alienated a number of Republicans for his anti-establishment and isolationist messaging during the campaign. But his gubernatorial campaign has tacked more to the center, as he has spoken out against white nationalists within the GOP during his campaign.  His newfound pragmatism helped him receive this month the endorsement of DeWine, who had been an occasional critic. 

In the Trump era, Ohio has become solidly Republican, giving Trump an 11-point margin of victory in 2024. But the state’s Senate races have been somewhat more competitive: Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH) defeated Brown by just three points (50-47%) in the same year, while now-Vice President JD Vance prevailed by six points in his 2022 campaign. Both those elections took place in favorable GOP years, while 2026 is shaping up to be more hospitable for Democrats as the party that’s out of power. 

In the big picture, winning Ohio is a necessity if Democrats want to entertain any hopes of retaking the Senate. They need to net four GOP-held Senate seats to retake the majority, and only North Carolina and Maine are currently toss-up races. Among other GOP-held seats, Ohio is the next-closest opportunity and Brown is the strongest recruit they have in the red-state races. (Former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola’s Alaska Senate candidacy is the other big red-state recruit worth watching.)

More importantly, the Ohio contests will test how partisan voters really are, at a time when Trump is testing the patience of some of his working-class supporters. Persuadable Ohio voters are still anxious about the state of the economy, haven’t seen a return of manufacturing jobs back in the state and are receptive to criticism that the administration is focusing more abroad at the expense of domestic concerns back home. 

If the Trump coalition is able to hold together, Republicans should be able to ride the partisan tide to victory in Ohio — even if the party faces a down year in 2026. But if there really is a schism taking place within the GOP, the blue-collar states where Democrats until recently experienced success could end up becoming battleground territory once again. 

Ohio is ground zero for testing that scenario.

A majority of the Democratic candidates running in Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, a key swing seat that Democrats hope to flip in November, said at a candidate forum hosted by the Nebraska Young Democrats last week that they would reject support from pro-Israel groups, according to video of the event obtained by Jewish Insider.

The incumbent, Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), who is retiring at the end of his current term, is an outspoken supporter of Israel and has also been active in combating antisemitism as a co-chair of the House Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Antisemitism. Bacon, a moderate, has repeatedly managed to fend off Democratic challengers in recent elections, but the Cook Political Report rates the seat as “Lean Democratic.”

Asked whether they would accept support from AIPAC or Democratic Majority for Israel, state Sen. John Cavanaugh committed to not taking any funding from either group, while activist Denise Powell said that she would not accept any funding from any special interest groups.

Navy veteran Kishla Askins offered a less definitive answer, saying she is “right now … not taking” funding from J Street, AIPAC or DMFI, while also noting that she had been to Israel and served alongside the IDF while she was in the military and understands how dangerous the region is.

“For me, every decision I make is about values and the rule of law, those two things. I do not align myself with anyone that breaks the law, nor aligns with Nebraskan values,” she said, describing the situation in Gaza as a humanitarian crisis. “Hamas is a terrorist group, and we need to all align around ridding this world of terrorism. Hamas is a terrorist group funded by Iran.”

She said she would “make decisions based on values and the rule of law.”

James Leuschen, a longtime former senior staffer for Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) — a staunch Israel supporter who previously served in House Democratic leadership — was the only candidate to definitively say he would not commit to turning down support from the groups.

“Part of the reason why is I think that we, as Democrats, need to not unilaterally disarm when it comes to elections with Republicans that would be willing to do basically anything to win, right?” Leuschen explained. “The idea that we can win elections by pushing people away from us is, I think, wrongheaded, right? I think we need to be able to talk to folks in all communities. We need to be able to hear the concerns of folks who feel like, you know, maybe the things that happened on Oct. 7 weren’t quite the best thing in the world.”

He said that he wants to see the ceasefire agreement in Gaza hold, to pursue a two-state solution and to ensure that both Hamas and Israel abide by the terms of the deal reached last October.

“But at the same time, I think we have to acknowledge that the incident, the terrorist attacks on Oct. 7, were a tragedy in themselves and the situation we find ourselves in today — while not ideal — is progress toward that lasting peace and that two-state solution that I think we’re all going to get to,” he said. “It can’t be accomplished with coercion; it has to happen with both sides to get there on their own.”

