California state Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat running in a crowded primary to replace retiring Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has spent the last week navigating the political fallout of a Gaza-related exchange at a candidate forum that lasted no more than 30 seconds but has since gone viral in progressive Bay Area political circles.

All three candidates who appeared at the forum last week — Wiener, San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Connie Chan, and Saikat Chakrabarti, former chief of staff to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) — were asked if they believed Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, by lifting a “yes” or “no” placard. The other two said yes; Wiener did not answer at all. 

In the days that followed, Wiener was slammed by far-left activists. He posted, then deleted, a message on X saying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “demands more discussion and certainly more time.” Finally, four days later, he released a video on Sunday where he somberly explained that he has changed his position and now does believe Israel’s actions amount to genocide.

“I’ve stopped short of calling it genocide, but I can’t anymore,” the post said.

“For many Jews, associating the word genocide with the Jewish state of Israel is deeply painful and frankly traumatic,” Wiener said in the video. “But despite that pain and that trauma, we all have eyes and we see the absolute devastation and catastrophic death toll in Gaza inflicted by the Israeli government.” 

It was a shocking about-face for one of the most prominent Jewish lawmakers in the state, a progressive who has sharply criticized Israel’s actions in Gaza but who has reiterated his support for the U.S.-Israel relationship as the co-chair of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus. He took a delegation of lawmakers to visit Israel in 2024. 

Hours before he posted the video, The Atlantic published a lengthy interview with Wiener where he declined to use the term “genocide” to describe Israel’s actions — and where he said such rhetorical purity tests sort Jews into “good” and “bad.” 

“If you’re not willing to use the exact language that we want you to use, then you’re a bad Jew,” Wiener said in the Atlantic interview, describing the tactics of those seeking ideological purity. 

The geopolitical reality in Gaza and Israel did not change in the four days between the candidate forum and Wiener’s video. What changed, according to two political activists in the Bay Area, was politics. 

Wiener took a great deal of flack from the anti-Zionist left over his refusal to distance himself from the Jewish state, even though he has called Israel’s actions in Gaza “indefensible” and has been a staunch critic of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But as Wiener runs for Congress, the political stakes have only increased. 

“Scott was faced with this reality that he was actually, literally losing supporters over this position,” one Jewish Democratic activist in San Francisco told Jewish Insider. The people turning away from his campaign were not the hard-left activists who have been agitating against Wiener since soon after the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks that sparked the war in Gaza. Instead, they were progressive activists who supported Wiener for his stances on the LGBTQ community and housing, but who use the word “genocide” as a litmus test, the activist said.

“Folks have been talking to me, saying this was a gut punch, to see Scott do this,” said the activist. “And I said, ‘Well, for me, it’s more of a gut punch that it’s actually politically necessary for him to do this.’”

Wiener was also facing pressure from his own campaign staff, according to the activist. 

After Wiener posted the video on Sunday, his communications director, Erik Mebust, re-posted it to his own personal Instagram account.

“Israel has committed genocide in Gaza and must be stopped,” Mebust wrote in a post on his private Instagram story, a screenshot of which was obtained by JI. “[Sen.] Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and [Rep.] Becca Balint (D-VT) are the only two Jewish members of Congress with the courage to say that. Scott Wiener joins them today.” Mebust did not respond to a request for comment. 

Several California Jewish organizations, including the Bay Area JCRC and JPAC, a lobbying org that represents Jewish communities across the state, released a joint statement slamming Wiener’s rhetorical shift. 

“Senator Wiener’s newly stated position is both incorrect and lacks moral clarity,” the organizations said. “The diminishment and weaponization of the term ‘genocide’ in this context has been deeply painful for our community, given our own historical experiences with the Holocaust.” 

JCRC CEO Tyler Gregory told JI that Wiener’s new stance is “deeply disappointing and disheartening.” 

“I don’t believe that he believes this. I believe he felt he had to do this,” Gregory said. “I don’t believe in burning bridges. We’re in the community relations business and relationships matter, and he still has a great shot of winning this seat, and we’re going to need to figure out how to work with him and repair [the relationship] if he wins. But this is also deeply damaging to the Jewish community, and words matter, and it’s not a genocide.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced on Thursday that she would not seek reelection, ending a nearly 40-year career in Congress and earning plaudits across a wide spectrum of Jewish voices, from J Street to AIPAC and many in the San Francisco Jewish community who have worked with her since the 1980s.

