Watching several nationally ambitious Democrats, under pressure from the activist left, shift away from their measured support of Israel is reminiscent of watching the party’s 2020 presidential candidates rush to embrace a panoply of hard-left positions that turned politically costly in the long run. 

The biggest flip-flop under pressure came from former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who, in a recent appearance on the “Pod Save America” podcast, tried to maintain some support for the U.S.-Israel alliance while criticizing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for being responsible for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. 

That nuanced, largely-critical-of-Israel reaction, nonetheless, drew widespread opprobrium from the loudest anti-Israel voices within the party, including the former Obama administration operatives who host the show.

Within days, Buttigieg backtracked in favor of embracing a more hostile view towards the Jewish state. He came out against re-upping another long-term agreement to secure military aid to Israel — the type of deal that former President Barack Obama last secured before leaving office in 2016. He said he would have supported anti-Israel resolutions championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to cut off some military aid to Israel. And he called for recognition of a Palestinian state, a position held by only the furthest-left Democratic lawmakers in Congress.

Buttigieg’s rapid reversal does him little good in advancing his national political interests.  As a presidential candidate whose appeal was centered in his thoughtful pragmatism, his rush to pander to the far flank of his party threatens to undermine his more-moderate brand.  

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), to a lesser extent, is feeling similar pressure from the base as he hints at an interest in presidential politics. The swing-state senator, who has been critical of his party’s far-left, came out squarely against Sanders’ anti-Israel resolutions. But as anti-Israel activists aired an ad in Iowa targeting his position (he missed the actual vote in the Senate), he responded by saying his view on Israel is “evolving.”

And it wasn’t lost on the pro-Israel community that among the 26 Senate Democrats who voted with Sanders on the anti-Israel resolution was Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), a pragmatic Democrat who nonetheless is watching the radical strains within the party grow in influence within her state. Klobuchar is also expected to consider another presidential campaign, after experiencing surprising success in her first run — running as a centrist.

Five years ago, Israel wasn’t driving the left-wing grassroots the same way it is today. Back then, the issues driving the Democratic base were calls to defund the police, protecting illegal immigrants, ending private health insurance in favor of Medicare for All and backing protections for transgender individuals. Other than then-candidate Joe Biden, few of the leading candidates could resist pandering to what looked like an ascendant social justice movement. These issues ended up becoming politically toxic for the party’s image.

In fact, former Vice President Kamala Harris’ biggest impediments as the 2024 Democratic nominee stemmed from the most out-of-the-mainstream positions she adopted in that 2020 primary campaign. 

It’s telling that Democrats who are focused on winning general elections in swing states or districts aren’t following suit with their anti-Israel rhetoric. It’s notable that the Democratic National Committee chairman is feverishly trying to head off an effort from the anti-Israel wing of the party calling for an arms embargo against Israel. 

Even the polling, which has swung against Israel as the war drags on in Gaza, is still evenly divided. By a 13-point margin, voters are still more sympathetic to Israelis than Palestinians, according to a recent Gallup survey. And in a spring survey from the Chicago Council of Global Affairs, Israel received a “50” favorability rating — one that reflects divided and more-partisan public opinion towards the Jewish state, not a total collapse in support. 

When the war ends and new Israeli elections are held in 2026 (if not earlier) with the possibility of a new prime minister, it’s not hard to imagine public opinion for Israel rebounding before the next U.S. presidential election. Indeed, racing to follow the ideological herd instead of focusing on the big political picture is the very mindset that drove so many Democrats off the political cliff in 2020 — a lesson that is being quickly forgotten in party circles.

When Pete Buttigieg was asked a question about Israel and Gaza this week on “Pod Save America,” the former transportation secretary and possible 2028 presidential contender answered in a way that matched many Democrats’ stances on Israel: broadly supportive of the U.S.-Israel relationship while sharply critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his role in the humanitarian crisis. 

But after facing a barrage of attacks on social media from progressives and anti-Israel activists, Buttigieg did an about face and gave in to critics, telling Politico on Thursday that he would have supported recent Senate resolutions seeking to block certain arms sales to Israel and that he would recognize a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution. 

Most surprisingly, he said the U.S. should not negotiate another 10-year memorandum of understanding with Israel laying out Washington’s military support for the Jewish state — a crucial component of America’s Middle East policy that was last negotiated in the Obama administration and runs through 2028. 

