The House passed a second Iran war powers resolution on Thursday following the resumption of hostilities between the U.S. and Iran, with a handful of Republicans who have argued that continued operations violate the War Powers Act again siding with Democrats on the measure.

But hours later, the Senate blocked a separate resolution, also along narrow margins.

Reps. Tom Barrett (R-MI), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Warren Davidson (R-OH) again sided with all House Democrats to pass the resolution by a 214-208 vote.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) said prior to the vote that she planned to support the war powers resolution but ultimately did not.

The Senate resolution was blocked by a 49-47 vote, with Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) voting with most Democrats in support of the resolution and Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) voting against it.

The House and Senate previously passed a similar resolution attempting to end the war, which Democrats have cited to describe the renewed hostilities as illegal.

The measure passed in the House on Thursday was in the form of a concurrent resolution — as was the previous resolution passed by Congress — which is not presented to the president and is generally not seen as carrying the force of law, though Democrats have been working to explore avenues to enforce it.

Also on Thursday, Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced a resolution demanding that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) initiate civil action in federal courts to enforce the previously passed war powers resolution directing the removal of U.S. forces from the Iran war.

A group of House Democrats introduced a resolution last week that aims to block the sale of advanced jet engines to Turkey, as the Trump administration pushes ahead with the sale despite legal restrictions on U.S. military sales to the country.

The resolution is led by Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV), a vocal critic of Ankara, and co-sponsored by Reps. Chris Pappas (D-NH), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Mike Quigley (D-IL), Jim Costa (D-CA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), George Latimer (D-NY) and Brad Sherman (D-CA).

“The regime of Turkish President Erdoğan has made repeated threats of military action against NATO allies and other partner nations throughout the Middle East,” Titus said on X. “I am introducing a Joint Resolution of Disapproval to stop the $700 million sale of F110 jet engines to Turkey which would undermine regional stability and pose a threat to U.S. allies.”

Titus also said on X that she’s working on a letter to House leadership “to prevent any attempt to readmit Turkey into the F-35 program,” urging a Republican colleague who is also critical of the Turkish government to support her initiative.

Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Mike Lawler (R-NY) have been circulating a resolution among lawmakers condemning Hezbollah for its “repeated violations of ceasefire agreements” through its attacks against Israel and calling for the terrorist group to be disarmed, Jewish Insider has learned.

The resolution calls on the Lebanese government and the Lebanese Armed Forces to “ensure Lebanese Hezbollah immediately ceases all attacks and disarms in accordance with the ceasefire” that the U.S. brokered between Israel and Lebanon as the Lebanese terror group continues to threaten the deal. 

It also states that Hezbollah’s attacks on the Jewish state “serve the interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran, that has committed to the destruction of America’s ally Israel.”

“The Lebanese people have made clear that they do not wish to live under the influence of the Iranian regime, and the United States stands with the Lebanese people in their desire for a sovereign, stable, and peaceful Lebanon,” the resolution reads. 

In the resolution, the lawmakers also push back on outside efforts, including by Iran, to determine the future of Lebanon — a criticism that has been leveled against the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding.

“The House of Representatives reaffirms, consistent with the June 3, 2026 Joint Statement, that the future of the relationship between Israel and Lebanon must be decided by the two sovereign governments and rejects any attempt by any state or non-state actor, including Iran or Lebanese Hezbollah, to deny the Lebanese people their sovereignty and freedom,” the resolution continues.

The House rejected a war powers resolution by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) on Thursday that aimed to block U.S. support for Israeli operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon, after House Democratic leaders publicly came out against the effort.

But the Democratic leaders said they would support a future effort by Tlaib along similar lines that will include carveouts for other U.S. operations inside Lebanon, indicating that Tlaib’s next effort is likely to pick up greater Democratic support.

The resolution failed by a vote of 324-92, with most votes in favor of the resolution coming from progressive House Democrats, though several more moderate lawmakers also voted in favor. The Congressional Progressive Caucus whipped in favor of the resolution. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) was the only Republican who supported the effort, and 117 Democrats — a majority of the caucus — voted against it.

Reps. Betty McCollum (D-MN) and Derek Tran (D-CA) voted present.

Tlaib’s resolution, which directed the administration to “remove the United States Armed Forces from Lebanon” within seven days, aimed to cut off U.S. logistical and intelligence support for Israeli operations against Hezbollah. Tlaib has consistently ignored or downplayed Hezbollah’s role in the conflict, describing Israel’s operations as being against Lebanon and the Lebanese people writ large.

Democratic critics said that the legislation would also require the U.S. to remove military guards from its diplomatic facilities and U.S. servicemembers that train and advise the Lebanese Armed Forces. Tlaib insisted that other U.S. operations would be able to continue, in spite of the strict wording in her legislation that indicated they would be impacted.

House Democratic leaders Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Katherine Clark (D-MA) and Pete Aguilar (D-CA) said in a joint statement that they support efforts by the LAF to defeat Hezbollah — making no mention of Israel — and said that they “do not support any effort by the Trump administration to entangle the United States in a war in Lebanon or other parts of the Middle East.”

They said that, since there are no U.S. troops involved in hostilities in Lebanon, a more prudent path would be to pursue an alternative resolution Tlaib introduced, with support from Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The statement came after multiple days of behind-the-scenes wrangling and negotiations over the legislation.

Tlaib’s alternative resolution directs the administration to remove U.S. forces “from any hostilities in Lebanon” within seven days, and includes a specific carveout for diplomatic protection and cooperation with the LAF.

Despite introducing the alternative resolution herself, Tlaib said on X, “The people of Lebanon can’t wait another month for Congress to act.”

Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), who said Tlaib denied him the opportunity to speak on the House floor on the legislation, emphasized in a video statement that the legislation might impact U.S. support for the LAF and U.S. diplomatic security and highlighted that Hezbollah is a threat to the Lebanese people, in addition to attacking Israel since early February.

“We need to find a path where Lebanon and Israel can live in peace, and this resolution doesn’t help us. It doesn’t send a message to the president or the Trump administration. It doesn’t send a message to the Netanyahu government,” Schneider said. “It sends a message to Lebanon and Hezbollah that what they’re doing is acceptable. It sends a message to the Lebanese people that once more they’re pawns in someone else’s fight.”

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) told Jewish Insider, “The United States is not at war with Lebanon nor is there any indication that we’re going to war with Lebanon. So it’s an unnecessary war powers vote.” 

Debate over the resolution on Tuesday turned heated when Rep. Max Miller (R-OH) accused Tlaib of “advocat[ing] for terrorists on a daily basis” and of “hang[ing] out with” with Hezbollah “butchers.”

His remarks were struck from the congressional record with an objection from Tlaib, but he said in a statement read out on the House floor by a colleague that he stood by his remarks.

Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) introduced a resolution on Wednesday endorsing and praising Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s call to wind down U.S. aid to Israel over the next decade, the latest twist in the rapidly evolving U.S. conversation over the future of the U.S.-Israel relationship and U.S. aid to Israel.

Few Republicans, at this point, have publicly endorsed Netanyahu’s effort, which comes amid talks between the U.S. and Israel over the next memorandum of understanding on military aid. Top U.S. officials have confirmed in recent days that ending U.S. aid to Israel is part of those discussions. Future American aid is largely expected to pivot toward a model based on trade, partnership and joint development.

Stutzman said he had discussed the resolution and the effort with Netanyahu and other Cabinet ministers during a visit to Israel alongside Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ) last week, and that the Israeli officials were strongly supportive.

“We thought this was a good opportunity to get a sense of Congress, and of course support not only Israel, but support the administration, and as they move ahead in the next negotiations of MOU, and I’m excited about it. I think it’s a big step for both countries,” Stutzman told Jewish Insider during an interview in his Capitol Hill office on Wednesday.

He said he would not have moved ahead with the resolution if he did not find that he and Netanyahu were on the same page in their goals, and said he would walk it back if President Donald Trump offered a strong counterargument. Netanyahu himself offered a letter of support for the resolution, which Stutzman publicized alongside the resolution.

Netanyahu said in the letter to Stutzman that he was “glad to receive your proposed Congressional resolution endorsing my plan to shift the framework for US-Israel defense cooperation from aid to partnership” and that the “time has now arrived for us to move from aid recipient to partner.”

Such public letters from Netanyahu directly endorsing U.S. legislation are highly atypical, even for legislation supportive of Israel. The resolution “commends Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his bold proposal.”

Stutzman said he had discussed the resolution with the White House, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA), though none of them have given their backing to the resolution yet.

The congressman called it an expression of support from the House for “the efforts of both our countries to take this step in our maturing relationship.” He said that winding down aid is a “mature step” that acknowledges Israel’s role as a regional power and its growing economy. And he said it would communicate to the administration the support from Congress for winding down U.S. aid as part of the MOU talks.

Some pro-Israel voices in the U.S. have griped about the way Netanyahu has approached the wind-down of U.S. aid to Israel, with his comments being decontextualized and weaponized by critics of Israel in the United States to suggest Netanyahu himself supports a severing of the U.S.-Israel relationship or an immediate end to all U.S. aid.

“I’m sure people will try to weaponize it, and they’ll try to create conspiracy theories out of it, but you know what, I was in the room, there was nothing but discussion about our relationship and our partnership,” Stutzman said, when asked about such concerns. “I’m sure there will be some out there that try to use it as fuel for something. They already are, and it’s laughable, because you know it’s more out of a spirit of hatred for Israel than realizing that it’s in the best interest of both countries.”

He argued that the resolution should attract widespread support from budget hawks — for saving U.S. taxpayer money — and from pro-Israel colleagues for giving Israel the opportunity to “stand on their own two feet and be a standing partner beside us and not look like they’re dependent on us.”

Stutzman also said that the resolution, and ending U.S. aid, would remove an argument made by antisemites that the U.S.-Israel relationship is coercive or exploitative, though he acknowledged that it would not solve the problem of antisemitism.

“I hear too many young people especially say that, ‘Israel controls the United States,’ or ‘the United States controls Israel,’” Stutzman said. “No, we just have such common values, and it’s a very natural relationship.”

In addition to the provisions on U.S. aid, the resolution “condemns antisemitism in all its forms, including physical attacks on Jewish individuals and institutions, the harassment of Jewish Americans, the spread of antisemitic propaganda, and the delegitimization of Israel’s right to exist.”

Stutzman said he wants to see the next MOU with Israel — after the current one expires in 2028 — move the U.S.-Israel relationship toward partnership between American and Israeli companies, which he said would be beneficial for the U.S., Israel and other Middle Eastern countries.

The resolution “strongly supports” a new MOU “to replace traditional military assistance with a framework of joint defense codevelopment, coproduction, and mutual investment that will strengthen both nations’ defense industries and military readiness.”

He said the U.S. should also be exploring a Middle Eastern analogue to NATO, including Israel and Gulf states, to include an Article V-style defense guarantee from the United States to protect its various partners in the Middle East. He argued that the war in Iran, during which Tehran has struck various U.S. Gulf allies, has “helped show the world who the real problem was, and that’s Iran and the IRGC.”

Stutzman predicted that Trump will be able to bring regional partners, which are increasingly splitting into camps — Israel and the UAE on one side, and other Gulf and Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar on the other — back together after the war in Iran ends, by touting his ability to defang the Iranian regime, and pointing to the threat it poses to all of them.

He said he believes reports that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman would be willing to normalize relations with Israel if not for objections from his father, King Salman. Saudi Arabia has publicly rejected the idea of normalization prior to progress toward a two-state solution.

Stutzman’s resolution praises Netanyahu and Israel for their cooperation with the U.S. in military operations against Iran.

Asked about the resolution, Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL), one of the most vocal pro-Israel Republicans in the House, said he’s “not a huge fan of resolutions,” which are nonbinding, and that he “struggle[s] with this issue,” calling it a “win for Israel” to wean off of U.S. aid but a “terible decision for America” because “American benefits much, much more from that $3.8 billion than it costs us.”

He said that ending U.S. aid will not stop antisemitism.

“The unfortunate thing is people believe this will stop the antisemitism. It’s not driven by the aid to Israel, they’ll come up with something else,” he said. “I support getting rid of it, just because I like to call BS on all the antisemites, but you’re not going to see me running around to pass a resolution, which doesn’t mean all that much.”

He said that he hasn’t reviewed Stutzman’s resolution yet so he couldn’t commit to how he might vote on it, but said he would consider it. “But I’d rather we actually do things that would solve the problem than just talk about solving the problem.”

Netanyahu’s letter has already been weaponized by anti-Israel forces on the left and right, who are linking it to a provision of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act set for a markup in the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday, which aims to enhance U.S.-Israel technological cooperation and sharing.

Those relatively routine measures, which enjoy bipartisan support and further existing programs, are being undertaken independent of the current MOU, and would not impact the level of U.S. foreign military financing being provided to Israel next year or in the future — though they do model the sort of joint development and co-production which are likely to be the focus of the next MOU.

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) posted a highlighted version of the letter pointing to sections where Netanyahu referenced “my plan” for the future of U.S. aid, suggesting that it was referring to the NDAA provision.

The anti-Israel group A New Policy posted the same highlighted graphic. Neither acknowledged the fact that Netanyahu’s letter referenced a different piece of legislation, instead declaring that he was discussing the NDAA language.

The House voted by the narrowest possible margin to reject Democrats’ latest effort to force an end to the war in Iran, with a final tied vote of 212-212.

Reps. Tom Barrett (R-MI) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) both voted with Democrats and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) for the war powers resolution, while Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) again voted against it.

Following the vote, an angry shout about Golden could be heard from a lawmaker on the Democratic side of the chamber. Golden said in a statement on Wednesday that he would vote for a “‘clean’ war powers resolution to remove the United States from hostilities against Iran,” pointing to a potential upcoming vote next week on a resolution by Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), but said that the resolution that came up for a vote on Thursday was flawed.

Wednesday’s resolution, of which Golden was an original co-sponsor, set a 30-day timeline for the war operations in Iran, a deadline which has long since passed.

“I supported this resolution when it was introduced, but unfortunately its proposed 30-day deadline lacks any real meaning now that we are more than 70 days into this conflict,” Golden said. “It no longer passes the straight-face test. I look forward to voting for a clean, relevant resolution as soon as possible.”

But, Golden continued, the “law is clear” and the administration’s “window for unilateral military engagement has closed. Hostilities, including the use of the U.S. fleet to impose a blockade of Iranian ports, cannot legally continue unless the president seeks, and wins, Congressional approval.”

Barrett and Fitzpatrick both represent swing districts, and Barrett recently introduced an Authorization for Use of Military Force to limit the U.S. operations in Iran. Should Barrett and Fitzpatrick maintain their positions and attendance otherwise remain the same, a war powers resolution could pass as early as next week.

Barrett, when he introduced the AUMF, said that he believes operations in Iran are ongoing in spite of claims to the contrary by the administration and that Congress needs to reclaim its constitutional authority over war powers.

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), who voted for the first Democratic war powers resolution earlier this year and “present” on a second one in April, flipped his vote to “no” on this third effort. Davidson said he wanted to allow President Donald Trump space to negotiate and that any vote before the 90-day mark of the war would be “political.”

House progressives have gradually introduced a barrage of war powers resolutions, with the goal of potentially forcing votes as frequently as every day, meaning many more such votes are on the horizon.

The Los Angeles Unified School District unanimously passed its first-ever resolution recognizing May as Jewish American Heritage Month, embracing a new educational curriculum on Judaism and Israel provided by Israeli activist and author Noa Tishby.  

Designed for middle and high schoolers, the curriculum is based on Noa Tishby’s eight- episode YouTube series, “What is?,” which explores topics including Judaism, antisemitism, the Holocaust and Israel.

“We decided the series needed to be a curriculum in schools,” Tishby, founder of the nonprofit media company Eighteen and Israel’s former special envoy for combating antisemitism, told Jewish Insider.

When she found out that the LAUSD had never recognized JAHM, Tishby reached out to a Los Angeles educator to create a curriculum based on parts of her video series. 

Tishby, who lives in LA, then connected with LAUSD School Board Member Nick Melvoin to draft the resolution, which was co-sponsored by Board Member Sherlett Hendy Newbill and Board President Scott Schmerelson. 

The resolution passed with full support on April 21. 