Another prominent candidate, Douglas County district court clerk Crystal Rhoades, did not attend the forum. Rhoades has publicly expressed staunch support for Israel, saying in an op-ed published in The Jewish Press in Omaha, “no one will fight harder to strengthen the U.S.–Israel relationship than I will. My support for Israel isn’t political, it’s moral. It’s grounded in my values and in what I’ve seen firsthand about the importance of dignity, freedom and memory.”

In response to a later question, Leuschen also said he would have voted for a recent State Department funding package that included $3.3 billion in aid to Israel, maintained a block on funding for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency and contained provisions aimed at blocking Palestinian actions against Israel at the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice.

Askins and Cavanaugh both said they couldn’t weigh in on the legislation without having fully analyzed what was in it, though Cavanaugh added that he “would not be in support of defunding refugee services.”

Powell said that she hadn’t reviewed the bill but said that she was “a big believer that the U.S. needs to be doing more to support the Palestinian people in this moment. So I’m not sure what it all is in there. I’d love to read it. I don’t — from what you have said, it doesn’t feel like something I’d be super comfortable voting on. But I don’t have all the details on the bill.”

In a follow-up statement shared with Jewish Insider, Powell said that her answer at the forum did not fully capture her stance on the U.S.-Israel relationship.

“I have always unequivocally supported Israel’s right to exist and its right to defend itself. The question that was asked at a recent forum centered around a bill that would strip humanitarian aid to Gaza,” Powell said. 

“My position is clear: I fully support providing aid to Israel and believe that we should ensure humanitarian aid reaches those in need,” the statement continued. “In order for the region to rebuild, it is imperative that we center our efforts around a two-state solution that both ensures Israel’s security and gives the Palestinian people the resources they need to reestablish their lives.”

Previously, Cavanaugh — who leads in polling of the race and hails from an established political dynasty in the state — has received pushback from pro-Israel voters for being one of 10 state senators who declined to sign onto a resolution supporting Israel and condemning Hamas on the first anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks. He’s endorsed by progressive lawmakers including Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD), as well as the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC.

Essex County Commissioner Brendan Gill, one of the leading Democrats running for the vacant 11th Congressional District seat in New Jersey, told Jewish Insider he would be a strong supporter of Israel and the continued U.S.-Israel relationship, while also expressing concerns about the current Israeli government.

The race, which features a parade of Democratic candidates that also includes former Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ), will determine who will fill the remainder of Gov.  Mikie Sherrill’s term in the House. An AIPAC-affiliated super PAC is spending money on ads against Malinowski, amid reports that the pro-Israel group favors former lieutenant governor Tahesha Way in the race. 

Gill — a longtime New Jersey political hand who has previously worked as a staffer for or on the campaigns of Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), former Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and former Reps. Steve Rothman (D-NJ) and Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) — said his time working with each of those lawmakers, all strong supporters of Israel, has served as his “North Star” for his policy toward the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Gill also previously worked for former Gov. Phil Murphy, who has endorsed his congressional bid.

“I very much believe that we absolutely can respect the ability to disagree with decisions that are made by an elected government that we might not agree with, but still at the same time never waver on Israel’s right to exist, never waver on protecting the strategic partnership in that region of the world that the United States has enjoyed with the only democracy that exists, to continue to aid Israel in ways that are both important to its own protection and, by extension, the protection of our own national interests,” he said.

Gill added that he personally disagrees with and has concerns about decisions made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — mentioning the 2022 judicial reform effort in particular — but said he remains committed to protecting Israel’s right to exist and defend itself, as well as supporting democratic institutions in Israel.

Gill visited Israel in July 2024 with a local Jewish federation, visiting the Nova music festival site and meeting the family of Israeli American hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin — who was killed by Hamas the following month — and with various Israeli leaders.

“That trip was incredibly impactful for me in terms of how I think about the relationship between the United States and Israel,” Gill said. 

In a position paper shared with JI, Gill said he supported the current memorandum of understanding with Israel and would back continuing it, “governed by existing laws on American aid, not additional restrictions.” He also said that he would work to build and maintain bipartisanship in support of Israel.

Gill said in his interview with JI that he wants to continue U.S. aid to Israel, though he would “be open to conversations around requirements to receive that aid. But I would start in a place … that I would not have an issue on continuation of aid to Israel and allowing Israel to defend itself.”

