Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement on Tuesday that he “believe[s] it is time for the United States government to stop the sale of some offensive weapons systems to Israel as leverage to pressure Israel” into implementing a ceasefire, increasing humanitarian aid in Gaza and stopping the expansion of West Bank settlements.

Smith, a member of the moderate New Democrat Coalition who has played a leading role in Democratic foreign policy, was careful to emphasize that he supports Israel and “recognize[s] both the threats they face and the reality that the actions of Hamas and their supporters have driven this conflict.” 

He also affirmed that, “Yes, the hostages must be returned. It is outrageous that Hamas took the hostages and has continued to hold them.”

“But,” Smith said, “six months of war since the end of the last ceasefire has done nothing to bring the hostages home” and it is “impossible to see how further military action in Gaza could degrade Hamas … further than what has already occurred.”

The Washington state Democrat, who has served his Seattle-area district since 1997, said he changed his position on blocking weapons sales to Israel because the “situation in the Middle East has changed dramatically in recent months.” He acknowledged that the weakening of Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran and the fall of the Assad regime in Syria “might not have happened if the U.S. had reduced its support to Israel prior.” 

“But these developments also mean that Israel faces little if any risk to its security if the U.S. blocks the sale of some weapons now,” Smith continued.

He recognized that attempts to pressure Israel into ending the war could “simply embolden Hamas to keep fighting. I believe this has happened throughout the war as various international groups have consistently failed to hold Hamas accountable.”

“I am not naive that this approach is somehow guaranteed to work, but simply continuing the war has clearly failed to completely eliminate Hamas or gain the return of the hostages. It is time to try something else,” Smith said. 

He said the world should not “blindly trust” how Hamas conveys the humanitarian situation in Gaza, but the “scale” of the crisis “cannot be denied. 

“I also believe that if Israel does not end the war in Gaza, they run the risk of being ostracized globally in a way that is a far greater threat to the long-term security of Israel than anything their adversaries are now capable of doing,” Smith said. 

Smith also spoke out against the far-left elements of his party, saying he “remain[s] concerned that so many people advocating for the U.S. to stop supporting Israel believe that Israel does not have the right to exist as a country. 

“Opposing the actions of the Israeli government in Gaza to stop the war and end the suffering of the Palestinian people is very different from opposing the Israeli government out of a desire to wipe it off the map,” Smith said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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