LAUSD, the second largest school district in the country after New York City, honors cultural heritage months including Black History Month in February, but has never formally acknowledged Jewish American Heritage Month. Several other school districts, such as NYC Public Schools and Berkeley Unified, also promote curricula, books and resources to celebrate the month.

“I think at this time with rising antisemitism and knowing that education is the best antidote, it was important to commemorate May as Jewish American Heritage Month and make sure it’s more than symbolism, with those resources that Noa created,” Melvoin told JI. “There are [existing] resources even prior to the resolution around the contributions of Jewish Americans. But I thought at this time, given the climate [of antisemitism], it’s important to be more explicit about it.”

As a supplement to the curriculum, the Jewish Federation Los Angeles plans to promote a poster series celebrating Jewish Americans to be distributed to public schools. 

A spokesperson for the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia told JI that the museum, which spearheads Jewish American Heritage Month, is “thrilled to hear that LAUSD, one of the largest school districts in America, is adopting JAHM, a federally recognized annual celebration that is held every May and powered by The Weitzman. This move is especially meaningful as we celebrate America’s 250th [anniversary].”  

Tishby recalled being “shocked” that she only learned about the month’s existence a few years ago, despite President George W. Bush issuing the first presidential proclamation designating it as such in 2006.    

“I was blown away,” she told JI. “Jewish American Heritage Month is suffering from very low PR, and it’s not celebrated as much as it should be. We’re trying to make it more visible … There’s never been an LA resolution that actually acknowledges this month at all.” 

The resolution comes as the LAUSD, which serves more than 560,000 students across Los Angeles County, has been accused of failing to address antisemitism — including in teachers’ unions. The district was named in a February lawsuit that highlighted several complaints from Jewish parents and children in districts across California.   

While the resolution cannot require schools to implement the curriculum, Melvoin said he’s “pretty confident” that many will adopt it. “This is where collaborations with folks like Noa and her network and parent leadership [helps],” he said.  

“We want to make sure the Jewish community, which stands with others historically through celebrations and commemorations, also has an opportunity to be celebrated and appreciated,” said Melvoin. “There was no pushback. The board passed it unanimously, and the district staff will work to implement it by making sure there are resources available to districts and schools.” 

“In L.A., there was a sense that Jewish educators and parents didn’t have to be vocal, because we felt comfortable,” he continued. “Since Oct. 7, and even before, Jewish educators and parents have felt galvanized to demand better.”

Given the heavy workload teachers already face, Melvoin said the resolution is not “explicit with [demanding how much time] they must spend covering this. But the spirit of the resolutions is this is something that will be commemorated [every] May.”

“If we hear anecdotally from teachers and parents that it wasn’t as celebrated as it needs to be, then next year I’ll be a little more prescriptive about what needs to happen,” he said.  

Tishby added, “As a Jewish community, we have not taken a seat at the table. We have kind of kept to ourselves, and I don’t think that’s true for where we are right now. We need to claim our seat at the table, and a part of that is to acknowledge that just like any other ethnicity, race or minority, we have this month, and we would love to teach you about us.”  

This story was updated on Apr. 30 to reflect that LAUSD is the second-largest school district in the country, not the first, and that the district did not officially adopt the curriculum but is rather encouraging its use.

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.

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.

Democratic Party activists on Thursday voted to reject a measure that criticized the involvement of AIPAC in Democratic primaries and the American political system. 

The resolution was debated during a meeting of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules Committee at the DNC’s New Orleans meeting. Committee members were considering new policy resolutions, including one introduced by a Florida activist that took aim at AIPAC and the group’s “undue influence over democratic debate and policymaking.” It was voted down in a voice vote.

“The DNC made clear today that all Democrats, including millions who are AIPAC members, have the right to participate fully in the democratic process,” AIPAC spokesperson Deryn Sousa told Jewish Insider.

Jewish Democratic advocates who were in the meeting room praised the decision. 

“We’re pleased that the resolution that wrongly singled out AIPAC was defeated, and that the other anti-Israel resolutions failed to move forward. These measures would be a gift to Republicans, would further fracture our party and do nothing to bring Israelis and Palestinians closer to peace,” Democratic Majority for Israel CEO Brian Romick, who attended the meeting, told JI after the vote. 

Halie Soifer, the CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, said the group agrees with the goal of getting dark money out of politics but that AIPAC should not be targeted explicitly.

“We agree with the rejection of dark money in politics — a topic covered in another more expansive resolution adopted by the committee — but also believe that singling out any individual organization is both unproductive and unnecessarily divisive,” Soifer, who also attended the meeting, told JI. 

Earlier in the meeting, the committee voted to support a measure “condemning the influence of dark money in the 2026 Democratic primary elections” that called out the artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency industries. 

The vote by the DNC’s resolutions committee comes as the Democratic Party faces growing internal strife about its long-standing support for the U.S.-Israel relationship, as some party activists seek to push the group to the left. A new Pew Research Center poll released this week revealed that 80% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have an unfavorable view of Israel — an increase from 69% who said the same last year. 

Two other resolutions that touched on Israel-related issues were referred to a working group on the Middle East that DNC Chair Ken Martin created last summer to help smooth over some of the party’s fissures on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

One of these referred to Israel’s actions in Gaza as a genocide and called for conditioning U.S. military aid to Israel, and the other called for de-escalation in Iran and Gaza. A third resolution on the Middle East, condemning the U.S. missile strike that hit a girls’ school in Iran and killed at least 165 people, passed.

👋 Good Tuesday morning!

In today’s Daily Kickoff, we break down two new polls on American Jewish support for the war in Iran, and report on the Democratic National Committee’s upcoming vote on a resolution condemning AIPAC and Israel. We talk to Sen. Elissa Slotkin about the role of the government in responding to antisemitic attacks, and talk to experts about the Trump administration’s options vis-a-vis a ground operation in Iran. Also in today’s Daily Kickoff: Amb. Charles Kushner, Betsy Berns Korn and Matthew Bronfman.

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

• Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine are holding a press conference on the war in Iran at 8 a.m. ET.
• New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is meeting this morning in New York with U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres.
• Elsewhere in New York, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) — on the one-year anniversary of his 25-hour record-breaking speech on the Senate floor — is speaking at Manhattan’s Temple Emanu-El tonight about his new book, Stand. 

What You Should Know

A QUICK WORD WITH JI’S JOSH KRAUSHAAR

Two new polls of Jewish voters released this week show broad opposition to the U.S. military action against Iran, with support for the operation highest among those who are the most connected to Israel and those who are most affiliated with Jewish institutions.

A Mellman Group poll on behalf of the Jewish Electoral Institute (JEI) found that 32% of Jewish voters back the current military action against Iran, while 55% disapprove and  13% remain undecided. Support tracked closely along partisan lines, with 83% of Republicans, 49% of independents and 13% of Democrats approving the war. 

Among those who said they were very connected to Israel, the poll found nearly two-thirds of Jewish respondents supportive, with just 27% opposed. But among those only “somewhat” connected to Israel, 58% said they disapprove of the war with just 25% approving. Nearly all of those Jewish respondents unconnected to Israel said they disapprove of the military action against Iran.

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

SINGLED OUT

DNC committee to consider resolutions condemning AIPAC, Israel

The Democratic National Committee’s resolutions committee is set to consider resolutions condemning AIPAC and Israel at its upcoming meeting next week in New Orleans — a sign of the continued and growing discord in the party over Middle East policy. It’s unclear how great of a chance the resolutions stand of passing in their current form, but they are emerging as the AIPAC brand has been tarnished inside the Democratic Party, Jewish Insider’s Marc Rod reports.

What it says: “The use of massive outside spending to support or oppose candidates based on their positions regarding international conflicts or foreign governments raises concerns about undue influence over democratic debate and policymaking, potentially constraining elected officials’ ability to represent the views of their constituents including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spending approximately $14 million in a single Illinois Democratic primary,” the resolution, obtained by JI, reads.

Read the full story here.

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

COMMUNITY TIGHTROPE

In Michigan Senate primary, McMorrow balances Jewish fears and Arab outreach after attack

In the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Michigan, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow appears to be trying to carve out a lane between her opponents Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), a moderate pro-Israel stalwart, and public health official Abdul El-Sayed, a far-left candidate. In an interview with Jewish Insider’s Gabby Deutch in a coffee shop near Detroit last week, McMorrow described herself as someone tuned in to the fears of Jewish Michiganders who is also trying to be a bridge-builder to the state’s large Arab community. 

Reaching out: Last week, following the attack on Temple Israel earlier this month, McMorrow said, “I made it a point to reach out and talk to not only members in Temple Israel and leaders in the Jewish community, but also leaders out of the Muslim community, particularly over in Dearborn. What I heard independently from both groups is we need to figure out a way out of this, that there is so much hurt and there is so much pain, and this is not sustainable. There is a desire to bring the heat down, but we have to recognize as leaders, we need to create open doors for people to work through their trauma.” 

Read the full interview here.

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

SECURITY MINDED

Slotkin warns U.S. lacks funding to combat antisemitic extremism after Temple Israel attack

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) proposed ways for Congress and the federal government to better respond to the threat of violent, antisemitic extremism, during an interview with Jewish Insider’s Gabby Deutch in her Capitol Hill office last week. But even as she discussed ways to take action, she spoke with alarm about the growing prevalence of antisemitism on both sides of the aisle, which she described as out of control. And she was clearly shaken by an attack that was potentially inches away from being much worse.

Soft targets: “I think it could have been one of the worst mass killing events in U.S. history were it not for the private security that happens to be very top-notch there, and everyone doing their jobs almost perfectly,” Slotkin said of the attack on Temple Israel, a Reform synagogue in West Bloomfield Township, Mich. “I think it just has contributed to a feeling for many inside the state that the very things that make Jewish life valuable are becoming the soft targets.” 

Read the full interview here.

Terror ties: The FBI determined that the attack on Temple Israel was “a Hezbollah-inspired act of terrorism purposely targeting the Jewish community and the largest Jewish temple in Michigan,” officials said on Monday, JI’s Haley Cohen reports.

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

decision time

Trump at a crossroads on Iran: Will he or won’t he send in troops?

The Trump administration’s conflicting posturing on the war in Iran — insisting on the one hand that a diplomatic deal is within reach while also threatening to escalate strikes and potentially deploy ground troops — has left experts and former administration officials uncertain about President Donald Trump’s next move, Jewish Insider’s Matthew Shea and Emily Jacobs report. In recent days, the U.S. has amassed over 3,500 more troops in the Middle East, including deploying the USS Tripoli aircraft carrier, which hosts around 2,500 Marines.

Options open: Elliott Abrams, who served as Iran envoy under the first Trump administration and is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told JI that the president’s decision to move more troops to the region and not exclude ground operations from future military plans is an effort to “keep his options open.” Abrams said, “The massing of ground forces near Iran is both preparation for their possible use and a means of pressuring Iran to make concessions in the negotiations. There is no way of knowing what Trump will do if the negotiations fail.”

Read the full story here.

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

WHACK-A-MOLE

Meta removes antisemitic AI account ‘Rabbi Goldman’ after backlash

An AI-generated Instagram account, which featured a fake Orthodox rabbi spreading antisemitic conspiracies to its more than 1.4 million followers, was taken offline over the weekend following major backlash from Jewish groups and one Democratic lawmaker — yet several similar, hate-peddling accounts have emerged with little to no public action from Meta, Jewish Insider’s Haley Cohen reports.

Rabble-rousing ‘rabbis’: An account called “Rabbi Goldman” “uses fake, AI-created authority figures to spread hate” in “a troubling and growing tactic,” according to a report published last week by Combat Antisemitism Movement. Several new Rabbi Goldman accounts started posting similar videos within the past two weeks — two already have followings of 18,500 and 10,000. Both remain active on Instagram and their bios state, “only Backup account for @rabbigoldman” and “old account got banned.” The CAM report identified 12 AI-generated “rabbis” with a combined following of 2.1 million Instagram users, all of which promote classic antisemitic stereotypes. 

Read the full story here.

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

news to me

Jewish comic Modi drops out of ‘Downtown Seder’ after learning of Mamdani’s attendance

Israeli-American comedian Modi Rosenfeld, known simply as “Modi,” pulled out of a Passover-themed benefit last night after his manager revealed that the entertainer had been “blindsided” with the news that New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani would participate in the Lower Manhattan event, Jewish Insider’s Will Bredderman reports.

Pulling out: Quoting JI’s initial report on the mayor’s scheduled involvement in the 33rd Annual “Downtown Seder” at impresario Michael Dorf’s venue City Winery, Rosenfeld’s official Instagram account announced the Tel Aviv-born, Long Island-reared performer had withdrawn from the event. “We were not told Mamdani was participating in this event until today,” the post read. “Modi will no longer be attending.” 

Read the full story here.

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

Worthy Reads

Rahm’s Remedy: In The Wall Street Journal, former U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel, who is mulling a 2028 presidential bid, argues that Democrats should maximize their potential takeovers of the House and Senate in this year’s midterm elections to put forward a positive agenda in an effort to win back the White House in 2028. “Many presume we will use the power from winning the House and possibly the Senate primarily for retribution and vindictiveness. The implication is that we will tie up the White House, and the Trump administration more generally, in an endless series of investigations. Democrats should play against type, defying the expectation that we’ll embrace gotcha politics. No doubt it’s a target-rich environment. But an excessive focus on Trumpian slime will undermine efforts to promote our positive agenda.” [WSJ]

Seeking Scientists: The New Yorker’s David Kirkpatrick spotlights former CIA operative Kevin Chalker, who claims to have played a key role in U.S. efforts to obtain information about Iran’s nuclear program. “Chalker was asked to come up with a plan to recruit other scientists, and began by reading old cable traffic about how the agency had handled Soviet defectors in the John le Carré days. … Cumulatively, Chalker’s defectors contributed to what several former senior officials told me had been a dramatic leap forward in the U.S. government’s understanding of Iran’s nuclear ambitions in those years. The consequences were manifold.” [NewYorker]

Power of Prayer: Bloomberg’s Ethan Bronner looks at the increasing number of young Israelis who have become more religious since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks and ensuing wars in the region. “The scene of combat soldiers expressing pious fervor, captured on cellphones and shared widely on social media, would have been unimaginable a decade or two ago, when the infantry still leaned heavily toward secular rather than observant conscripts. ‘The real result of October 7 is Jews becoming more Jewish, people reclaiming their identity,’ says Sivan Rahav-Meir, a popular television news personality.” [Bloomberg]

The Politics of Giving: In The New York Times, Craigslist founder Craig Newmark pushes back on recent criticism from Silicon Valley of the Giving Pledge over complaints that some who sign the pledge have committed their money to left-wing groups. “The truth is that pledge signers can give their money to whichever charitable causes they want. I don’t understand the critics’ logic, but politics and that sort of criticism have never really made much sense to me. I really am a nerd. … I don’t get into fights over what’s woke and what’s not. Because I don’t know the answer, nor do I care. I use the money I made to help people who are trying to make life better for all of us humans.” [NYTimes]

Word on the Street

Washington’s Gulf allies, led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have reportedly been pushing the White House to continue its fight against the regime in Iran; the countries, which also include Bahrain and Kuwait, are lobbying for a change in Iranian leadership before the end of Western military operations in the country, while Oman and Qatar are pushing a quick diplomatic resolution…

The push from the Gulf comes as President Donald Trump has reportedly told staffers that he was willing to end military operations without Iran fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz…

The U.S. used 2,000-pound bunker-buster bombs to strike a weapons depot overnight in the Iranian city of Isfahan…

An Iranian drone struck a Kuwaiti oil tanker off the coast of Dubai early Tuesday morning, starting a fire on board the fully laden vessel… 

NYU closed its Abu Dhabi campus until further notice after Iran threatened over the weekend to attack outposts of American universities in the Gulf…

The Financial Times looks at efforts by Iranian and Iran-linked hackers, many of whom are tied to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence, to break into U.S. and Israeli tech systems…

Twenty-five Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) urged the Senate Armed Services Committee to investigate the alleged U.S. bombing of an Iranian girls’ school adjacent to an IRGC base…

Jewish Israelis’ support for the war against Iran dropped by 15 points from the first week of the war, according to a poll released by the Israel Democracy Institute on Monday, Jewish Insider’s Lahav Harkov reports…

Politico reports on deepening concerns over social media posts from Rama Duwaji, the wife of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, praising Hamas and using racist language — including from progressive allies of the mayor, who has defended his wife as a “private person” despite her residence in Gracie Mansion and use of taxpayer funds for police detail and government staff…

A federal grand jury indicted six people on hate crime charges in connection with the 2024 assault of a Jewish student at the University of Pittsburgh…

U.S. Ambassador to France Charles Kushner met in Paris with Israeli pastry chef Tal Spiegel, who with his French business partner is offering kosher pastries at their ABRA Patisserie in the city’s 4th arrondissement…

Canada’s New Democrats party elected former journalist Avi Lewis, who is Jewish and anti-Zionist, as its new leader…

Sysco is acquiring 94-year-old Jewish businessman and philanthropist Nathan Kirsh‘s Jetro Restaurant Depot in a $29.1 billion deal…

The Knesset passed a controversial law on Monday allowing — and in some cases requiring — courts to impose the death penalty on terrorists found guilty of murder; opponents swiftly challenged the legislation in court, with appeals arguing that its designations are vague and discriminatory, Jewish Insider‘s Lahav Harkov reports…

Israel’s Shin Bet said it foiled a West Bank terror plot being directed by a Hamas operative in Turkey who was freed in one of last year’s deals that saw the release of Israeli hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners…

Former Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy was nominated to be the next secretary-general of the Arab League; Fahmy’s nomination is expected to be endorsed at the next Arab summit meeting and assume the role in July…

Betsy Berns Korn was nominated to serve a second yearlong term as chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, effective June 1; Matthew Bronfman was nominated to be the Conference’s chair-elect…

Edward Kaplan, the former longtime head of the Maryland Public Broadcasting Commission, died at 87…

Pic of the Day

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul participated in a mock Seder organized by Teach NYC earlier this week at Yeshivah of Flatbush in Brooklyn. Joining Hochul were Teach Coalition CEO Sydney Altfield, Rabbi Yahel Tsaidi and Yeshivah of Flatbush Executive Vice President Rabbi Jeffery Rothman.