“Pete Buttigieg is a viable [contender for] president of the United States. He won the Iowa caucus. He was the transportation secretary. And his words really matter,” one former senior Biden administration official told Jewish Insider. “The fact that he so quickly got wobbly and said his comments about the 10-year MOU suggests that those who still believe in standing strong really need to stand up right now, because we’re seeing a trend that’s extremely disturbing.”

In 2016, the U.S. and Israel signed a 10-year deal that pledged $3.8 billion in military assistance to Israel each year, which President Barack Obama celebrated at the time: “Under President Obama’s leadership, the multifaceted cooperation between the United States and Israel has reached unprecedented levels,” the White House said nine years ago. Even as some progressive Democrats have sought to condition or limit military assistance to Israel, there has not yet been a concerted effort to cancel or significantly alter the MOU. 

A spokesperson for Buttigieg said the former South Bend, Ind. mayor stood by his comments and suggested he wants to see a major change in American military support for Israel. 

“He said we have to shift to a more case-by-case approach, instead of a blanket approach,” the Buttigieg spokesperson told JI on Thursday. “There is a difference between providing defensive equipment so that they can shoot down Iranian missiles raining down on them, versus contributing to the conduct of a war that now has civilians starving within a few miles of food that is intended for them.”

That Buttigieg so rapidly gave in to pressure from the progressive left is an indication of where the party’s center of gravity is moving when it comes to Israel and Gaza. When Buttigieg ran for president in the 2020 Democratic primary, he was viewed as more liberal than Joe Biden on Israel, but much more centrist than Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). 

Buttigieg has for years been seen a more moderate voice in the party who could speak to both progressives and conservatives — as indicated by his frequent appearances on Fox News last year during the 2024 campaign. His willingness to acquiesce to the left in just a matter of days suggests the influence of the left-wing base in Democratic politics is growing.

At a J Street conference in 2019, Buttigieg criticized some Israeli actions and said America should express that disagreement — as a friend. “What you do in that situation is you put your arm around your friends and you try to guide them to a better place,” Buttigieg said. He also said that year that he would not consider cutting aid to Israel. 

A year earlier, in 2018, he traveled to Israel with the American Jewish Committee, and said afterward that support for Israel “shouldn’t be” a “left vs. right issue.” 

In the original “Pod Save America” interview that aired earlier this week, Buttigieg hinted at frustration with Israel’s actions in Gaza while declining to answer questions about the Senate resolutions or Palestinian statehood. “I think we need to insist that if American taxpayer funding is going to weaponry that is going to Israel, that that is not going to things that shock the conscience,” he said. 

Buttigieg suggested, though, that his concerns about Israel’s actions in Gaza come from a position of caring about the country.

“We — I think especially including voices who care about Israel, who believe in Israel’s right to exist, who have stood with Israel in response to the unbelievable cruelty and terrorism of Oct. 7 — I think there’s a reason why so many of those voices are speaking up now too,” he said. “Because this is not just something that is on its face and in itself a moral catastrophe. It is also a catastrophe for Israel for the long run.”

His response was criticized by former Obama administration official Ben Rhodes and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who has in recent weeks been leading the charge for the U.S. to recognize a Palestinian state.

Andrew Bates, who serves as a deputy press secretary in the Biden administration, told JI he viewed Buttigieg’s answer as pro-Israel and anti-Netanyahu.

“I took Buttigieg’s interview to mean he is strongly committed to America’s alliance with Israel and Israel’s right to self-defense, but that he does not support Netanyahu’s new offensive. I agree,” said Bates. But he declined to weigh in on Buttigieg’s about-face.

Some of the leading pro-Israel voices in the Democratic Party have tried to avoid the intra-party squabble about the Senate resolutions and whether to recognize a Palestinian state. Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland both declined to comment on the topic to Politico. 

Shapiro said recently the U.S. has a “moral responsibility” to get aid to Gaza, and he told JI last month that support for Israel should remain bipartisan. 

WATERLOO, IOWA — Presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg accused Donald Trump of taking “U.S. foreign policy steps for the purpose of intervening in Israeli domestic politics” on Monday. Trump has long been a vocal ally and supporter of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and touted a potential defense treaty between the United States and Israel days before the recent election.

Speaking to reporters on his campaign bus, Buttigieg said Trump’s last-minute interjection was a “conflation of domestic and international politics.” The mayor of South Bend, Indiana, compared the president floating a potential Israeli treaty to Trump’s appearance with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Houston on Sunday at a campaign-style rally.