Pressed on the sort of “requirements” he might support, Gill said he would begin by listening directly to Israeli leaders about what the Jewish state needs to defend itself, adding that he finds the distinction some lawmakers have drawn between offensive and defensive weapons “very difficult to discern.”

Asked about the potential discrepancy between the paper and the position expressed to JI, Gill spokesperson Toral Patel told JI that Gill’s position is as expressed in the paper, and that he does not support additional restrictions. “He would be open to discussions that are fully agreed upon between the US and Israel to modify aid, but still does not believe the US should unilaterally restrict aid in any way to our ally,” Patel said, when pressed on what Gill meant by “requirements.”

“My starting point has been, and continues to be, that we should absolutely be able to support Israel in the ways that we have in the past, and at the same time, start these conversations around, what does this aid look like in the future,” Gill reiterated in his interview with JI, noting Netanyahu’s own recent comments about phasing out U.S. aid in the next decade.

In his position paper, Gill said he would “work to ensure that the United States strengthens its unwavering support for Israel’s security while helping to shape a post-Hamas Gaza that is stable, demilitarized, and incapable of threatening the Israeli people,” highlighting the need to keep putting pressure on Hamas to disarm.

“My stance in Congress will be clear and unwavering: Israel has the absolute right to defend itself, and the United States should be its partner in ensuring it has the ability to do so. Removing Hamas from power is not only essential for Israel’s security, but it is also the only path to a better future for Palestinians as well,” he said.

He blamed Hamas for “the suffering of both Israelis and Palestinians” in its attack on Israel, its theft of aid intended for Gazan civilians and its use of Gazan civilians as human shields through the use of tunnels.

Gill said that Americans “are deeply concerned by the conduct, duration, cost, and human toll of” Israel’s war in Gaza and, to maintain popular support for Israel, “we must demonstrate that our engagement is principled, strategic, and ultimately aimed at a lasting resolution that works for all peace-loving people involved.”

In the long term, Gill also expressed support for a “two-state (or more) solution,” also making reference to a “multi-state solution.” He said achieving that goal will require a viable postwar governance plan for Gaza, ongoing U.S. support for Israel’s qualitative military edge and a credible and uncorrupted multilateral reconstruction and deradicalization effort in Gaza.

The AIPAC-affiliated United Democracy Project super PAC recently launched a $500,000 ad campaign opposing Malinowski, with a spokesperson for UDP telling JI that the group views multiple other candidates in the race as more pro-Israel than Malinowski.

But local reporting indicates that UDP favors Way in the race over Gill and other pro-Israel candidates. Other candidates in the race have also expressed more openly anti-Israel views than Malinowski. 

Gill said in his interview with JI that he supported the U.S. strikes against Iran’s nuclear program last year. Going forward, he said that the U.S. must continue to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. 

He said he also wants to see U.S. lawmakers “speaking out, and louder, about the atrocities that are happening right now” against the anti-regime protesters in Iran, and to “find both in word [and] deed” ways to support the Iranian protests, while also ensuring proper congressional oversight of any potential military action.

At home in the U.S., Gill emphasized that the issue of rising antisemitism is “very, very real” and “not abstract” for him, with the Garden State having a high rate of antisemitic incidents per-capita and the 11th District having seen a series of alarming incidents, including a firebombing of a synagogue, fake blood thrown at children, the destruction of Israeli flags and an attempted plot to kill Jews.

“You need to speak out and be vocal immediately,” Gill said, arguing that, unlike some of his competitors, he has the local connections and experience to respond to such incidents — both in words and by working to help secure additional security resources — and has done so in his current role.

“This is an ongoing challenge that we have right now and a serious problem,” Gill said. “Our leaders need to acknowledge that — and not only acknowledge it, make sure that they’re advancing policies that help push back and fight against it and protect the Jewish community.”

He highlighted his ties to a variety of local Jewish leaders and elected officials, whom he said he would lean on as he considers issues relevant to the Jewish community.

He added that the federal government needs to provide sufficient funding through the Department of Education for educational programs on antisemitism, as well as funding for local law enforcement to ensure security.