Birthdays

Emmy Award-winning writer and producer (“24,” “Homeland” and “Tyrant”), Howard Gordon turns 65… 

Music producer, band leader of the Tijuana Brass, Herb Alpert turns 91… New York Times best-selling novelist, poet and social activist, Marge Piercy turns 90… Democratic congressman from Massachusetts for 32 years, named co-sponsor of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, Barnett “Barney” Frank turns 86… U.S. senator for 48 years until 2023, Patrick Leahy (D-VT) turns 86… Former syndicated talk radio host on 400+ stations and conservative political commentator under the name Michael Savage, Michael Alan Weiner turns 84… U.S. Sen. Angus King (I-ME) turns 82… Comedian, actor and professional poker player, he played the named teacher in the 1970s sitcom “Welcome Back, Kotter,” Gabe Kaplan turns 81… Retired professor of special education at Long Island University, Joel E. Mittler… Emmy Award-winning movie and television actress, best known for her role in the sitcom “Cheers” for 11 seasons, Rhea Jo Perlman turns 78… Russian ice dancing coach and former competitive ice dancer, now living in Stamford, Conn., Natalia Dubova turns 78… Chairman of Apple, Inc. since 2011 and CEO of Calico (an Alphabet R&D biotech venture), Arthur D. Levinson turns 76… New Jersey attorney, Steven L. Sacks-Wilner… Scottsdale, Ariz., resident, David L. Freedman… Chairman of Danaher Corporation, he owns a 20% stake in the NBA’s Indiana Pacers, Steven M. Rales turns 75… Israeli singer and songwriter, Ehud Banai turns 73… Former deputy chairman at the Jewish Agency for Israel, David Breakstone, Ph.D. turns 73… Author and advertising executive, Joseph Alden Reiman turns 73… President at the Detroit-based Nemer Property Group, Larry Nemer… Rabbi of Kehillas Ohr Somayach and lecturer at Ohr Somayach Yeshiva in Jerusalem, Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz turns 72… Equestrian and 10-time American Grand Prix Association Rider of the Year, she is a 2009 inductee into the International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame, Margie Goldstein-Engle turns 68… Founding director of the Illinois Holocaust Museum and national campaign director of the West Coast and Mountain States for the Jewish National Fund, Rick Hirschhaut turns 66… Consultant for synagogues and teacher at Bruriah High School in Elizabeth, N.J., Judah E. Isaacs… Two-term mayor of Chattanooga, Tenn., until 2021, he is now administrator of the Rural Utilities Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Andy Berke turns 58… Former child actor, now an attorney and celebrity brand consultant, Josh Saviano turns 50… Rabbi of the Ashkenazi Jewish community of Turkey, Menachem Mendel Chitrik turns 49… Chief legal correspondent at MS NOW, Ari Naftali Melber turns 46… Former footballer for Beitar Jerusalem, who has also played for Chelsea, Manchester City and West Ham United in the English Premier League, Tal Ben Haim turns 44… Internet entrepreneur who is the co-founder and former CMO of Tinder, Justin Mateen turns 40… British-French journalist and author, he was a political advisor to the U.K. Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, Ben Judah turns 38… Jerusalem-born, 2010 contestant on “America’s Next Top Model,” she went on to join the IDF, Esther Petrack turns 34… Agency partnerships lead at Samsung, Howie Keenan… Ice hockey defenseman for the Washington Capitals, Jakob Chychrun turns 28… Talmudic scholar, Avigdor Neuberger… John Jacobson…

The Democratic National Committee’s resolutions committee is set to consider resolutions condemning AIPAC and Israel at its upcoming meeting next week in New Orleans — a sign of the continued and growing discord in the party over Middle East policy. 

It’s unclear at this point how great of a chance the resolutions stand of passing in their current form, but they are emerging as the AIPAC brand has been tarnished inside the Democratic Party.

The resolution targeting AIPAC, described in a resolution packet obtained by Jewish Insider as a “Resolution On Electoral Integrity, Transparency, And Limiting The Influence Of Corporate Money In Democratic Elections,” specifically calls out the pro-Israel group for its spending.

“The use of massive outside spending to support or oppose candidates based on their positions regarding international conflicts or foreign governments raises concerns about undue influence over democratic debate and policymaking, potentially constraining elected officials’ ability to represent the views of their constituents including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spending approximately $14 million in a single Illinois Democratic primary,” the resolution reads.

It goes on to accuse “corporate money PACs” of also weighing in against “candidates who have advocated for Palestinian human rights, ceasefire efforts, or changes to U.S. foreign policy.” It states that opposition to such spending should be part of the party’s 2028 platform. Though the rest of the resolution is generally aimed at condemning dark money and independent spending in primaries, AIPAC is the only group singled out by name.

AIPAC and the DNC declined to comment on the resolution.

The resolution was submitted by a DNC delegate from Florida who pushed a resolution last year calling for an arms embargo and a suspension of U.S. aid to Israel, which was ultimately rejected by the same panel. At DNC Chair Ken Martin’s direction, the DNC set up a working group to discuss Israel-related issues.

In addition to the AIPAC resolution, another resolution highlights accusations of genocide against Israel and suggests that Israeli military units are in violation of U.S. arms sales laws, requiring a suspension or conditioning of arms transfers. A third condemns U.S. and Israeli military operations against Iran and its partners, and calls for conditions on U.S. aid to Israel.

Democratic insiders took differing views on whether the resolutions — particularly the one relating to AIPAC — are likely to pass in their current form.

Halie Soifer, the CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, emphasized that any of the 44 members of the resolutions committee can introduce resolutions. She said that the fact of a resolution being introduced doesn’t mean that it will be considered by or adopted by the full DNC. Resolutions are debated and can be amended by the resolutions committee before they are voted on.

“What you’re seeing here doesn’t reflect a position that’s been adopted by the DNC. It reflects one person[’s] — who filed these resolutions — views,” Soifer said. “I don’t expect that these resolutions will be adopted as they’re drafted.”

Soifer argued that, though there’s “broad concern” about dark money across the U.S. political system, targeting AIPAC in particular doesn’t serve the goal of combating the issue as a whole.

“There are many ways to express such concern, I don’t think solely identifying one organization —  especially not in this incredibly difficult moment when such a singling out can be viewed as potentially antisemitic — I don’t think that that is effective,” Soifer said.

A DNC official told JI that the resolutions committee is required by DNC bylaws to consider all resolutions as long as they are compliant with DNC rules, that the committee considers dozens of resolutions at each meeting — totaling more than a hundred in the last year — and that the resolutions are not legally binding. If the resolutions committee votes to advance a resolution, it is then voted on by the entire DNC.

Manny Houle, a Democratic pro-Israel strategist in Minnesota, said that he also doesn’t see the AIPAC resolution going forward because it lacks “teeth” — the DNC “can’t tell candidates where they can and cannot raise money … that’s not our purview.” He also emphasized the diversity of DNC delegates, many of whom do not have an intensive focus on AIPAC or the Middle East.

He also lamented that some Democratic activists seem “hyper-focused on something that doesn’t impact [the day-to-day lives of Americans] and [something] they have very little knowledge on, but they have big emotions for,” referring to the situation in the Middle East. But he also predicted the party will ultimately come together around a nuanced position of supporting allies and opposing Iranian aggression while also opposing “needless war.”

But another senior Jewish Democrat, speaking to JI on condition of anonymity, predicted that an anti-AIPAC resolution of some form could move forward, pointing to discontent and frustration among Democratic insiders over AIPAC’s spending to block former Rep. Tom Malinowski’s (D-NJ) special election primary bid earlier this year, as well as its involvement in Democratic primaries in Illinois.

“I think anyone who is surprised by this sort of potential action by the DNC hasn’t been paying close attention to how AIPAC has been seen within the Democratic Party, especially after their relatively recent decision to get actively involved in Democratic primaries,” the Jewish Democrat said. “The Democratic Party is going to respond when outside groups try to manipulate primaries.”

The Jewish leader said that AIPAC has alienated even some Democrats who were previously aligned with or had donated to AIPAC through its recent political maneuvering, potentially putting more fuel on the fire.

At the same time, the leader urged the party to “go out of their way to ensure that they were not singling out AIPAC for any other reason than it was actively involved in Democratic primaries, which of course other outside forces were too. It’s totally legitimate to criticize a pack in a way that you would criticize any other PAC or outside organization trying to influence Democratic primaries.”

Joel Rubin, a Democratic strategist, former senior J Street official and former Jewish liaison for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) presidential campaign, emphasized that he’s worked at odds with AIPAC at many points in his career, but said he is nonetheless concerned about the singling out and targeting of the group.

“Anytime you single out a specific organization where … at least half of the members are Democrats, and you say they’re banned, you’re opening up a litmus test Pandora’s box that is not going to be easily shut. It’s just bad politics,” Rubin said. “There are ways to criticize — as there should be — an organization’s views and even their electoral efforts without putting forward a resolution of policy of the party that is creating a dynamic that will only further alienate Jewish Democratic voters, period.”

Jewish Americans, he emphasized, have been a core constituency to the Democratic Party for decades, as voters, organizers and fundraisers, and the specific targeting of AIPAC “is a great way to kick out perhaps the most loyal voting bloc from the party.” He said that the effort “plays right into the Republicans’ hands.”

And, Rubin noted, the DNC has no ability to control which candidates run in Democratic primaries, from whom they accept contributions or how AIPAC and its supporters spend their money.

He also predicted that some Democratic activists would treat the resolution, and rejection of AIPAC, as an organizing tool and litmus test for Democratic candidates going forward, regardless of whether this particular resolution is approved.

“It’s going to take leadership amongst people to say, ‘This is not how we treat people in our party. This is not what we do. And if we have a problem with AIPAC and the way they use dark money and the way they have Republican donors go through in a sort of stalking horse, we should call that out and point that out every single time,’” Rubin said. “But that does not mean every single dollar that AIPAC uses … is solely Republican.” 

Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff rejected a recent Student Assembly resolution calling for the university to boycott its partnership with an Israeli institution, stating that doing so would “fundamentally conflict with our core commitment to academic freedom” and noting the “political bias” within the resolution “is deeply disturbing.” 

In a letter to the Student Assembly, Kotlikoff wrote that the resolution — which calls to sever Cornell’s longstanding academic partnership with the Technion —  “would not only hinder our research, teaching and public engagement; it would imperil our academic principles.”

The Joan and Irwin Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute, the partnership in which Cornell Tech is based, was established in 2013 as a collaboration between the two institutions. It is located on Roosevelt Island in Manhattan.

The resolution calls on Cornell “to terminate its institutional partnership with the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology while maintaining Cornell Tech as an independent Cornell campus.” It claims “ethical and legal concerns” regarding the Technion’s involvement in Israeli military research and technologies linked to “human rights violations.”

The resolution, Kotlikoff wrote, “inaccurately asserts that ‘the continued operation of Cornell Tech as a Cornell University campus does not require an ongoing partnership with the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology.’ Cornell Tech, while part of Cornell, is a joint effort of the university, the Technion, and the City of New York. It is no more possible for Cornell to unilaterally terminate that effort and claim full control of the campus than it would be for the Technion or the City of New York to do the same.”

“Finally, I am deeply troubled by the selective manner in which this resolution singles out the Technion, alone of Cornell’s many international partners, for censure,” continued Kotlikoff, who noted that Cornell currently maintains 159 active agreements with institutions in 59 nations and regions; all of these institutions have some government affiliation, and many conduct research with military and security applications. “Cornell also has relationships with institutions in countries whose governments have been accused of human rights violations — as our own has been,” he wrote. 

“None of these publicly available facts are mentioned in the resolution; only our partnership with an Israeli institution is targeted for erasure. The political bias evident in this selective approach is deeply disturbing, and the resolution is incompatible with both the Student Assembly’s purpose and Cornell University’s core values. I reject it fully and forcefully.” 

During his campaign, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said he would “reassess” the partnership between Cornell Tech and Technion, which he later walked back. 

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.”

In the increasingly heated Illinois Democratic Senate primary, one claim has become a familiar refrain from Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton and her allies, that Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) “voted to thank” Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

But the criticisms don’t tell the full story. They refer to a resolution that was principally focused on condemning the firebombing attack on an Israeli hostage awareness march in Boulder, Colo., last summer, which also included language about immigration enforcement.

“I want to abolish ICE. My opponent voted to thank them,” Stratton has repeated in at least four separate interviews and candidate forums over the past few weeks.

It’s an attack that has also been repeated in an ad campaign against Krishnamoorthi by Illinois Future PAC, a super PAC largely funded by Gov. JB Pritzker and others in his family. “[Krishnamoorthi] even voted to honor ICE,” the ad states. “When Illinois needed a fighter, Raja Krishnamoorthi sold us out.”

The resolution condemned the attack in Boulder and offered prayers for the victims, while also focusing in part on the fact that the accused attacker, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, had overstayed his visa and work permit. It urged “free and open communication” between state and federal law enforcement” and “expresse[d] gratitude to law enforcement officers, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, for protecting the homeland.”

At the time, some Democrats criticized Republicans for the ICE language, seeing it as a deliberate political gambit by Republicans to provide fodder for accusing Democrats of being weak on antisemitism, expecting many to vote against the resolution over the ICE language.

Ultimately, the resolution split Democrats, with 75, largely moderates and pro-Israel members, supporting the legislation and 113 Democrats opposing it.

Krishnamoorthi pushed back on the attacks in a recent debate, responding to Stratton, “That resolution, Lieutenant Governor, you know was about condemning antisemitism, and that’s something that I will always do.”

The Stratton campaign said that the lieutenant governor “will always speak up and condemn antisemitism and would have proudly supported [a separate bipartisan resolution] condemning antisemitism, politically motivated violence, and the terror attack in Boulder that passed in the House the same day. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called the second resolution, HRES 488, an ‘unserious effort.’ Expressing gratitude to ICE at a time when Chicago’s immigrant communities were already under attack is a line that Juliana would not cross.”

Stratton did condemn the attack in Boulder at the time.