“There’s something deeply unhealthy in many different overlapping ways about [that] kind of conflation of U.S. policy and domestic politics on both sides,” he argued. Buttigieg pointed out that Trump has only contributed to the alliance between the United States and Israel “increasingly coming to be viewed as a partisan issue.”

The Democratic hopeful expressed skepticism that Trump’s remarks last week — appearing to distance himself from Netanyahu — would lead to any change in U.S. policy. “I don’t really find hope in anything this president is doing,” said Buttigieg, “but we’ll see what comes up.” The 2020 hopeful speculated that Trump “wants some level of credibility for whatever peace plan they are going to put out. I’m skeptical but we’ll see what they do or, as the president says ‘we’ll see what happens.’”

Buttigieg also hailed the decision of the Joint List, a coalition of Israeli Arab parties, to back Blue and White leader Benny Gantz as Israel’s next prime minister. “It’s remarkable,” said the South Bend mayor. “I don’t know how that reverberates in terms of the domestic calculations that Gantz has to make, but there is some possibility of growth and unity in that somewhere. I’d like to find out what it actually leads to.”

ELKADER, IOWA — Presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg said he had moral qualms about being a college football fan and found it “problematic” on Monday.

In response to a question from Jewish Insider about the issues with following a sport where unpaid athletes risk serious injury, Buttigieg said, “First, you need to look at what we owe students. Obviously the model says you get an education in exchange for contributing this way, plus the sport is supposed to be its own reward, but I don’t think that that’s really fair anymore.”

The amateur football model, in which college athletes receive scholarships and no other compensation, has been increasingly criticized in recent years. California recently passed legislation that would allow college athletes to profit from the use of their image and likeness. The NCAA has threatened to bar California schools from competition if Governor Gavin Newsom signs the legislation into law.

Buttigieg emphasized that he was a Notre Dame fan more than a fan of college football as a sport. Speaking earlier Monday on his campaign bus, Buttigieg said that the last time he may have yelled was during the Fighting Irish’s victory over Louisville earlier this month. Buttigieg noted his view was shaped by his role as mayor of South Bend, Indiana, the home of Notre Dame. Describing the quandary, he said, “I think about it from a perspective of a city that relies on college football in the same way that Bahrain relies on fossil fuel.”

He wondered if technology might provide answers or “is the future that 40 years from now, in the best case scenario, is Notre Dame known for a world-class soccer program instead?” However, Buttigieg conceded that “it’s problematic and I don’t have a solution for it.”

The Democratic hopeful, who got married last year and has expressed interest on the trail in starting a family with his husband, also said that if he had a child, he “would hesitate to let them play football.”

HOUSTON — At long last, the Democratic presidential primary debate is scheduled to be just a one-night affair. But with 10 candidates taking the stage in Houston for three full hours, it may seem much longer to viewers.

The criteria imposed by the Democratic National Committee have thinned the herd for the third debate. A number of candidates with serious resumes — including a purple-state senator, a red-state governor and the mayor of the largest city in the nation — will not be on stage. But, finally, all of the top-tier candidates will be together in one room, instead of spread out over two nights during the first two debates. 

Tonight the leading candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, will take the stage flanked by his two strongest rivals, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The three top-tier candidates will be joined by South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) at center stage, bringing together the five candidates who have consistently polled above the five percent mark since the spring.

Further out, businessman Andrew Yang, who has mounted an astonishing campaign to achieve national relevance, will appear along with two candidates formerly hyped as potential front-runners, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) and former Congressman Beto O’Rourke (D-TX). At the far edges of the stage, former HUD secretary Julian Castro and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) will vie for the moderators’ attention.

Will the debate’s contours change now that many of the lower-tier candidates have been weeded out? The first two debates featured moderate candidates who polled at roughly the margin of error taking wild jabs at leading contenders. But the moderate at the edge of the stage in this debate isn’t former governor John Hickenlooper or former Congressman John Delaney (D-MD) — it’s Klobuchar, a three-term senator who is still in a far stronger position than either of those two candidates were over the summer.

Some things, however, will stay the same. Biden will remain at center stage and still have a target on his back. Although the former vice president has been bloodied in past debates — most notably when Kamala Harris attacked his past opposition to busing — he has not sustained any lasting damage. The question for those seeking to take him down is whether the third debate will finally be the charm.

The debate will air on ABC from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. EDT on Thursday.