Pelosi, who is 85, rose to become the first and only female speaker of the House, a position she held from 2007-2011 and again from 2019-2023, when she presided over a divided caucus and a resurgent far-left flank of the party. Pelosi was known for keeping tight control over congressional Democrats and squashing intra-party squabbles. 

“In my view, she was able to keep a pro-Israel consensus in the caucus, but it certainly came at a time when there was more angst around the issue,” said Tyler Gregory, CEO of the Bay Area Jewish Community Relations Council. “While we haven’t always seen eye-to-eye with her on specific policies, she’s always been pro-Israel, and I don’t think anyone can question that.”

Pelosi spoke several times at AIPAC’s annual policy conference. One year, she invoked  her father, a former Baltimore mayor and Democratic member of Congress from Maryland, who she said “had a love for the idea of a Jewish state in what was then called ‘Palestine.’”

“Her love and close connection to the Jewish community started in Baltimore, with her father, the mayor,” said Amy Friedkin, a former AIPAC president and a close friend of Pelosi’s. “She used to say that the founding of the State of Israel was the most profound achievement of the 20th century.”

Marshall Wittmann, an AIPAC spokesperson, said that during her tenure as speaker, Pelosi “helped ensure that Israel had the resources to defend itself, which advances American interests and values.” 

She sometimes diverged from pro-Israel advocates, particularly in 2015, when she championed the Iran nuclear deal as the leader of the Democratic caucus in the House. 

“Nancy Pelosi was an early and steadfast supporter of J Street and a champion of diplomacy,” J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami said in a statement. “She played a pivotal role in securing congressional support for the Iran nuclear deal and consistently advanced pro-Israel, pro-peace policies aimed at strengthening Israel’s security and promoting safety, dignity and self-determination for the Palestinian people.”

Like many Democrats, Pelosi began to take a more critical stance towards Israel during its two-year war in Gaza following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks.

In April 2024, she signed onto a congressional letter urging the Biden administration to withhold some weapons transfers to Israel after the killing of World Central Kitchen aid workers in Gaza, a public condemnation of Israel that went further than previous actions by the former speaker.  

“There are actions and statements that she made that I would disagree with, but when it came down to what was most important, which is Israel’s ability to be a Jewish, democratic state and live in peace and security — never a moment of wavering. Not even the thought process of wavering,” said Sam Lauter, a former longtime AIPAC activist and co-founder of Democratic Majority for Israel. Growing up in San Francisco, Pelosi’s family lived across the street from Lauter’s childhood home. 

“Nancy Pelosi wasn’t just a friend of our community. She was part of our community,” said Lauter. “No one had to teach her about Zionism. She grew up believing in it.”

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and a handful of progressive Democrats introduced a resolution on Monday referring to Palestinian Arabs as the “indigenous inhabitants” of Israel and endorsing Palestinian right of return, one of the most sensitive issues in Israeli-Palestinian relations.

The resolution seeks to set as U.S. policy recognition of the “Nakba” — the term, translating to “catastrophe,” that Palestinians use to refer to the mass Palestinian exodus that accompanied the foundation of Israel — and accept as a settled issue Palestinian refugees’ right of return to inside Israel’s borders. It also refers to Palestinians as the “indigenous population” of the region, but does not acknowledge Jewish history in the region.

The legislation accuses Israel of having “depopulated more than 400 Palestinian villages and cities” during its 1948 War of Independence and characterizes ongoing Israeli “expropriation of Palestinian land and… dispossession of the Palestinian people,” including Israeli settlements, as part of an ongoing Nakba. In a statement announcing the legislation, Tlaib accused Israel of “ongoing ethnic cleansing.”

Tlaib’s resolution has been cosponsored by Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Marie Newman (D-IL), Cori Bush (D-MO) and Jamaal Bowman (D-NY).

Neither Tlaib nor any of the cosponsors responded to a question from Jewish Insider about whether they viewed Jews as also being “indigenous” to the region.

Newman is currently facing a primary challenger, Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL), who is backed by various pro-Israel groups, including J Street, which had endorsed Newman in 2020. Bowman has faced criticism from the Democratic Socialists of America over his positions on Israel, including voting for supplemental Iron Dome funding and traveling to the Jewish state last year. He has since removed himself as a cosponsor of legislation supporting the Abraham Accords.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) blasted Tlaib’s resolution as “predicated on a demonstrably false historical narrative… predictably failing to mention the hundreds of attacks on Jewish communities in the British mandate of Palestine by Palestinian militias.” 