The resolution came at a particularly tense moment, as ICE was undertaking some of its first major deportation efforts of the Trump administration, in Los Angeles, prompting protests and condemnations from many Democrats.

Both Stratton and the Illinois Future PAC are also hitting Krishnamoorthi over past votes for ICE funding and donations he has received from Palantir, a tech firm that contracts with ICE.

Pritzker, who is Jewish and seen as a potential 2028 presidential contender, also recently grabbed attention with comments, through a spokesperson, condemning AIPAC for having “abandoned its bipartisan principles and become a pro-Trump organization.”

The billionaire Pritzker was a onetime AIPAC donor.

Pritzker did not respond to a request for comment. Illinois Future PAC could not be reached for comment.

House Democratic leaders said in a joint statement on Thursday that they plan to force a vote “as soon as Congress reconvenes next week” on a resolution blocking military action against Iran without congressional authorization.

The statement, signed by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-CA), as well as Reps. Greg Meeks (D-NY), Jim Himes (D-CT), Adam Smith (D-WA) and Ro Khanna (D-CA), all of whom hold committee leadership roles, argues that military action against Iran without authorization would be unconstitutional. The statement also serves as an apparent repudiation of claims by some progressives that Democratic leaders were privately maneuvering to block a vote on the resolution, fearing a significant number of party defections.

“The Iranian regime is brutal and destabilizing, seen most recently in the killing of thousands of protestors,” the Democratic officials said. “However, undertaking a war of choice in the Middle East, without a full understanding of all the attendant risks to our servicemembers and to escalation, is reckless.”

“We maintain that any such action would be unconstitutional without consultation with and authorization from Congress,” they continued.

At least one Republican, other than the resolution’s cosponsor Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), appears likely to support the war powers resolution. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), a Republican with isolationist foreign policy leanings, said he would vote in favor of the resolution unless he receives a classified briefing on the “mission”  in Iran next week that provides “new information.”

“War requires congressional authorization. There are actions short of war, but no case has been made,” Davidson said.

Three Democrats — Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) and Greg Landsman (D-OH) — have indicated they will oppose the resolution. Some other defections are likely.

One issue that could drive particular concern for pro-Israel Democrats is that the legislation does not include specific language allowing for continued intelligence-sharing and defensive operations and aid to protect Israel from Iranian attack, which is included in similar Senate legislation.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in a Senate floor speech on Thursday, two days after receiving a classified briefing from Cabinet officials — that the administration still has yet to lay out its goals and plans for Iran.

“The issues we discussed in our classified briefing were very serious and the American people deserve to hear it directly from the president and his administration,” Schumer said.

Schumer has signed on as a cosponsor of the Senate war powers legislation.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), who was also briefed, said Thursday that any action against Iran should be decisive enough to bring down the regime.

“In my view, if you’re going to do something there, you better well make it about getting new leadership and regime change,” Thune said.

A bipartisan group of 23 senators introduced a resolution on Wednesday condemning the Iranian government for its crackdown on protesters and attempts to cut off internet access across the country.

The resolution highlights the massive scope of the crackdown, which some reports indicate has included more than 30,000 deaths and more than 40,000 arrests. It puts ultimate responsibility for these actions on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and notes that the regime has a long-standing pattern of such crackdowns against protesters and other dissidents, as well as religious minorities.

“Iranian civilians’ unprecedented nationwide protests and bravery, confronted with the regime’s unprecedented widespread extrajudicial killing of thousands and disruption of all electronic communication, have profoundly destabilized the country and constitute changed conditions in Iran,” the resolution reads, highlighting that the regime’s suppression and killing of protesters continues.

The resolution “strongly condemns” the Iranian government massacres, as well as its violations of Iranians’ human rights, and “commends the courage of the Iranian people.”

It calls on the Iranian government to hold open elections and “supports the calls of the Iranian people to bring human rights violators to justice.”

The resolution is led by Sens. James Lankford (R-OK) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and co-sponsored by Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), John Boozman (R-AR), Katie Britt (R-AL), Ted Budd (R-NC), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), John Hoeven (R-ND), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Andy Kim (D-NJ) and Dick Durbin (D-IL)

Support for the resolution, which includes lawmakers from a wide political and ideological spectrum, highlights the widespread outrage on Capitol Hill at the Iranian government’s actions against Iranian civilians.

“The Iranian regime has a long record of threatening Americans and our allies while denying its own people the most basic freedoms,” Lankford said in a statement. “For weeks, security forces have fired live rounds into crowds, overwhelmed hospitals and morgues, and carried out mass arrests as Iranians gathered to assemble peacefully in protest. Innocent civilians, including children and bystanders, have been killed in the streets. The United States stands with the Iranian people in their pursuit of freedom and will continue to condemn the regime for its ongoing human rights abuses against its own citizens.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and nearly all Senate Democrats are set to introduce a resolution on Monday condemning neo-Nazi influencer Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson for hosting Fuentes on his show. 

The legislation also highlights that Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts defended Carlson and Fuentes and notes that the Trump administration nominated an official who expressed affinity for the Nazis, referring to Paul Ingrassia.

The resolution comes weeks after Carlson’s friendly sit-down with Fuentes prompted a reckoning in the conservative movement over antisemitism on the far right and its normalization in certain circles. Schumer reportedly sought Republican backing for the resolution, but no Republicans have signed on at this point.

The resolution outlines Fuentes’ long history of overt antisemitic activity, as well as the series of antisemitic comments that Fuentes repeated on Carlson’s podcast. It highlights Carlson’s failure to “push back on or reject the claims made by Fuentes” and that Carlson “at times even validat[ed] his framing.” It also notes that Carlson was a keynote speaker at the 2024 Republican National Convention.

The legislation states that the Senate “strongly rejects the views of and platforming of Nick Fuentes” and “condemns the effort by Tucker Carlson to platform and mainstream Nick Fuentes.”

The resolution also specifically highlights that Roberts posted a video defending Carlson and attacking those criticizing him — accusing Roberts of employing “antisemitic dog whistles” — as well as for refusing to take down the video even as he as apologized for portions of it.

It calls on “all elected officials, thought leaders and community leaders to reject and condemn white supremacy and antisemitism whenever and wherever they occur.”

And it highlights that President Donald Trump nominated Paul Ingrassia — who said in an unearthed group chat that he has a “Nazi streak in me from time to time” — for an administration post and has since named him to a different role in the administration after his nomination was withdrawn. The resolution does not specifically name Ingrassia.

The resolution is being sponsored by every Senate Democrat.

The legislation has been supported by a series of Democratic-affiliated and progressive-minded Jewish groups, including Democratic Majority for Israel, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Jewish Democratic Council of America, Jewish Women International, the Union for Reform Judaism, Hadassah and the National Council of Jewish Women.

“The platforming of individuals who promote hateful, antisemitic, and white supremacist rhetoric is dangerous and entirely at odds with American values,” JWI CEO Meredith Jacobs said in a statement. She said that Congress “must forcefully condemn any attempt to mainstream antisemitism” and other hatred and “the fact that such condemnation is not universal underscores the very real and present danger that these ideologies are gaining ground in our society.”

JCPA CEO Amy Spitalnick said that antisemitic and white supremacist extremism “threatens every single one of our communities and the core of our democracy – yet we’ve seen political leaders continue to embrace and platform this deadly hate and those who peddle it, like Nick Fuentes” and urged all senators to support the resolution.

DMFI urged the Senate to “send a powerful message that there is no place for these hateful ideologies in our society by passing this measure.”

Halie Soifer, the CEO of JDCA, condemned Republicans for not signing onto the resolution.

“This issue should not be partisan, yet not one Republican has joined this resolution, and the President of the United States has refused to condemn Fuentes, Tucker Carlson’s platforming of Fuentes, and the hate they’ve espoused,” Soifer said in a statement. “We’re deeply concerned about Republicans placing politics above efforts like this one to combat white nationalism, antisemitism, and hate, and strongly encourage them to join this effort.”

UPDATE: This article was updated to reflect that the legislation’s findings highlight Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts’s defense of Carlson and Fuentes but the resolution does not specifically condemn him.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced on Thursday that he will introduce a resolution condemning neo-Nazi influencer Nick Fuentes and his white supremacist views after President Donald Trump declined to condemn Fuentes or Tucker Carlson’s platforming of him. 

Schumer announced the move while criticizing Trump’s comments from over the weekend, in which the president noted that Carlson has “said good things about me over the years” and defended his decision to host Fuentes on his show. 

After calling Trump’s remarks “disgusting, Schumer warned that antisemitism in the U.S. has “reached a dangerous tipping point. Jewish Americans are facing threats, harassment and violence at levels we have not seen in generations.”

“For Donald Trump to continue to excuse and protect the spread of Nick Fuentes’ ideology, confirms what many of us have long said: white supremacy and antisemitism are taking deep roots, unfortunately, within the Republican Party,” Schumer said from the Senate floor on Thursday.

“Just as we saw from the leaked texts from Young Republicans, just as we saw from text messages of administration officials, the Nick Fuentes saga on the right reveals that antisemitism and white supremacy have been growing with disturbing currency within the right wing,” he continued. “I know this is not true of everyone on the Republican side, especially not for many Republicans in this chamber.”

Schumer said that his resolution will be focused on “rejecting Nick Fuentes and his white supremacist views, condemning Carlson’s platforming of hate, and condemning antisemitism and white supremacy wherever and whenever it occurs.” He added that he plans to lobby senators on both sides of the aisle to consider supporting the resolution.

“I hope my Republican colleagues will join me in this effort and co-sponsor this resolution. Calling out antisemitism should not be a partisan issue,” Schumer said. “When we refuse to condemn antisemitism, we stay silent and fail to reject antisemitic rhetoric, when we normalize hateful figures spewing disgusting antisemitism, that is when antisemitism spreads throughout society like a poisonous wildfire.”

“Americans don’t want to see that happen, so my resolution will give every single senator a chance to make an important stand against hatred,” he continued. “The country must see us unite and fight this awful form of bigotry.”

Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-OR) drew comparisons between the Holocaust and the war in Gaza, the latter of which she described as a genocide, in a speech on the House floor on Thursday, explaining her decision to support a resolution with far-left lawmakers, supported by anti-Israel groups, accusing Israel of genocide.

Dexter was backed by AIPAC’s United Democracy Project super PAC in her 2024 primary race against an opponent viewed as further left, and ran on a relatively standard Democratic platform when it came to Israel issues. But she has shifted dramatically to the far left on the issue in recent months, also throwing her support behind efforts to cut off offensive weapons transfers to the Jewish state.

The Oregon congresswoman began her speech by recounting a visit to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, the timing of which she described as “very intentional.”

“I went to reflect on the horrific history of dehumanization and ethnic cleansing that ultimately led the world to create a new term to describe such an unfathomable evil. That word is genocide,” Dexter said. “After the Holocaust, the international community made a commitment that such evil can never happen again to any people, anywhere. Never again, they said. That is why I recently signed on to a resolution recognizing Israel’s actions in Gaza led by the Netanyahu government as a genocide.”

Dexter said that she signed on “with a heavy heart” and “with the utmost respect for the Jewish people” but acknowledged that Jews in her district “may feel abandoned or deeply harmed by my action.” She professed her ongoing opposition to antisemitism and support for “our Jewish neighbors.”

“Many in this body have been reticent to clearly call out the mass suffering, the ethnic cleansing, the war crimes taking place in Gaza. I will not willingly continue to be part of that complicity,” Dexter continued. “As a United States representative, my job is to stand up against the power and our resources of this country being used in such ways.”

She said that “history has and will continue to judge this body, not just for what it did, but for what it failed to do. … I want my children to live in a country where leaders can be relied upon to lead with courage, empathy, and moral clarity. And I urge every Oregonian watching to hold me accountable in a shared unshakable belief in the sanctity of human life.”

Sara Bloomfield, the director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, criticized Dexter’s comments.

“Exploiting the Holocaust to accuse Israel of genocide is unconscionable and adds further fuel to an already raging antisemitic fire,” Bloomfield said in a statement to Jewish Insider.

AIPAC spokesperson Marshall Wittmann said, “The claim of genocide by Israel is a mendacious attempt to distort facts, rewrite historyand a dangerous blood libel. The only genocide in this war happened on October 7, when Hamas openly admitted it wanted to kill every Israeli man, woman, and child it could.  To invoke the Holocaust against Israel is a grotesque moral abomination.”

The U.N. Security Council adopted a U.S.-led resolution on Monday backing President Donald Trump’s peace plan for Gaza, including the creation of an international security force, in a move that could boost efforts to advance into the next phase of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire. 

“Congratulations to the World on the incredible Vote of the United Nations Security Council, just moments ago, acknowledging and endorsing the BOARD OF PEACE,” Trump posted to Truth Social following the vote. “This will go down as one of the biggest approvals in the History of the United Nations.”

In the first phase of Trump’s 20-point peace plan, originally presented in September, the Israel Defense Forces have partially withdrawn to a “yellow line” dividing Gaza, while Hamas has returned all of the living hostages and all but three of the deceased hostages’ bodies. 

However, the plan has faced significant roadblocks, and questions remain about the feasibility of implementing the following phases, including effectively disarming Hamas and determining who will govern Gaza. 

Monday’s vote follows coordinated diplomacy between Washington and Arab partners aimed at reviving momentum behind the U.S. plan, including hosting a summit in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, last month and issuing a joint statement of support last week. 

With the adoption of the resolution, the U.N. showed a rare consensus on Gaza — 13 countries voted in favor and none against, with Russia and China abstaining. Experts told Jewish Insider that moving to the second phase of the plan now becomes more plausible — even if challenges remain. 

“The vote on the U.S.-drafted resolution is incredibly significant,” said Dana Stroul, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who added that it provides “an international legal framework for the international stabilization force to deploy in Gaza, which is required for certain countries to send forces, like Indonesia.” 

Prior to the vote, the White House has had difficulty recruiting countries to provide troops for the security force. 

“What is being proposed is an enormous logistical feat, not to mention a high-risk environment where a terrorist organization is still active, the civilian population is in desperate need of humanitarian aid and local security, and Israeli forces remain on the ground,” said Stroul. “Foreign governments are concerned about their forces being attacked by Hamas, or being caught in the middle of Israeli security operations, and want clarity on the command and control, important details like logistical support and lodging, and the specifics of the actual mission.”

A key hurdle will be defining the role of the stabilization force. David May, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said there has been confusion over whether the ISF would “maintain the peace or enforce it.” 

Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, echoed the importance of determining the role such a force would play in Gaza.

“The ISF likely will have lots of participants if the mission is limited to non-kinetic roles like aid distribution, border security, guarding camps, etc., all of which are important,” said Ruhe. “But Hamas thinks it won the war, and it won’t give up without a real fight. Phase 2 will be difficult for everyone if Israel has to do all this heavy lifting, so the success of Trump’s plans depends heavily on resolving the question of who, other than Israel, will actually enforce the peace?”

With the terror group still active in Gaza, few countries have been willing to risk sending soldiers into a conflict that “doesn’t involve them,” according to May. 

“Without foreign forces on the ground, the options are either hoping that Hamas will disarm itself and give up its governance position, or leaving Israel to resume military options to do the disarming,” said Stroul.

At the same time, Hamas has sought to deter the implementation of the next phase — which calls on the group to relinquish its arms and governing authority. 

“Hamas blew by the 72 hours for returning all hostages, living and dead, and continues to attack Israeli forces,” said May, referring to commitments the terror group agreed to in the first phase of the ceasefire. “Hamas always tests the limits of agreements with Israel, and it has little incentive to carry out a ceasefire plan that ultimately calls for the terrorist group’s destruction.” 

“It should not be a surprise that a terrorist organization will try a variety of means to survive, from inflicting violence against Palestinians outside the yellow line to intimidating them into submission, insisting on distinguishing between different kinds of weaponry it may be willing to relinquish to appear reasonable, or attempting to present itself as a legitimate representative of the Palestinian national dialogue,” said Stroul.

Even as Washington and Arab governments moved the plan forward diplomatically, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and right-wing members of his government reiterated their opposition to a Palestinian state over the weekend, a stance that contrasts with the resolution, which contains language on creating “a pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.” This wording was also present in the original plan released by Trump and agreed to by Netanyahu. 