Asked about the Trump administration’s policies that aimed to crack down on antisemitism on college campuses, including revoking federal funding to colleges and attempting to deport anti-Israel activists, Gill said it’s critical to address campus antisemitism but also to be “balanced about how you use the levers of power in order to execute that.”

“I support policies that go directly to dealing with the issue of antisemitism on college campuses. I do not support the way that, more broadly speaking, the Trump administration has utilized governmental policy in a[n] unethical, unconstitutional and corrupt way to force policy and outcomes in any space,” he said.

He said that there’s a difference between working to protect Jewish students and “telling an institution of higher learning or a health care institution that ‘they better do X, Y or Z, or their funding is going to be completely cut off.’ That’s extortion.”

In his position paper, Gill said that antisemitism is a problem on both sides of the political aisle that leaders must address, and accused some Republicans of ignoring “rampant hatred in their own ranks in an effort to score cheap political points” and of “purposeful conflation of disagreement with antisemitism,” which he said undermined the fight against antisemitism.

“I believe strongly in protecting the right to peaceful protest and free expression while drawing a clear line against threats, harassment and discrimination,” Gill said.

Gill told JI he supports legislation in New Jersey to codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism into state law, which was recently blocked by state Democratic leaders who feared political backlash, and expressed support for formally adopting the IHRA definition in his position paper.

Asked about New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s record on antisemitism, Gill told JI that he “definitely [has] some concerns regarding, not necessarily statements that he has made, but statements that have been made by people that are part of his administration.”

In general, Gill said he’s going to “wait and see in terms of how he actually executes his role as mayor.”

Outside of antisemitism policy, Gill noted that “there are many aspects of [Mamdani’s] affordability agenda that I do think are important, that resonate with large portions of our Democratic base.”

In the race generally, Gill is highlighting both his local roots — he’s the son of a Montclair public school teacher and raised his own family in the township — and his experience working for members of Congress. 

He argued that that experience gives him the “full skill set” other candidates don’t have and that he’s been “doing this work in the communities that I’m seeking to represent.”

That’s seemingly a dig at Malinowski, another likely front-runner, who previously represented a neighboring district. Gill targeted Malinowski in his first TV ads of the campaign, which began airing this week. “I think what helps you be the most effective member of Congress is understanding, having the relationships with the communities that make up your district, understanding the differences we have,” Gill said.

Gill argued that the numerous endorsements he’s received from local officials and from organized labor attest to his strengths.

He said he’s running for Congress because he sees the opportunities he had to pursue the American Dream slipping away from his own teenage children, and because he’s concerned about the “threat” he believes the Trump administration and its supporters pose to democratic norms and the Constitution.

“Because of both my Washington experience, the experience that I’ve had on the ground representing many of these communities — either as an Essex County Commissioner or doing the work with other federal officials — I think I have the right skill set to fight Donald Trump at this time, to fight MAGA Republicans, and also to deliver for the communities that I live in, that I work in, and that I’ve represented for many years,” Gill said.

Gill plans to focus on the “affordability crisis in this region,” highlighting issues like healthcare, transportation, infrastructure and the environment.

He said immigration is also a personal issue to him — his wife, a state assemblywoman, is Colombian American and his children are Latino. “These are not abstract issues right now for what’s going on in our country,” he said.

The unlikely but plausible path for the Democrats to win back the Senate opened up Monday with former Rep. Mary Peltola’s (D-AK) announcement that she’s running against Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), giving Democrats an outside shot at flipping the red-state seat in the midterms.

Peltola isn’t your typical Democratic candidate. She won two separate statewide elections in Alaska in 2022 for the state’s at-large House seat, defeating the state’s former governor and onetime GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Despite compiling a moderate (and pro-Israel) voting record in the House, she narrowly lost her reelection bid to Rep. Nick Begich (R-AK), losing the 2024 general election by just two points.

In her launch video, she touted her campaign theme as “fish, family and freedom.”

Sullivan is a traditional conservative politician with a hawkish voting record, and will be favored to win a third term. But Alaska has become somewhat more competitive in the Trump era, with the president winning 55% of the state’s vote in 2024 and Sullivan tallying 54% in his successful 2020 reelection. 

One point in Sullivan’s favor: Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the independent-minded occasional Trump critic who endorsed Peltola in both of the Democrat’s previous statewide campaigns, quickly got behind the senator’s re-election campaign — before Peltola’s announcement. 