Sherman noted that the resolution “omits” that Israel was attacked by eight Arab states in 1948, that the 1948 war began with attacks by Arab forces seeking “a war of annihilation” against Jewish militants and civilians, that “not a single Jew was left alive in the portion of the British mandate controlled by Arab armies, that no Jews lived in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem for two decades and that 800,000 Jews were expelled from neighboring Arab countries.”

“Thankfully, the vast majority of my colleagues in Congress and in the House Foreign Affairs Committee understand that the historical narrative in Congresswoman Tlaib’s resolution is an outrageous falsehood and thus this bill isn’t likely to be passed or even considered,” Sherman added.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) agreed that the resolution has no “hope of moving forward,” claiming the resolution seeks to “rewrite history and question Israel’s right to exist.”

“It’s unfortunate that this histrionic and invidious resolution was introduced now, particularly, as we see continued progress in efforts to normalize relations between Israel and its neighbors in the region,” Gottheimer added. “Divisive efforts like this only set back our fight against terror and the advancement of democracy in the region.”

Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who advised multiple secretaries of state on Arab-Israeli negotiations, said that the legislation asks Congress to “wade into the intricacies and volatility of some of the most combustible issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and essentially recognize a narrative.”

“This legislation is packed with landmines and traps,” Miller continued. “The whole issue of right of return is an issue that for years in negotiations we realized was the most combustible, most complicated, and the one which we had the least chance of resolving…. That’s the third rail of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.”

Miller emphasized that the legislation has no prospect of seeing widespread support in “any Congress that I can imagine.”

He described the legislation as “designed basically to support what the framers regard as an unrecognized, underreported and unacknowledged narrative in the American political scene of the Palestinians.” He added that the “Palestinian narrative has never been adequately explored or acknowledged” in U.S. politics and argued that “there was a way perhaps to go about this which would have recognized both Israeli independence and the Nakba being intertwined.” 

Some Republicans seized on the legislation.

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) called it “the latest in a long line of antisemitic, anti-Israel statements, policies and actions by the most radical voiced in the Democratic Party.” Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) called it “disgusting anti-Semitism.” Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said “the continued anti-Semitism from radical socialists in the House is horrific.” The three Republicans also sought to tie House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to the initiative, demanding that she condemn the move.

A group of Democratic House members are collecting signatures for a letter cautioning Israeli leaders against unilaterally annexing portions of the West Bank. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that the government could begin annexing territory as early as July 1, though efforts to finalize a plan have stalled in recent days.

The letter, authored by Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Ted Deutch (D-FL) and David Price (D-NC), and shared with Jewish Insider, warns Netanyahu and Defense Minister Benny Gantz that annexation is likely to jeopardize Israel’s warming ties with Gulf states, put Jordan’s security at risk and complicate Israel’s relationships in European countries and around the world. “We do not see how any of these acute risks serve the long-term interest of a strong, secure Israel,” the Democratic lawmakers write. 

The letter was distributed to members of the Demcoratic caucus on Monday. JTA first reported the content of the letter. 

Earlier this month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) warned that unilateral Israeli annexation “puts the future [of peace] at risk and undermines our national security interest and decades of bipartisan policy.”

A similar letter from Democratic Senators garnered 19 signatures. The text of the letter, which was updated several times before being sent, cautioned the new Israeli government that “unilateral annexation puts both Israel’s security and democracy at risk” and “would have a clear impact on Israel’s future and our vital bilateral and bipartisan relationship.” Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Bob Casey (D-PA) and Tina Smith (D-MN) sent individual communiques to Netanyahu and Gantz, similarly opposing the move. Sens. Michael Bennet (D-CO), Maggie Hassan (D-NH) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) addressed the matter in individual letters to Pompeo. 

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) sent a letter echoing those sentiments to President Donald Trump on Tuesday. “In recent months, your Administration appears to have given a green light to unilateral annexation, despite the risks to peace and Israel’s security and democracy,” the California senator wrote. Harris suggested that annexation “not only risks Israel’s security, but would also call into question this Israeli Government’s commitment to shared values of democracy and self-determination.” 

In the House letter, the lawmakers implore the Israeli government, “as committed partners in supporting and protecting the special U.S.-Israel relationship,” to “reconsider” annexation plans before the target date. “We have consistently endorsed the pursuit of a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians resulting in two states for two peoples and a brighter future for the Israeli people and the Palestinian people. In that vein, we write today to express our deep concern that the push for unilateral annexation of territory in the West Bank after July 1st will make these goals harder to achieve,” the letter reads. 

Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) told JI in a recent interview that she would be open to signing such a letter. “While I do not generally believe that strict red lines aid the overriding effort towards a two-state solution, I do believe that there are some issues that have become so politically polarized that they risk politicizing the overall U.S.-Israeli relationship to the detriment of both nations,” Clarke explained. 

Below is the full letter: 

To:

Prime Minister Netanyahu

Alternate Prime Minister and Defense Minister Gantz

Foreign Minister Ashkenazi

We write as American lawmakers who are long-time supporters, based on our shared democratic values and strategic interests, of Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship. We firmly believe in, and advocate for, a strong and secure Jewish and democratic State of Israel, a state able to build upon current peace treaties and expand cooperation with regional players and the international community. We have consistently endorsed the pursuit of a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians resulting in two states for two peoples and a brighter future for the Israeli people and the Palestinian people. In that vein, we write today to express our deep concern that the push for unilateral annexation of territory in the West Bank after July 1st will make these goals harder to achieve.

Longstanding, bipartisan U.S. foreign policy supports direct negotiations to achieve a viable two-state solution that addresses the aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians, and their desire for long-term security and a just, sustainable peace. This position was twice reconfirmed by the U.S. House of Representatives last year. Our fear is that unilateral actions, taken by either side, will push the parties further from negotiations and the possibility of a final, negotiated agreement.  

We remain steadfast in our belief that pursuing two states for two peoples is essential to ensuring a secure, Jewish, democratic Israel able to live side-by-side, in peace and mutual recognition, with an independent, viable, de-militarized Palestinian state.

Unilateral annexation would likely jeopardize Israel’s significant progress on normalization with Arab states at a time when closer cooperation can contribute to countering shared threats.  Unilateral annexation risks insecurity in Jordan, with serious ancillary risks to Israel. Finally, unilateral annexation could create serious problems for Israel with its European friends and other partners around the world. We do not see how any of these acute risks serve the long-term interest of a strong, secure Israel.

As committed partners in supporting and protecting the special U.S.-Israel relationship, we express our deep concern with the stated intention to move ahead with any unilateral annexation of West Bank territory, and we urge your government to reconsider plans to do so.

Minnesota Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Tina Smith (D-MN) have joined more than two dozen Senate Democrats publicly warning Israeli leaders of the implications of efforts to unilaterally annex portions of the West Bank. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that the government could start annexing territory as early as July 1.

In individual letters sent last month and made public over the weekend, both senators — Klobuchar addressed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Smith wrote to Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz — posited that annexation would undermine efforts to attain a two-state solution.

Twenty-eight senators have so far spoken out against the annexation proposal.

Last month, 19 Democratic senators sent a letter to Netanyahu and Gantz urging the Israeli leaders not to move forward with the effort. That letter, which was updated several times before being sent, cautioned the new Israeli government that “unilateral annexation puts both Israel’s security and democracy at risk” and “would have a clear impact on Israel’s future and our vital bilateral and bipartisan relationship.” Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Bob Casey (D-PA) sent individual communiques to Netanyahu and Gantz, similarly opposing the move, and Sens. Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Maggie Hassan (D-NH) addressed the matter in individual letters to Pompeo. 

In addition, Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) issued statements against annexation, and Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) indicated to Jewish Currents that instead of signing or authoring a letter on annexation, he would “communicate directly with [Israeli] Ambassador [Ron] Dermer and Israeli officials to express his concerns.” 

On Monday, eight Senate candidates in battleground states are expected to join the list expressing their strong opposition to such a move. In statements provided to J Street and shared with Jewish Insider, the candidates — Cal Cunningham (North Carolina), Sara Gideon (Maine), Teresa Greenfield (Iowa), Al Gross (Alaska), Jaime Harrison (South Carolina), MJ Hegar (Texas), John Hickenlooper (Colorado), Amy McGrath (Kentucky) and Jon Ossoff (Georgia) — emphasized that annexation would put the future of a two-state solution at risk. 

Read their statements in full here.

Earlier this month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) warned that unilateral annexation “puts the future [of peace] at risk and undermines our national security interest and decades of bipartisan policy.” Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden also came out against annexation, saying it “will choke off any hope for peace.”

“From the presidential nominee to the speaker of the House and from the Senate to the senatorial campaign trail, Democratic leaders have now made absolutely clear that they do not and cannot support unilateral annexation in the West Bank,” J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami told JI. “For annexation to move forward in the face of this overwhelming opposition would be incredibly harmful to the future of Israelis and Palestinians and to the US-Israel relationship.”