“The rhetoric coming out of Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition this weekend is incredibly ill-timed and will fuel those looking to blame Israel for failure to move from Phase 1 to Phase 2 of the plan,” said Stroul. “By appearing to renege on this issue, Netanyahu is setting himself to be on the opposite side of the Palestinian question from Trump, and risking serious daylight between the U.S. and Israel on Gaza at a high-risk moment.”

May said the inclusion of the clause “may have helped make the resolution more palatable to the other Security Council members,” but added that it will likely be out of the question for Israel moving forward.

“Following the popular support among Palestinians for the Oct. 7 atrocities, a Palestinian state on Israel’s borders is a nonstarter for most Israelis,” said May. “It is not worth it for Israel to risk the stabilization of Gaza on the lip service paid to a two-state solution that is dead in the water for most Israelis.”

Leading up to the vote, Russia had presented a counterproposal that diverged from the U.S. draft resolution in advocating that the West Bank and Gaza be joined as a state under the Palestinian Authority. 

“This is really Russia seeking any way to assert influence in an attempt to make itself relevant,” said Stroul. “Moscow sees anything that keeps the U.S. tied down in the Middle East in a state of conflict, in tension with its longstanding allies and partners, as beneficial.”

Ruhe said Russia’s counterproposal was an attempt to throw “wrenches in America’s gears.”

“Russia was conspicuously absent from the Egypt peace summit, so this is one way Moscow tries to reassert itself,” said Ruhe. “The U.S. decision to mention a pathway to a Palestinian state probably owes more to our partners’ priorities than to Russian pressure, though Moscow certainly will try to claim this as a win anyway.”

The next part of Trump’s proposal also includes the increased entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza and the rebuilding of critical infrastructure. However, like other key elements of the plan, experts said it remains contingent on Hamas’ presence. 

May said the full recovery of Gaza will remain incomplete “until Hamas is disarmed and there are troops on the ground to keep the peace.”

“No one is willing to start reconstructing Gaza if Hamas is still active on the ground,” said Stroul. “This is the fundamental choice for Hamas: it can choose to disarm and stay in Gaza, or receive amnesty and leave. But if it insists on having a say in the future governance of the Strip, then nothing beyond humanitarian aid will flow into Gaza; Palestinians will have no prospects for rebuilding their lives; and the potential for a return to open conflict rises.”

A group of 21 House progressives, led by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), introduced a resolution accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.

The legislation is cosponsored by Reps. Becca Balint (D-VT), Andre Carson (D-IN), Greg Casar (D-TX), Maxine Dexter (D-OR), Maxwell Frost (D-FL), Chuy Garcia (D-IL), Al Green (D-TX), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Summer Lee (D-PA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Delia Ramirez (D-IL), Lateefah Simon (D-CA), Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ).

Khanna, Ocasio-Cortez and Pressley are all seen as likely to seek higher office.

Dexter, notably, was elected on a generally pro-Israel platform with significant support from AIPAC’s United Democracy Project super PAC in a race against a candidate viewed as more anti-Israel, but has turned increasingly critical of the Jewish state in recent months.

Frost had previously told Jewish Insider he hesitated to use the term “genocide” himself, though he said he did not criticize others for doing so.

Casar is the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, while McGovern is the ranking member of the House Rules Committee.

Balint is the only Jewish member cosponsoring the resolution.

The resolution is backed by a slew of anti-Israel groups, including the Democratic Socialists of America, Jewish Voice for Peace, IfNotNow, the Quincy Institute, Sunrise Movement, Amnesty International, Code Pink, CAIR, American Muslims for Palestine, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and DAWN.

The resolution asserts that “the overwhelming evidence is clear that the State of Israel has committed acts (actus reus) within the scope of the Genocide Convention against Palestinians in Gaza.”

It states that the U.S. must “prevent and punish the crime of genocide wherever it occurs,” and must therefore halt the transfer of any weapons or equipment to Israel, impose sanctions on Israel and individuals and companies involved in “facilitating the commission of genocide or incitement to commit genocide,” support efforts at the United Nations to punish Israel, cooperate with the International Criminal Court’s investigation of Israel and lift sanctions on the ICC, enforce the International Court of Justice’s decisions against Israel and ensure funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency — which was halted following findings that UNRWA employees participated in the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attacks.

It also states that the U.S. should “ensur[e] that individuals and corporations in the United States and within United States jurisdiction are not involved in the commission of genocide, aiding and assisting the commission of genocide, or incitement to commit genocide, and investigat[e] and prosecut[e] those who may be implicated in these crimes under international law.”

Among the various sources the resolution cites in accusing Israel of genocide is the International Association of Genocide Scholars, describing the group as the “world’s leading subject matter experts on genocide.” 

But supporters of Israel found, after the group’s vote to condemn Israel, that the association had an essentially open membership policy with no requirements of any actual subject matter expertise, beyond paying a membership fee of as little as $30.

The resolution also cites Amnesty International and other groups, which reinterpreted the legal definition of genocide in order to level that charge at Israel, as well as the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Israel, whose members have repeatedly faced accusations of blatant antisemitism.

A BDS resolution that accuses Jewish students of “weaponizing antisemitism” and blames labor disputes on “Zionist interests” is advancing in the Cornell University Graduate Student Union — where unlike many other unions, dues are mandatory. 

The draft resolution, which was published earlier this month and obtained by Jewish Insider, states that “the dismantling of unions in higher education based on Zionist interests is not only to the detriment of graduate worker unions — it threatens the working class and labor unions nationwide.”

The resolution also says that a September Senate Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Committee subcommittee hearing focused on antisemitism within unions “succinctly crystallizes how autocrats are weaponizing antisemitism charges against unions in higher education to undermine labor unions nationwide.”  

“The House Republicans and representatives of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation repeatedly drew connections [at the hearing] between the collective interests of labor unions and imperial investments in the dispossession and genocide of the Palestinian people,” the draft states. “Under the guise of antisemitism, they denounced graduate worker unions’ interest in protecting their rights to engage in political protest in support of Palestinian liberation.”

Jewish students who have applied for an exemption to the dues requirement over the union’s anti-Israel behavior say they face monthslong waits, intimidation over unpaid fees and even professional consequences.

According to two Jewish students, the union has removed “most Jewish students” from the listserv, making them unaware of when the resolution will be submitted and what the voting process will be.  

David Rubinstein, a sixth year history Ph.D. candidate at Cornell, told JI that the “resolution is merely the latest chapter in CGSU’s yearslong campaign to make Jewish students feel unwelcome.”

“By endlessly attacking Israel and ‘Zionists’ — while ignoring every other conflict in the world — the union has created a hostile work environment that has impacted many students’ academic careers,” continued Rubinstein. “Depicting ‘Zionist interests’ as undercutting the working class has nothing to do with wages or benefits — rather, it reveals a conspiracy-tinged worldview.”

Another Jewish graduate student, who spoke to JI on the condition of anonymity over fears of being doxxed or harassed by the union, said the draft “is full of libelous comparisons and makes no mention of the harm BDS would do to Jewish students on campus.” 

“It’s completely denying antisemitism as a very real and present problem on campus,” the student said. 

In tandem with the resolution, the union has made threats to fire Ph.D. students who refuse to pay them, according to Rubinstein. 

“Cornell could have denied the union’s demand for mandatory dues — as many other universities have done,” he said. “Instead, objectors must undergo a burdensome exemption process requiring the disclosure of highly personal information. It is wrong that antisemites have been granted authority to determine whether I am Jewish enough not to fund their union.”

Cornell did not respond to a request for comment from JI about the resolution and the union’s requirement that all graduate students pay dues. 

Cornell’s graduate school came under scrutiny last month when Eric Cheyfitz, a professor with a history of anti-Israel activism, attempted to exclude an Israeli graduate student from participating in his course on Gaza. Cheyfitz was placed on leave, and retired weeks later. The school’s student newspaper, The Cornell Daily Sun, published a graphic during the week of the second anniversary of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks depicting a bloodied Star of David and Nazi “SS” symbol on the back of a Palestinian person.

Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY) will introduce a resolution this week affirming Israel’s sovereignty over the Temple Mount, a sacred site for Jews, Christians and Muslims, and demanding equal freedom of worship for all, Jewish Insider has learned.

The resolution, if adopted, would put the House of Representatives on record as affirming “the inalienable right of the Jewish people to full access [of] the Temple Mount and the right to pray and worship on the Temple Mount, consistent with the principles of religious freedom.” It also “reaffirms its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital, as reaffirmed repeatedly in United States policy and law, which includes Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount.”

The resolution describes the Temple Mount as “the holiest site in Judaism” and “a holy site for Christians and Muslims,” and makes note of the impediments faced by Jews and Christians in accessing the site that have restricted their prayer rights. 

“Israel upholds religious freedom for all by ensuring access to holy sites for people of all faiths, however, Jewish and Christian rights on the Temple Mount are severely restricted as compared to the rights of Muslims,” the resolution reads. 

The resolution points out that “Muslims can currently enter the Temple Mount from 11 different gates, but non-Muslims can only enter the Temple Mount from 1 gate,” and that “the hours of the lone non-Muslim gate is severely restricted compared to the Muslim gates.”

“Non-Muslims are not permitted access to the Temple Mount on Friday or Saturday, preventing Jews from observing Shabbat upon the Temple Mount,” it states. 

Many rabbinic authorities, including the Israeli chief rabbinate, posit that Jews should not ascend to or pray on the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site and the former site of the First and Second Temples, because of ritual purity questions. 

The Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock were built on the Temple Mount after the destruction of the Second Temple. Jews largely worship at the nearby Western Wall, which is the remaining portion of the barrier that once enclosed the Temple Mount.

Israel gained control of the Temple Mount in the Six Day War, and allowed Muslim worship to continue on the holy site unimpeded. After Israel made peace with Jordan in 1994, the status quo was formalized, by which the Jordanian Islamic Trust determined religious use of the site. 

While Jewish visits to the Temple Mount came to a near-total halt during the Second Intifada in 2000-2005, in the past decade, it has grown increasingly popular among religious Zionist Israelis and other Israeli Jews to ascend the mount, with numbers reaching the tens of thousands each year. This has also included praying on the site, usually silently, despite police instructing otherwise. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has always said that Israel will maintain the status quo on the Temple Mount, restricting Jewish prayer. However, in recent years, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has pushed for police to ignore any infractions, and he himself has prayed at the Temple Mount.

Over the past century, Arab and Palestinian leaders have used claims that Jews or Israel are trying to take over the Temple Mount to incite violence, from the 1929 Hebron Massacre to the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks, which Hamas named the Al-Aqsa Flood. 

The resolution states that the House of Representatives “supports the Government of Israel in its efforts to safeguard the rights of Muslim worshippers, and integrity of Islamic structures there, in accordance with Israel’s current policies.”

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) cosponsored the resolution, while the right-wing Zionist Organization of America and the Endowment for Middle East Truth endorsed it. 

Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Rick Crawford (R-AR) will introduce a resolution later this week condemning Hamas for its “campaign of executions and intimidation against innocent Palestinians in Gaza” since the implementation of a ceasefire with Israel earlier this month, Jewish Insider has learned. 

Crawford is chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Gottheimer sits on the committee.

The bipartisan resolution criticizes Hamas’ actions against Gazans since the Oct. 10 ceasefire implementation date, accusing the terrorist group of attempting “to suppress dissent and reassert control over the territory, resulting in the deaths of scores of civilians.” 

“The House of Representatives condemns in the strongest terms the killings and acts of terror committed by Hamas against innocent Palestinians in Gaza,” it reads.

The resolution also “reaffirms the commitment of the United States to supporting the implementation of the ceasefire agreement and to advancing stability and peace for innocent civilians in Gaza.” 

Videos emerged in the days following the implementation of the ceasefire showing Hamas terrorists lining up and executing Palestinians in the streets of Gaza City, often on charges of “collaboration” with the enemy. Analysts described the killings as Hamas’ attempt to reassert itself as the dominant force in the Palestinian enclave following the withdrawal of Israeli forces. 

Since then, Hamas has continued carrying out the executions, largely of members of rival Palestinian groups. 

Adm. Brad Cooper, the commander of U.S. Central Command who is leading a civil-military coordination center in Israel to help maintain the ceasefire, released a statement earlier this month calling on Hamas to cease the killings. 

“We strongly urge Hamas to immediately suspend violence and shooting at innocent Palestinian civilians in Gaza — in both Hamas-held parts of Gaza and those secured by the IDF behind the Yellow Line,” Cooper said, later calling on Hamas to begin “disarming without delay.”

The University of Maryland Student Government Association is set to consider a resolution at the start of Yom Kippur on Wednesday evening calling on the university and its charitable foundation to implement a boycott of companies and academic institutions with ties to “Israel’s regime of apartheid and occupation.”

The final vote “was first set for Rosh Hashanah and now moved to Yom Kippur,” Leo Terrell,  who leads the Trump administration’s antisemitism task force, wrote on X. Terrell criticized UMD’s student government for “intentionally picking the holiest days of the year for Jews in order to force them to choose between defending their Zionist identities or observing their religion.” 

UMD has one of the largest Jewish student populations in the country — nearly 20% of the College Park undergraduate student body of more than 30,000 students is Jewish, according to Hillel International.  

When the vote was announced, UMD President Darryll Pines told the university’s newspaper, The Diamondback, that the university supports SGA’s right to debate the issue. But he added that the university wants to ensure the process is “open and fair and has dialogue from all parties of our broad student body.” 

“Resolutions voted on by the Student Government Association are student-led and reflect perspectives of voting members of the SGA,” a university spokesperson told Jewish Insider. “They have no bearing on university policy or practice.” 

Still, Jewish leaders on-campus expressed concern about the vote’s impact on campus climate for Jewish students — especially as it’s being held on a Jewish holiday.   

“Yom Kippur is the holiest day of the year for the Jewish people, a time of introspection when our students are fasting, and attending prayer services with their community. Holding a vote that seeks to demonize the Jewish homeland on a day when Jewish students will not be able to participate is exclusionary, biased and flat-out wrong,” Rabbi Ari Israel, executive director of UMD Hillel, told JI. 

“I am deeply disappointed that SGA decided to hold a BDS vote on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year for the Jewish people,” Einav Tsach, a senior studying journalism and business who formerly led Mishelanu, an on-campus Israeli-American cultural association, told JI. “This strategy underscores the true intention of the BDS campaign: to divide our campus community and exclude Jewish students from a vote that is biased and wrong.”

If the resolution passes, the student government would urge the university and the University of Maryland College Park Foundation to implement boycott, divestment and sanctions policies against companies and institutions “complicit in the oppression of Palestinians.” 

The resolution mentions Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin as two companies that provide infrastructure used by Israel. The association would also call on the university to implement a process for student oversight on investments and partnerships to ensure it isn’t “complicit in violations of international law and human rights, including those perpetrated against the Palestinian people.”

UMD’s student government voted in support of divestment in a campuswide referendum in April, at which time the university responded that it would not divest from Israel. Other divestment resolutions fell short of advancing in 2017, 2019 and 2024. 

The University of Maryland hasn’t faced the same levels of antisemitism that have occurred on many elite campuses since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks in Israel. 

However, the university faced controversy last year when it granted Students for Justice in Palestine a permit to hold a demonstration on the campus’ central McKeldin Mall on the first anniversary of the attacks, prompting swift backlash from campus groups including Hillel and the Jewish Student Union. 

After the university canceled the protest, SJP filed a lawsuit stating that its First Amendment rights had been violated. A federal judge wrote in an opinion that the group “has demonstrated a substantial likelihood that it will prevail [in its lawsuit] on the merits of its freedom of speech claim.” 

The university reversed its decision and allowed the demonstration to take place, but the lawsuit moved forward. In August, the University of Maryland and Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown asked the state to approve their joint request to settle the First Amendment lawsuit for $100,000 paid to the plaintiffs. 

A group of seven Senate Democrats introduced a resolution on Thursday calling for the U.S. to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state.

The resolution was led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and co-sponsored by Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Peter Welch (D-VT), Tina Smith (D-MN), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI).

The resolution came in conjunction with plans by several U.S. allies to recognize a Palestinian state and alongside a similar push from progressive House lawmakers. Merkley and Van Hollen recently traveled to Israel and released a scathing report accusing Israel of deliberate ethnic cleansing and collective punishment.