Peltola’s candidacy matters because it gives Democrats four capable recruits to contest four GOP-held Senate seats — two in purple states, and two on more conservative turf. The path to a Democratic Senate majority — which remains a long-shot — increasingly is looking like it runs through North Carolina, Maine, Ohio and Alaska. 

In North Carolina, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) recruited a popular former governor, Roy Cooper, to run forin the open seat. In Maine, Democrats face an ugly primary between the state’s sitting governor, Janet Mills, and left-wing challenger Graham Platner, who has become a darling of the party’s progressive wing.  

Neither race will be easy for Democrats to win: North Carolina hasn’t voted for a Democratic senator since 2008, while Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is among the party’s most battle-tested senators, regularly winning in a blue state under tough political environments for her party.

But if Democrats ride a blue wave, it’s not hard to see how the swing states could flip with solid Democratic recruits putting typically out-of-reach red-state seats in play.

In Ohio and Alaska, Schumer successfully recruited the only Democrats who have won recently in their respective red states, even as both were defeated in the 2024 election. Former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) was the only statewide Democrat that was able to survive the first Trump term, and only narrowly lost his bid for a fourth term. And Peltola, as noted above, is one of a small group of Democrats who have managed to crack the political code in the conservative state.

Schumer, for all the criticisms he’s taken from the progressive wing of his party, still understands the basics of politics that the party’s younger activists often overlook. It takes more-moderate candidates with the ability to win over independents (and even a small number of Republicans) to prevail in swing states. It’s why he can boast a strong recruiting class, which makes the Senate map more competitive, albeit one with mostly AARP-eligible challengers.

But it’s those experienced, pragmatic candidates that can win races and ride a wave if one ends up sweeping ashore. The activist flash can win the social media news cycle, but the fundamentals of politics still apply when it comes to winning back power.

Former Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK) announced Monday that she’s entering the Senate race against Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) in Alaska, giving Democrats an outside chance of picking up the red-state Senate seat.

Peltola, the first Alaska Native elected to Congress, served for just over one term in the House from 2022 until she lost reelection in 2024, filling the final few months of former Rep. Don Young’s (R-AK) term after he died in office and winning a full term in the November 2022 election. Peltola is the the most recent Democrat to win statewide office in Alaska, and benefited in her House races from the state’s new ranked-choice voting system.

She has been viewed as Democrats’ best and perhaps only hope for unseating Sullivan.

Serving as a leader of the moderate Democrats’ Blue Dog caucus, Peltola was a prominent centrist voice in the House. Her agenda focused primarily on local Alaskan issues, and she was an at times heterodox voice in the Democratic Party. In her launch announcement, Peltola focused on putting aside partisanship and prioritizing quality of life and cost of living issues for Alaskans. “It’s about time Alaskans teach the rest of the country what Alaska First and, really, America First looks like,” Peltola said.

Peltola also maintained a strongly pro-Israel voting record, breaking on numerous occasions with a majority of her party to vote for measures supporting the Jewish state post-Oct. 7. She supported a standalone Israel aid package opposed by many Democrats, as well as a measure to override the Biden administration’s hold on U.S. arms sales to Israel that only a handful of other Democrats voted for.

She also supported a series of measures to combat Iran and its proxies, including stringent restrictions blocking nearly any sanctions relief for the Iranian regime and re-imposing a Foreign Terrorist Organization designation on the Houthis. Peltola also voted in favor of sanctions on the International Criminal Court.

And she supported measures to combat antisemitism, including the Antisemitism Awareness Act, a resolution describing anti-Zionism as antisemitic and a resolution condemning university presidents for their testimony on campus antisemitism before a House committee, though she voted against censuring Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) for antisemitic and anti-Israel activity.

Sullivan, for his part, has been a hawkish pro-Israel voice in the Senate, pushing for a more aggressive stance toward Iran as well as serving as a top critic of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby.

In 2020, Sullivan beat Democratic-backed independent candidate Al Gross by more than 12 points. Democrats still face an uphill battle, but Cook Political Report shifted the race from “Solid Republican” to “Lean Republican” with Peltola’s entry, a signal that Democrats have a fighting chance to flip the seat.