“Recognition of a Palestinian state is not only a practical step the United States can take to help build a future where Palestinians and Israelis can live in freedom, dignity, and security, but it is the right thing to do. America has a responsibility to lead, and the time to act is now,” Merkley said in a statement. “The goal of a Palestinian state can’t be put off any longer if we want the next generation to avoid suffering from the same insecurity and affliction.”

The resolution’s sponsors claimed that it constitutes a reaffirmation of long-standing U.S. support for a two-state solution.

The legislation highlights that “administrations of both political parties in the United States have long affirmed that a negotiated two-state solution is the only viable path to an enduring peace in the region” — but does not acknowledge that policymakers have traditionally seen unilateral recognition as contrary to that principle of a solution negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Kaine said that the Israeli government’s rejection of a two-state solution should cause the U.S. to change its own policies.

“Since July 2024 when the Israeli Knesset voted to deny a path to Palestinian statehood and made clear that Israel would not accept Palestinian autonomy, I have believed the U.S. should no longer condition recognition on Israeli assent but rather on Palestinian willingness to live in peace with its neighbors,” Kaine said. “We must redouble our efforts to work toward a future where Israelis and Palestinians alike can live in peace, security, and dignity.”

Welch said in a statement that “recognizing a two-state solution is long overdue and the only way forward — something Republican and Democratic Administrations have agreed on for decade. … This resolution signals Congress’ continued commitment for an enduring two-state solution for peace for the people of Israel and Palestine.” 

Though the U.S. has supported a two-state solution, no previous administration has backed unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state.

Van Hollen said in a statement that Congress should assert its own stance on the issue because “the Netanyahu government has obstructed that goal [of a two-state solution] and the Trump Administration has abandoned it.”

The resolution condemns the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7 and the group’s rejection of Israel’s right to exist and calls for Palestinian elections, as well as noting that some Arab states have conditioned normalization with Israel on a path to a Palestinian state.

“Failure to advance a two-state solution risks entrenching an unacceptable permanent occupation, further destabilizing the region, and undermining United States interests and values,” the legislation states.

It calls on Hamas to surrender and release the hostages and on Israel to end the war in Gaza.

J Street supported the resolution.

A longtime former board member of the International Association of Genocide Scholars criticized the group’s passage of a resolution on Monday accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza, calling the move deeply flawed and the result of a politicized process.

Sara Brown, the American Jewish Committee’s regional director in San Diego who has a Ph.D. in genocide studies, argued that “the whole premise and tenor of the resolution is deeply problematic.”

In an interview with Jewish Insider on Tuesday, Brown, who maintains her membership in IAGS, also pushed back against the narrative that most genocide scholars are accusing Israel of genocide.

The resolution passed with only 129 out of over 500 IAGS members voting, 108 in favor, 18 opposed and three abstaining. All paid members have the right to vote, and membership is not restricted to academics; its ranks include artists, activists and others interested in the field of genocide studies. As a result, some pro-Israel figures paid to join the IAGS following the resolution’s approval.

Under normal circumstances, Brown said, any member can propose a resolution, which goes before a committee for comments and feedback. Controversial or high-stakes resolutions are brought before a virtual town hall to discuss the text.

This time, when the resolution was proposed on an IAGS listserv, Brown said that she and others attempted to publish a dissent that was deleted by the moderators.

“One of the executive board members who moderates the listserv refused to publish it and said they are going to have a town hall,” Brown recalled. “Weeks passed as we waited for the town hall … I reached out to ask the president of the executive board when it would happen, and was told ‘we don’t have to hold one and we’re not going to.'”

In addition, Brown said, the resolution was posted anonymously, and the executive board refused to reveal its authorship, an unusual move that “raised red flags.” 

“It’s very telling about the biases and agenda of the leadership that they refused to host a town hall … There is no interest in having a transparent dialog and debate about such an important and damning [resolution] in terms of the reputation of the IAGS,” Brown said.

“We’re supposed to be a scholarly organization. We should value above all else transparency, cited sources, debate and diversity of opinion that strengthens us. Instead, we saw deliberate silencing of debate,” she added.

The three-page resolution claims that “the government of Israel has engaged in systematic and widespread crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, including indiscriminate and deliberate attacks against the civilians and civilian infrastructure … in Gaza.” It also claims that Israel has engaged in “torture, arbitrary detention and sexual and reproductive violence” as well as “the deliberate deprivation of food, water, medicine and electricity essential to the survival of the population.” In addition, it claims that Israel targeted children, which constitutes genocide.

Brown said that “for that determination to be made, we would need to see documented proof of intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinian people living in Gaza. To date, we do not have that documentation. A couple of overly cited posts on social media — which are often from right-wing fringe members of the government who are not actually behind a lot of the decisions being made in Gaza — or one quote from Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu about not forgetting Amalek, are not indicative of intent to destroy.”

“What we do see,” Brown added, “is the IDF rewriting the rules of war and engagement, having, a number of times, foregone strategic advantage in order to reduce civilian casualties,” giving as an example Israel’s warnings to civilians in advance of imminent strikes and efforts to move them out of the battle zones.

The IAGS also claimed that “the International Court of Justice found in three provisional measures in the case of South Africa v. Israel … that it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide in its attack in Gaza.” 

Brown said that this is “a deeply problematic, skewed interpretation of the ICJ rulings.” The court’s decisions did not determine whether Israel committed genocide or the plausibility of such a claim, but whether South Africa had standing to petition the court to protect the Palestinians in Gaza. The court said that “the facts and circumstances … are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.” 

Brown also took issue with the sources the IAGS cited in its decision, relying heavily on activist groups with an anti-Israel history.

“There was no original research cited in this work,” she said. “They cited Amnesty International, that had to rewrite their definition of genocide to accuse Israel. They cite [United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories] Francesca Albanese who is renowned as an antisemite called out by numerous governments. They cite Human Rights Watch, which has been known to be anti-Israel for a long time.” 

Brown noted that she wrote one of the only peer-reviewed works about the current war, in which she determined that Hamas was guilty of genocidal intent and attempted genocide on Oct. 7, 2023. 

The IAGS resolution did not come as a surprise to Brown, she said. 

After the Oct. 7 attacks, Brown said that while the IAGS made a statement, it had a “noted lack of outrage, passion or empathy. I wish [the IAGS leadership] applied a fraction of the concern [for Gazans] to the civilians mass-raped, mass-murdered and brutally tortured, and hundreds kidnapped on and after Oct. 7. I think the initial silence was deafening. That was my first indication that perhaps all would not be well.”

Brown recounted that “in conversations with members of the executive board, dehumanizing rhetoric was used to describe IDF soldiers and their strong social media presence indicated bias against Israel.”

Asked about the argument that genocide studies, as a field, minimizes the uniqueness of the Holocaust, Brown, whose doctoral thesis was about the genocide in Rwanda, said that “there is definitely a schism among some in the Holocaust field and genocide studies more broadly.”

The IAGS has long included “pressure groups that want to advance the idea that they have experienced a genocide, and it’s become a broad field. … You can see how it has been manipulated for nefarious results,” she said.

Shortly after members of the Democratic National Committee passed a resolution on Tuesday voicing support for humanitarian aid to Gaza and calling for the release of hostages held by Hamas, Ken Martin, the party chair, announced that he would withdraw the measure, which he had introduced, and instead form a task force to continue discussing the matter.

The surprise reversal came even as the DNC, now holding its annual summer meeting in Minneapolis, had voted to reject a dueling and more controversial resolution that had backed an arms embargo as well as a suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel, raising alarms among Jewish and pro-Israel Democrats who rallied behind Martin’s effort, co-sponsored by DNC leadership.

“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 after the competing measure had been voted down. “And that’s why I’ve decided today, at this moment, listening to the testimony and listening to people in our party, to withdraw my amendment resolution to allow us to move forward in a conversation on this as a party.”

He said that he would “appoint a committee or a task force comprised of stakeholders on all sides of this to continue to have the conversation, to work through this, and bring solutions back to our party.”

Martin announced his decision after huddling with co-sponsors of the failed resolution, which also called for recognition of a Palestinian state and was expected to be voted down. The measure additionally drew criticism for not mentioning Hamas — in contrast with Martin’s proposal, which also supported a two-state solution. The measures, each backing an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, were nonbinding and meant to telegraph the party’s stances on an issue that has increasingly fueled internal tensions.

His about-face underscores the pressures that Martin, who became DNC chair in February, is facing from an outspoken contingent of anti-Israel activists who are now aggressively seeking to push the party away from its traditional commitment to defending the U.S.-Israel relationship — which has come under growing strain amid party backlash to the ongoing war in Gaza.

Martin has offered no additional details on what motivated his abrupt decision or his new plan to create a task force. The DNC did not respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.

His sentiments echoed the “big-tent” rhetoric that he had endorsed when he ran for DNC chair — with some pro-Israel party members voicing reservations that his approach could be overly accommodating to extreme views and fail to enforce red lines on Middle East policy.

Martin’s Gaza resolution was unanimously approved by the DNC’s Resolutions Committee, while the dueling measure, introduced by a 26-year-old member from Florida, was rejected in a voice vote.

The committee did not take a recorded vote and no members asked for a breakdown, a person familiar with the process said. An attempt to add language into the alternate resolution calling for the release of all hostages and to oppose offensive weapons to Israel also fell flat, reflecting a failed effort to unify the resolutions that preceded the votes this week.

The meeting on Tuesday was expected to be heated but largely avoided the sort of drama that animated its convention last year, drawing more attention for Martin’s decision to yank his own proposal near the end of the proceedings.

Even as Martin called for a continued dialogue on the matter, Allison Minnerly, the DNC member who had introduced the failed resolution, expressed disappointment with his choice and said she believed he was “prolonging” the conversation rather than taking a position to align the party with a base that she views as amenable to her views on Israel.

When Democratic National Committee members gather in Minneapolis later this month for the party’s summer meeting, they’ll consider two Israel-related resolutions — a more balanced one, which has the backing of party chair Ken Martin, and an anti-Israel measure that calls for an arms embargo and a suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel. 

Sources within the DNC say they don’t expect the anti-Israel resolution, which was authored by a committee member from Florida, to pass. But the fact that it will be considered by the body has unnerved Jewish Democrats, who are working behind the scenes to promote the more balanced resolution. That one calls for an “immediate ceasefire and the unconditional release of all hostages, living and deceased, held by Hamas.” It also reiterates Democratic Party support for a two-state solution. (The text of the two resolutions was first reported by Semafor.)

The Martin-backed resolution is co-sponsored by the DNC’s entire leadership, including DNC associate chair Stuart Appelbaum, the president of the Jewish Labor Committee, according to a copy of the resolution obtained by Jewish Insider. Both measures will first be voted on by the DNC’s Resolutions Committee.  

“It sends a strong signal that the chair himself has chosen to sponsor and lead the resolution that clearly condemns the Oct. 7 terrorist attack on Israel, affirms Democrats’ commitment to bringing home the hostages and addresses the need for humanitarian aid in Gaza,” Jewish Democratic Council of America CEO Halie Soifer told JI on Wednesday. “We are hopeful the DNC Resolutions Committee will reject the arms embargo resolution and reaffirm its support of a two-state solution and a release of the hostages.”

A DNC spokesperson declined to comment on the specific measures. “Any DNC member can submit resolutions for fellow members to consider,” the spokesperson told JI, noting that “submitted resolutions might not necessarily represent the views of the entire DNC.” 

The anti-Israel resolution was submitted first; the competing resolution came later, as an attempt to reiterate the positions adopted in the Democratic Party platform at the convention in Chicago last year. The platform stated that former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris were committed to “Israel’s security, its qualitative military edge [and] its right to defend itself.” The measure being advanced by Martin and his allies leading the DNC strongly condemns the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, and it takes aim at both Hamas militants and “far-right ministers in the government of Israel.” 

JDCA and Democratic Majority for Israel have both been part of conversations with DNC officials to offer suggestions on the Martin-backed resolution. 

DMFI CEO Brian Romick said in a statement that the group is “deeply troubled by the introduction of a flawed, irresponsible” anti-Israel resolution  “that will further sow division within our party and do nothing to help bring an end to the Israel-Hamas.” 

Other left-leaning Jewish groups, like Zioness, offered feedback as well and called on Democrats to reject the anti-Israel resolution, which did not mention Hamas or the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks. 

“DNC members should vote against this attempt to reopen and rewrite the party platform that was adopted with overwhelming enthusiasm at the convention less than one year ago,” Zioness CEO Amanda Berman told JI. “Americans want to see Democrats fighting for housing, healthcare, education, economic opportunity and democracy, not fighting about support of our democratic allies abroad.” 

The intra-party fight comes soon after Martin faced criticism from some Jewish leaders for an interview in which Martin fumbled a question about New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada.” 

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said that she voted, for the first time, for resolutions blocking U.S. arms sales to Israel this week to send a message to the Israeli government of disapproval for the humanitarian situation in Gaza, even as she acknowledged that the vote might not make much of an impact.

“I just think it’s really important for people to speak out when they can, even if it’s on a vote that isn’t probably going to make all the difference right now. And it doesn’t mean I’m going to be hard-stop against aid for Israel in the future,” Klobuchar told Punchbowl News.

“At some point, you’ve got to seek change. And I think this is one way you can do it,” she continued. “I have supported Israel’s right to defend itself, I always will. But they aren’t changing.”

She said that she’d tried to communicate her disapproval of the humanitarian situation in Gaza to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his recent visit to Washington, D.C. but said it “didn’t work very well when I said it.”

Klobuchar said in a Senate floor speech several days before the votes that she attended the meeting with Netanyahu “for one reason: in my capacity as No. 3 in the Democratic leadership, and that was to raise the issue of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”

 “I say to my colleagues you can support the people of Israel. You can be horrified and condemn, as all of us did, the terrorist attack. But we cannot continue to allow people to starve,” Klobuchar said. “Lives are being lost on a daily basis, kids, innocents, and the government of Israel must change course.”

She said that U.S. policy must focus on returning to a ceasefire, increasing humanitarian aid, freeing the hostages and security a two-state solution.

The Minnesota Democrat, a moderate, has historically been a quiet but reliable supporter of Israel. She’s also the No. 3 Senate Democrat, seen as a potential successor to Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

Of the 11 members of Democratic leadership, seven voted for the resolutions on Wednesday.

Klobuchar is running for the No. 2 Senate Democratic leadership slot, competing against Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI), a consistent supporter of prior efforts to halt weapons sales, and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), who, like Klobuchar, flipped her vote to support the Sanders resolutions after previously opposing them.

Twenty-seven Senate Democrats, a majority of the caucus, voted Wednesday night for at least one of two resolutions to block shipments of U.S. aid to Israel.

The votes are a signal of the depth of Democratic outrage with the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the breadth of the anti-Israel shift within the party. Previous efforts, also led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), to advance such resolutions, picked up 19 and 15 votes, in November 2024 and April 2025, respectively.

Twenty-seven Democrats voted for the first of the two resolutions, which addressed automatic weapons that supporters said were destined for police units controlled by Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right official in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.

They included Sanders and Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Jack Reed (D-RI), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Peter Welch (D-VT), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ed Markey (D-MA), Angus King (I-ME), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Patty Murray (D-WA), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Tina Smith (D-MN), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Jon Ossoff (D-GA) and Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM).

Reed — the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Murray — the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Blunt Rochester, Baldwin, Klobuchar, Duckworth, Alsobrooks and Whitehouse have not supported past efforts to cut off aid to Israel.

Ossoff, Warnock, Shaheen and King voted for some or all of the first round of resolutions Sanders introduced to block arms for Israel in November, but opposed a second round in April.

Twenty-four Democrats voted for the second resolution on Wednesday, regarding bombs and bomb guidance kits. Reed, Whitehouse and Ossoff flipped on the second vote, opposing freezing that tranche of aid.

Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) — who on Tuesday said she would consider cutting off offensive weapons for Israel — were not present for either vote. Both Kelly and Gallego were present for votes earlier in the day on Wednesday. Slotkin spent part of the day taping an interview on Stephen Colbert’s late night television show.

A Kelly spokesperson said he missed the votes due to a “previously planned visit to Cape Canaveral to support his friend and former Astronaut classmate Mike Fincke as he launches into space. Senator Kelly has been pushing the Israeli government and the Trump administration to get desperately needed food into Gaza to prevent the starvation of innocent Palestinians. He also has been consistent about supporting Israel in their self defense.” 

Kelly’s office said that he would have voted against both resolutions.

A source familiar with the situation said Gallego, who is a new father, was absent because of family duties, and that the last-minute notice for the votes made scheduling difficult. The source said Gallego would have voted against the resolutions.

Ossoff said in a statement that he voted for the first resolution because he “do[es] not believe the United States Senate should acquiesce without objection to the extreme mass deprivation of civilians in Gaza, including the intolerable starvation of children, that have resulted from the policies of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. Furthermore, these weapons would likely have been allocated to police forces under the control of Itamar Ben-Gvir.”

He said he voted against the second resolution because, “[d]espite my opposition to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s conduct of the war in Gaza, I believe the United States must continue to support the Israeli people, who face the persistent threat of rocket and missile attack and have been subjected to intense aerial bombardment from Iran, Lebanon, and Yemen. Israel’s capacity to strike those who would launch missiles and rockets at Israeli civilians depends upon the deterrence provided by the Israeli Air Force.”

Up for reelection in 2026, Ossoff faced significant backlash for his previous votes against U.S. aid to Israel, but had been working to repair relations with the Jewish community — though that’s been a rocky process.

Alsobrooks, whose views on Israel policy came under close scrutiny from Maryland’s sizable Jewish community during the 2024 election cycle, characterized this as a history-defining moment.

“There are moments in history where our silence will not only be remembered — it will be judged,” she said. “I joined the voices of so many who feel the moral imperative to demand change. To witness the inhumanity of starving children and say nothing is not just a dereliction of duty but of conscience.”

She said that she remains “committed to the U.S.-Israel relationship and my belief that the people of Israel have a right to defend themselves.”

Duckworth had previously rejected the idea of voting for resolutions to cut off U.S. aid to Israel, arguing that the legislation was “symbolic,” would not produce a resolution to the conflict and would disincentivize Hamas and Hezbollah from agreeing to ceasefires, as well as endanger U.S. forces in the region.

On this vote, Duckworth said in a statement that the Israeli government has ignored pressure from her to take steps to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and that her votes were intended to reflect “deep frustration” with the Israeli government and “send a message” to the Trump administration.

“Israel’s unacceptable choice to restrict humanitarian and food aid from entering Gaza — for months — is now causing innocent civilians, including young children, to starve to death. Ending this famine is not only a moral imperative, it is also in the best interests of both Israel’s and our own country’s long-term national security,” Duckworth said. “While I have always supported Israel’s right to defend itself and protect the Israeli people, these dire circumstances must end.”

Murray said she voted for the resolutions to “send a message” that the Israeli government cannot continue its current strategy.

“This legislative tool is not perfect, but frankly it is time to say enough to the suffering of innocent young children and families,” Murray said. “Israel has a right to defend itself and Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization that should be eliminated, but the level of suffering and loss of life we are seeing in Gaza must come to an end.”

She put the onus on the American and Israeli governments to secure a diplomatic solution to the conflict and accused Netanyahu of dragging the war out to remain in power.

Blunt Rochester said in a statement that “until Israel significantly shifts its military posture to end the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank, I cannot in good conscience support further military aid and arms sales to Israel.”

She cited a range of concerns including the “seemingly deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure, the alleged killing of Gazan civilians seeking food aid, the man-made famine among the Palestinian people, the increased presence of illegal settlers and violence in the West Bank, the killing of an American citizen without an impartial investigation, and the continued refusal to responsibly work toward a two-state solution.”

Warnock said that the Israeli government is committing a “moral atrocity that cannot abide the conscience of those who believe in human dignity, freedom and human thriving” and that “the Netanyahu administration must change course.”

Esther Panitch, a Jewish Georgia state legislator, responded by condemning Warnock for failing to mention Hamas’ role in the situation and the United Nations’ failure to distribute aid inside Gaza, adding “it’s becoming increasingly untenable to be a pro-Israel Democrat when the U.S. Senate empowers Hamas.”

Shaheen, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that Israel “has not conducted its military operations in Gaza with the necessary care required by international humanitarian law” or allowed sufficient humanitarian aid into Gaza. “I will also continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself, but I cannot in good conscience vote in support of weapons until the human anguish in Gaza comes to an end,” Shaheen continued.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) reiterated his opposition to the Sanders efforts, saying in a statement, “I have long held that security assistance to Israel is not about any one government but about our support for the Israeli people. For that reason, I voted no on the resolutions of disapproval on aid to Israel.”

One pro-Israel Democratic strategist lamented the state of discourse about Israel policy within the Democratic Party.

“There is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and Netanyahu’s strategy has failed. Yet the alacrity — and even glee — one saw among Democratic officials and commentators to believe and amplify every smear against the Jewish state has been bracing,” the strategist told JI. “When you give no agency to Hamas, Qatar, or the U.N. and reflexively set up Bibi as the devil, there is a word for it — and Jews have seen this movie many times before.”

All Republicans present voted against the resolutions.

Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called the resolutions “misguided” and said that the conflict and the situation in Gaza is “the fault of Hamas.”

“These are not good people, and it is in the interest of America and the world to see this terrorist group destroyed,” Risch said. “And I couldn’t agree more with my colleagues who want an end to this war. We all want to see an end to this war, an immediate ceasefire, and for the hunger crisis in Gaza to end. But the solution to all of this isn’t to deprive Israel of the weapons it needs. The solution is in the hands of Hamas” if the terror group surrenders and gives up its arms.

Jewish Insider’s congressional correspondent Emily Jacobs contributed reporting.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced a joint resolution of disapproval on Monday to block an arms transfer to Israel, setting up another Senate floor battle on Wednesday over U.S. aid to Israel — the third since November of last year.

The resolution comes as criticism of Israel has reached new heights among Senate Democrats over the humanitarian situation in Gaza, a state of affairs that could generate increased support for Sanders’ latest effort.

A Sanders spokesperson said that the resolution would block the sale of $1 million worth of assault rifles to “to the police force overseen by extremist minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has long advocated for the forcible expulsion of Palestinians from the region, has been convicted by an Israeli court of racist incitement and supporting the Kahanist terror organization, and has been distributing weapons to violent settlers in the West Bank.”

“At a time when Israeli soldiers are shooting civilians trying to get food aid on a near-daily basis, the United States should not be providing more weapons to Israeli security forces,” the Sanders spokesperson said.  

Sanders is forcing a vote on Wednesday on this new resolution as well as one relating to bombs and bomb guidance kits for Israel that he introduced months ago but had not previously called up for a vote.

The spokesperson did not say whether Sanders will force a vote on the resolution, but  if he does, it would likely not happen until September, with the Senate expected to depart for its August recess at the end of the week.

“American taxpayer dollars are being used to starve children, bomb civilians and support the cruelty of Netanyahu and his criminal ministers. … The White House and Congress must immediately act to end this war using the full scope of American influence,” Sanders said in a statement last week. “No more military aid to the Netanyahu government. History will condemn those who fail to act in the face of this horror.”

The Vermont senator accused Israel of “using mass starvation to engineer the ethnic cleansing of Gaza” and described the Israeli- and American-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s aid distribution sites as “death traps for Palestinian civilians, with near-daily massacres.”

In November, the first time Sanders forced votes on aid to Israel, 19 Senate Democrats voted for at least one of three resolutions that came up for consideration. In April, 15 voted for a pair of similar measures.

At least one lawmaker, Sen. Angus King (I-ME), who voted for the first set of resolutions but against the second, would likely flip back to support a new effort to block aid.

“I am through supporting the actions of the current Israeli government and will advocate—and vote — for an end to any United States support whatsoever until there is a demonstrable change in the direction of Israeli policy,” King said in a statement earlier this week. “My litmus test will be simple: no aid of any kind as long as there are starving children in Gaza due to the action or inaction of the Israeli government.”

Connecting Ben-Gvir, a highly controversial figure, to the arms sales could also make some Senate Democrats who’ve opposed other Sanders-led efforts — like those to block the sale of bomb guidance kits — more open to supporting this one.

The National Education Association, the largest teachers’ union in the country, announced on Friday that it would not cut ties with the Anti-Defamation League, declining to implement a contentious resolution approved by its governing body earlier this month that sought to target the Jewish civil rights organization. 

“After consideration, it was determined that this proposal would not further NEA’s commitment to academic freedom, our membership or our goals,” the union’s board of directors said in a statement. 

The decision came nearly two weeks after the measure was adopted by the NEA’s representative assembly, its annual leadership gathering that drew more than 6,000 union delegates. 

“There is no doubt that antisemitism is on the rise. Without equivocation, NEA stands strongly against antisemitism. We always have and we always will,” the NEA’s board wrote. “In this time of division, fighting antisemitism, anti-Arab racism, and other forms of discrimination will take more resources, not fewer. We are ready.”

ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt cheered the union’s decision to distance itself from the “misguided” measure.

“We are committed to working with the NEA and all teachers’ unions to join the Jewish community in making clear these hateful campaigns cannot succeed. They must redouble efforts to ensure that Jewish educators are not isolated and subjected to antisemitism in their unions and that students are not subjected to it in the classroom,” Greenblatt said in a statement. 

The measure faced fierce backlash from the Jewish world. A letter authored by the ADL expressing opposition to the proposal — which would have discouraged educators from using  teaching materials from the ADL — garnered the support of roughly 400 Jewish organizations across the country, including the leadership of the Reform, Conservative and Orthodox movements.

Other outside Jewish groups, including the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the American Jewish Committee and Jewish Federations of North America, released a statement welcoming the NEA’s rejection of the anti-ADL resolution.

The State Executive Committee of the North Carolina Democratic Party passed a resolution last weekend calling for an arms embargo on Israel, along with a series of other anti-Israel resolutions, moves that Republicans are already planning to use against statewide candidates as a sign of the party’s leftward drift.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has already seized upon the resolutions as a political weapon against current and potential Democratic Senate candidates — including the race for the battleground seat of retiring Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) — with pro-Israel voters.

“North Carolina Democrats like Roy Cooper, Jeff Jackson [and] Wiley Nickel are responsible for their Party’s unapologetic appeasement of pro-Hamas radicals,” NRSC spokesperson Joanna Rodriguez said in a statement, targeting the state’s former governor and former lawmakers, all moderates, with the same broad brush for not speaking out against the state party’s anti-Israel activity. 

“Anyone that supports Israel’s right to exist and defend itself must do whatever they can to make sure no North Carolina Democrat is elected to the U.S. Senate in 2026.”

The most prominent Democrats in the state have, thus far, been silent. Gov. Josh Stein; Cooper, the former governor and a likely Senate candidate; Nickel, a former congressman and current Senate candidate; and Jackson, the attorney general and a former congressman all did not respond to requests for comment.

The decision by the North Carolina Democratic Party’s leadership is another blow to the party’s Jewish Caucus — which faced internal opposition as it was forming — who argue that the resolutions are needlessly divisive and distract from what should be the core goal of the party: electing Democrats.

“The Jewish Caucus position is that we need to concentrate on getting a lot more Democrats elected, and we need to change the balance of things in the [North Carolina] House,” Perry Dror, North Carolina Democratic Party Jewish Caucus’ 2nd vice president, told Jewish Insider ahead of the weekend meeting. “It’s not going to do a thing to change the situation in the Middle East, it’s just going to divide the party and give all kinds of cannon fodder for the Republicans.”

The North Carolina Democratic Party also did not respond to a request for comment.

A source familiar with the proceedings at the State Executive Committee (SEC) meeting said that the final vote on the embargo resolution was close — a single-digit margin of victory out of hundreds of votes. Some members who had planned to vote against the resolutions were absent.

There was insufficient time for the committee to consider a series of other Israel-related resolutions, including a “Resolution for Democratic Unity,” which “condemns any and all acts of terrorism perpetrated Israel or Hamas” and “calls for the immediate release of Palestinian hostages taken by Israel,” in addition to the hostages being held by Hamas. Per meeting rules, since they were not considered, the resolutions were deemed to have been approved.

“A group of extremely vocal progressives were more interested in their issue, their singular issue, than they were with fighting for things that North Carolinians really are interested in, like what’s going to happen to Medicare and Medicaid, the price of housing, women’s reproductive rights,” Lisa Jewel, the president of the Jewish Caucus, told JI.

Jewel emphasized that the Jewish Caucus’ membership, totaling more than 500, is broad and is not in complete agreement on all issues pertaining to Israel, but the members largely agree that these resolutions will be harmful to the party. She said the Jewish Caucus has tried to work constructively with other groups pushing anti-Israel stances but has been rebuffed, and said party leadership needs to step up and take charge.

Jewel and other Jewish Caucus leaders emphasized that they want to see the party adopt a big-tent approach and focus on practical issues that affect North Carolina and local Democrats’ electoral prospects.

“I just need people to understand that antisemitism in North Carolina is double what it is nationwide. The antisemitic incidents are increasing, and they don’t get that. They don’t understand that their vote … is really affecting us,” Jewel said. “I really appreciate young peoples’ passions, but they don’t always think about what the repercussions are.”

Jewel attributed the issues in part to a lack of leadership from the party’s leaders, whom she said in an interview on Friday had seemed “flustered” by Israel and Middle East issues and took a back seat when they came up, rather than trying to bring party members together.

Caucus leaders said that the push for the anti-Israel resolutions had been growing for several years, and came to a head this year.

Resolutions like these are generated by local precincts and are passed up to the county, then congressional district, then state level, to the Resolutions Committee. The committee had a backlog of hundreds of resolutions to work through from both the current and previous year, which Amy DeLoach, the first vice president of the Jewish Caucus and a member of the Resolutions Committee, told JI before the weekend votes.

“It was literally an unachievable task,” DeLoach said. She said the Resolutions Committee chairs “did the best they could” but were facing “a group that were very persistent” in pressing to prioritize moving the Israel-related resolutions ahead to the full state party, rather than taking additional time to go through normal procedures and allow for further review.

DeLoach said she’s seen firsthand, as a state House candidate, the way that party resolutions can hurt Democratic candidates, blaming her own loss on Republicans tying her to a Progressive Caucus push to legalize drugs.

“These resolutions are nothing but a way to hamper the candidates, and the Jewish Caucus wants to do things that are going to push the Democratic Party forward,” DeLoach said.

Dror said that progressives, members of the Interfaith Caucus, as well as some members of the Muslim and Arab caucuses, “just nonstop harp on Israel.”

The chair of the party’s Interfaith Caucus, days after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel, defended the attack as “retaliation” for a supposed growth in Jewish visitors to the Temple Mount.

The Senate voted down Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D-VA) war powers resolution that would have blocked additional U.S. military action against Iran on Friday evening, with nearly all Democrats voting in favor of the resolution, and almost all Republicans voting against it.

The resolution failed, 53-47, with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) being the only Republican to vote in favor and Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) being the only Democrat to vote against. 

Kaine said in an address prior to the vote that while he acknowledged the need for U.S. military engagement in certain instances, any offensive actions required the approval of the legislative branch.

 “The United States needs to defend itself and it needs to work with allies to help them defend themselves,” Kaine said. “But our troops, our sons and daughters, deserve to have wise civilian leadership that only make the decision to send them into war on the basis of careful consideration and a debate before the entire public.”

The Virginia senator, who has long been a champion of enforcing Congressional war powers, argued the president does not have the authority “to go on offense against another nation or an entity like a terrorist group.”

In response, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of the most vocal supporters of the strikes in the Senate, said that requiring congressional approval would be a “disaster for the country” and upend the military command structure.

“Since the founding of this country, it’s been understood that the commander in chief can act, as the commander in chief, to protect our nation from threats — that he is in charge of the military. He’s the civilian in charge of the military, and it’s his decision to use military force,” Graham said. He noted that Congress has only declared war five times but engaged in hundreds of military actions, and said Congress can cut off funding for military operations if it does not agree with the executive.

“Just think of the chaos that would ensue in this country if there were not one commander in chief, but 535,” Graham reiterated, adding that the reaction from Congress to the strikes and conflicting intelligence about their efficacy shows that Congress would not be able to act decisively if consulted. 

He said it would not be practical for the administration to have to wait for Congress to act in response to a future nuclear facility or threat to U.S. forces, “and that’s not what the founders meant.”

Several Senate Republicans who backed a similar resolution in 2020 following the U.S. strike that killed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Gen. Qassem Soleimani voted, this time, against the resolution. That list included Sen. Todd Young (R-IN), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Mike Lee (R-UT) and Jerry Moran (R-KS).

Collins noted in her statement that Iran had “threatened to attack Americans on our own soil and around the world” after Israel launched its operation to take out its nuclear program. She also said she supported the strikes and the subsequent ceasefire, both of which made it “the wrong time to consider this resolution and to risk inadvertently sending a message to Iran that the President cannot swiftly defend Americans at home and abroad.”

“I continue to believe that Congress has an important responsibility to authorize the sustained use of military force. That is not the situation we are facing now,” Collins said. “The president has the authority to defend our nation and our troops around the world against the threat of attack.” 

Lee said that determinations around war powers are “heavily fact-dependent.”

“We got a classified briefing yesterday. The totality of the circumstances that they outlined, including the finality of the action they’d taken — there’s no ongoing operations there,” Lee said.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), one of the Senate’s most vocal pro-Israel Democrats, said in a statement that she hopes the strikes are successful in the long-term, that Iran must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons, that the U.S. must defend its personnel and that she would “continue to back Israel should it need to respond to a break in the agreement.”

“At the same time, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and authorize any offensive attacks on other sovereign nations,” Rosen said. “The decision to go to war and put our troops in harm’s way is one that cannot be made lightly, and must be made by Congress, which is why I voted today to advance the War Powers Resolution.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who has advocated for a more restrained approach to U.S. foreign policy, dismissed arguments that the War Powers Act was applicable to the strikes ordered by Trump, which he called “an Article II matter.”

“I think, probably, the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. Some parts of the War Powers Act are kind of closer questions, but I think this is actually not very hard. I mean, if a president, any president of any party, cannot order one-off, limited military strikes without the approval of Congress, why do we have Article II?” Hawley asked.

“Go back and read the debates, and exactly what the framers did not want was foreign policy by committee, so I think this is not a close question. You can be opposed to the strikes and still be like, ‘Wow, this is not a good idea, this resolution,’” he told JI, adding that Trump was “100%” acting within his constitutional authority.

Top Senate leaders introduced a bipartisan resolution on Monday condemning the recent antisemitic attacks in Washington and Boulder, Colo.

The resolution is being led by Sens. James Lankford (R-OK) and Jacky Rosen (D-NV), joined by Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), as well as Sens. Michael Bennet (D-CO), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Dave McCormick (R-PA), John Fetterman (D-PA) and Jerry Moran (R-KS).

The resolution highlights that both attackers professed to have been motivated by the war in Gaza and shouted slogans including “Free Palestine,” during their attacks. It also notes that both suspects have been lionized online as heroes and that both attacks have prompted “calls for more violence.”

It describes the attacks as a “result of antisemitism, extremism, and political violence, which are threats not only to Jewish individuals, but to all of society in the United States.”

“Antisemitism is not just a Jewish problem, but a problem that threatens democracy and all of humanity,” the resolution declares. “Fighting antisemitism will not only protect the Jewish community in the United States but also protect our democracy.”

The legislation mourns slain Israeli Embassy staffers Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky, condemns antisemitism, expresses support for the Jewish community and “encourages all of society to denounce and combat all manifestations of antisemitism and ensure that antisemitism is not normalized.”

It also highlights “the importance of resources and action in the aftermath of attacks, including the distribution of resources from the Nonprofit Security Grant Program.”

Lankford said in a statement the two attacks are “horrific reminders of the unfortunate rise in antisemitism across our country.” 

“This resolution makes it clear: we unequivocally condemn antisemitism in all its forms,” Lankford said. “Our Jewish friends and neighbors should not live in fear because of their faith and heritage, and this resolution affirms the right to live their faith freely.”

Lankford and Rosen are the co-chairs of the Senate antisemitism task force. 

“Communities across our country are experiencing an increase in antisemitic vandalism, threats, and violence that endangers the safety of Jewish Americans, like the recent attacks in Washington and Colorado,” Rosen said. “We have a responsibility to call out antisemitism and do everything we can to combat acts of hate in all of its forms. Senator Lankford and I introduced this bipartisan resolution to condemn recent attacks and recommit to doing all we can to tackle the alarming rise of antisemitic incidents.”

McCormick and Fetterman introduced a similar resolution last week, with 34 cosponsors, that highlighted the Washington and Boulder attacks as well as the arson attack on Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s residence during Passover.

That resolution is a companion to one that passed with near-unanimous support in the House earlier this month.

House and Senate Democrats are pushing ahead with efforts to bring forward votes this week in both chambers on resolutions that aim to constrain the administration from taking any further military action against Iran in spite of President Donald Trump’s surprise announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Iran.

Trump’s diplomatic breakthrough is creating some political awkwardness for Democrats who had insisted the president would escalate the war, but many are still likely to support the resolutions, which reflect their dissatisfaction with the president’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities without congressional authorization. 

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), the lead sponsor of one war powers resolution in the House, said he no longer plans to force a vote on it, explaining, “if we’re not engaged in hostilities, I think it’s a moot point.” He said he had told House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) that he would not attempt to bring the resolution to the floor.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), Massie’s lead co-sponsor, said, “The anti-war advocacy of the left and right broke through. I am glad cooler heads prevailed and Trump seems committed to stopping this war. I spoke with Rep. Massie this evening and we are taking a wait and see approach about whether a vote will be needed now on our War Powers Resolution.”

But a group of senior House Democrats introduced a separate resolution on Monday evening, which they are expected to continue to advance.

The U.S. strike, Massie’s resolution and broader questions about the situation in Iran have been causing heartburn for many House Democrats, particularly supporters of Israel, Democratic staff sources told Jewish Insider earlier Tuesday.

Democratic staffers not authorized to speak publicly explained that, behind the scenes, the largely unified public Democratic opposition to the strikes has been driven by several factors, including the perceived lack of political support for the strikes, concerns about an escalating war and frustration with the Trump administration.

“I think a lot of members support the strike privately but see this as a politically vulnerable issue for [Trump],” one Democratic staffer said.

Another staffer said that Democrats are afraid of echoes of the Iraq war: If the U.S. ends up in a full-scale, protracted, politically unpopular war with Iran, they don’t want to be on record as having supported it.

And, the staffer said, there’s a deep level of distrust for the Trump administration, which acted largely unilaterally in the strikes, did not make efforts to keep congressional leaders informed about the strikes and hasn’t yet presented any evidence to Congress of the need for the strikes or their success.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who worked with other top Democrats on an alternative war powers resolution, said the resolution effort should continue “if United States forces remain engaged.”

Himes, along with Reps. Greg Meeks (D-NY) and Adam Smith (D-WA), the top Democrats on the Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees, introduced their own war powers resolution Monday evening, after the ceasefire was announced.

Whether that resolution will come to the floor remains an open question. The House speaker was reportedly working on a procedural plan that would strip the Massie resolution of its privileged status, sidestepping a vote on the House floor, and could potentially use the same tactic to defuse the new Democratic resolution.

On the Senate side, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said he also plans to push forward with his efforts, and said that Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is working with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to facilitate a vote.

“Whether or not a ceasefire between Israel and Iran comes to fruition — and I hope it does — I will move forward to force a vote on my resolution to require Congress to debate and vote on whether or not the United States should engage in a war with Iran,” Kaine said in a statement to JI. “Americans don’t want matters of war and peace, bombing and ceasefire, to rest upon the daily whims of any one person.” 

“That’s why the Framers of our Constitution decided that war should only be declared following a public debate and congressional vote,” Kaine continued. “Congress must affirm its commitment to that principle and send a clear message: no more endless wars.”

Other Democrats agreed that a war powers resolution should still receive a vote in spite of the ceasefire.

Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX), the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told JI, “At the end of the day, I think that a war powers resolution makes good sense to vote on and for Congress to finally reassert what is in black-and-white letters in the Constitution, which is that only Congress and the consent of the American people can start a war.”

Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY), a former Army intelligence officer, argued that the uncertainty of the situation necessitated that Congress step in.

“It’s a very volatile situation, which, to me, makes it even more urgent that we make clear and reassert what the Constitution of the United States says, which is that it is the Congress that has the authority to declare war or authorize the use of [force],” Ryan told JI.

He added that it “should be concerning to every American that multiple days after doing — not even a preemptive strike — a preventive strike, there’s still no legal justification, there’s still no clarity about the effectiveness.”

A memo sent by Trump to the Senate cited presidential foreign relations authorities enshrined in the U.S. constitution as the legal backing for the strike.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), among the few House Democrats who supported the strikes, told JI that he wants to see Congress reclaim its power but that the administration also has the ability to take defensive action without consulting Congress. He said that the war powers resolution push is likely no longer relevant if the ceasefire continues.

“Based on the ceasefire that was announced, it if holds, it appears that the issue in this current climate is moot, but overall, still important,” Moskowitz said. “[The war powers resolution] is no longer relevant to this particular purpose. It would be more of a general ‘us reasserting our authority as Congress.’”

Kaine told reporters earlier in the day that his resolution in the Senate would come up for a vote on Thursday or Friday.

Kaine said that the vote was “fluid” but he expected to see Republican support, and that he expected nearly all Democrats, with the exception of Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), to support it.

“I think the fluidity and change is something that I think warrants — this is why you get a congressional discussion, because these things can escalate,” Kaine said. “They can move in ways that are hard to predict, and that’s why a discussion and a vote is a good idea.”

He said that, “my colleagues on the Democratic side, regardless of whatever they feel about Iran, [believe] wars without Congress, wars that bypass us, are a bad idea.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) confirmed he planned to support the resolution as well, arguing that the Constitution is clear that war powers are vested in Congress and that his position on the issue has been consistent across administrations.

“There have always been people who argue the president can do whatever he wants,” Paul said. “The problem is, that’s a recipe for chronic intervention. It’s a recipe for endless war.”

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), a pro-Israel Democrat, also said he supported the resolution.

Ahead of the ceasefire, some specific concerns with the wording of the Massie resolution had split Democrats, one Democratic staffer said. That prompted the separate resolution from Meeks, Himes and Smith. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) claimed at a press conference on Monday that he hadn’t reviewed the Massie resolution yet, indicating that he would not be supporting it. 

A Democratic staffer explained that there were fairly widespread concerns that Massie’s resolution could block the U.S. from continuing to support Israel’s defense.

The Democrat-led resolution includes a specific exception allowing the U.S. to defend itself or any ally or partner from “imminent attack,” whereas Massie’s resolution only allowed for continued defense of the United States and intelligence sharing with allies. The Democrats leading the resolution emphasized in a statement that it would allow U.S. forces defending Israel to continue their activities.

“What we’re trying to get clarity on is to ensure that there’s no ambiguity or doubt about our ability to fully support the defense of Israel and the Israeli people, that we can continue … intelligence sharing and information sharing, cyber,” Ryan said earlier, of the Massie resolution. “There are key dimensions where we have to continue to be very closely aligned.”

“My concern is less about the language of the resolution and more about who introduced it, frankly,” Ryan continued. Massie has a history of comments that colleagues on both sides of the aisle have condemned as antisemitic.

Jeffries, at his press conference, largely focused on the fact that the Trump administration had failed to inform Congress about the strikes in the normal manner and had still not provided a proper justification for the strikes or accounted for Iran’s nuclear material.

He also argued that the administration’s claims to have destroyed Iran’s nuclear program completely couldn’t be trusted.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), a former House majority leader and perhaps the most prominent Democratic supporter of the strikes, told JI that his support for the strikes was consistent with unilateral action taken by administrations dating back to President Bill Clinton. 

He added that it would be “hypocritical” not to support the strikes now, when administrations have said for decades that they will not permit a nuclear Iran, and said that the recent International Atomic Energy Agency report showed that Iran was “too close” to a nuclear weapon and “stopping them was the right thing to do.”

Hoyer also noted that Congress moves more slowly than the executive branch and that a slow public debate over a potential strike in Congress over strikes would have “incentivized [Iran] to move ahead as quickly as possible.”

He said that as a general matter, however, he believes that it is important for Congress to be able to put a check on the administration’s ability to go to war, though he said that the decision to strike Iran was a long time coming.

Fetterman, the only Senate Democrat who has announced he plans to oppose the war powers resolution, blasted some colleagues who have called the strikes unconstitutional. He said he would have opposed the Kaine resolution before the strikes.

He noted that previous Democratic administrations had conducted similar “one-off” strikes and argued that congressional approval would only be needed if the U.S. was going to start a broader, protracted war.

Fetterman also blasted Democrats for joining Massie’s effort calling him, “that weirdo from Kentucky.”

Among Republicans, Massie’s resolution may have seen some additional support from a handful of isolationist Republicans, but likely not many. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), the Republican who, alongside Massie, has been most outspoken against the U.S. strike, told Punchbowl News she would not support the effort.

But she also said she wanted to push to cut off U.S. aid to Israel, and has previously condemned Israel’s military action against Iran. 

A new bipartisan resolution introduced by Reps. Claudia Tenney (R-NY) and Brad Sherman (D-CA) and 14 co-sponsors on Tuesday praises Israel’s strikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities and condemns Iran’s retaliatory missile attacks on Israeli civilian targets.

The resolution marks a bipartisan show of support for the Israeli operation even as elements of the far left and far right are warning that the Israeli strikes risk dragging the U.S. into a regional or global war and run counter to American interests.

The resolution states that the House “stands with Israel as it takes targeted military actions to dismantle Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities and defend itself against the existential threat of a nuclear-armed Iran,” “recognizes that Israel’s preemptive and proportional strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites advance the United States’ vital national security interest in a nuclear free Iran” and “reaffirms Israel’s right to self-defense.”

The legislation further states that the House “stands ready to assist Israel with emergency resupply and other security, diplomatic, and intelligence support.”

It asserts that the war came “after exhausting all diplomatic avenues,” and describes the Israeli operation as “intelligence-driven preemptive strikes to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and such capability explicitly designed to achieve the destruction of Israel and the United States,” which, the resolution states, has “achieved national security objectives without risking American lives.”

The resolution also condemns Iran’s “indiscriminate attacks against civilians in Israel” and its repression of its own citizens, and calls on Tehran to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons and dismantle its nuclear program and urges other countries to support that goal.

The legislation accuses Iran of having “repeatedly rejected good-faith diplomatic efforts by the United and others to address its nuclear program” and of not negotiating “in good faith.”

The resolution is co-sponsored by Reps. Don Bacon (R-NE), Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL), Shri Thanedar (D-MI),Roger Aderholt (R-AL), Mike Lawler (R-NY), Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), Randy Feenstra (R-IA) and Tom Barrett (R-MI), and supported by FDD Action, the Jewish Institute for National Security of America and the American Jewish Committee.

The resolution highlights that Iran had been increasing its enrichment activity, stockpiling enough highly enriched uranium for six nuclear weapons and blocking international inspections, among other steps that have brought it closer to a nuclear bomb.

It notes that the International Atomic Energy Agency recently censured Iran for violating its nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty commitments, and that Iran responded by further increasing its enrichment activities.

“This bipartisan resolution reaffirms the United States’ unwavering support for Israel’s right to self-defense and for its bold, courageous efforts to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program once and for all,” Tenney said in a statement. “The U.S.-Israel partnership remains unshakable, and this resolution sends a clear and unified message: we will work together to ensure the Iranian regime is never able to obtain a nuclear weapon.”

Sherman, in a statement, argued that Iran’s activities had made Israel’s strikes necessary.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has made clear time and time again its intent to ‘annihilate’ Israel and attack the United States and has funded direct military attacks on Israel and the United States for decades It’s regrettable that Iran’s decades of violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which it signed has led us to a point where this is necessary,” Sherman said. “The only thing more dangerous than this war is an Ayatollah with access to nuclear weapons. Israel could not wait until Iran had a stockpile of nuclear weapons ready to be launched.”