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.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday that he wants to start the process of winding down U.S. aid to Israel in the final two years of the Trump administration, as both countries work on a new memorandum of understanding.

Netanyahu made the comments in an interview with CNBC’s Sara Eisen after being asked about his political future and when Israel would be ready for new leadership. The prime minister responded by noting that while the Israeli people could decide at “any time” to remove him from power, he is currently focused on achieving four objectives: “finish[ing] the security envelope that we have to make vis-à-vis Iran and its proxies”; securing more investments globally to expand Israel’s AI and tech sectors; normalizing relations with several countries in the Middle East; and ending Israel’s reliance on U.S. aid. 

“The other thing I want to do is move away, in America, from aid to partnership. We’re now working on a memorandum of understanding, which will bring down the aid,” Netanyahu said. “I want it to start now, I want it to start in the last two years of the Trump administration and I want it to keep going down, coming to zero, because I think we’ve come of age.” 

The current MOU, which provides Israel with $3.8 billion in U.S. military aid annually, runs through FY 2028. Netanyahu did not clarify whether he would like to see aid begin to wind down through changes to the current agreement, or whether he is focused on ongoing negotiations for the next one.

“Israel has a robust economy, and I want us to go from aid to a partnership where we both invest equal amounts and both share equally in the fruits of our innovators and technologies,” he continued. “I think that’s very, very important. It will also take away the myth that Israel is depleting America’s coffers.”

Netanyahu has said on multiple occasions since January that he hopes to wean Israel off of U.S. aid, initially suggesting in January that Israel would work to end U.S. aid within the next ten years. He pitched the aid drawdown to President Donald Trump in late December, an idea the president was initially bewildered by and not supportive of. 

Netanyahu also downplayed reports that Trump told him he is “f***ing crazy” in a phone call on Monday about Israel’s military escalation in Lebanon and rejected the notion that his relationship with the president had shifted, noting that the two speak as frequently as “every two days.” 

Still, he did not deny that the conversation occurred as reported.

“Sometimes we have, as in the best of families, you have these tactical disagreements. We always find a way to work them out and we do so as great friends,” Netanyahu said. “We can disagree in the morning, and by the afternoon we have common action.”

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said on X that the next U.S. memorandum of understanding with Israel will end U.S. aid to Israel in favor of prioritizing trade.

“Israel receives $3.8 billion but spends far more than that buying US military goods. US also receives intel, tech innovations so that ROI is many times more,” Huckabee said on his personal account on X, responding to former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent, who had argued in an interview that U.S. aid to Israel does not confer benefits to America. “New MOU w/ Israel ends aid & will be based on trade.”

Analysts have widely predicted that the next MOU, after the current one ends in 2028, will prioritize partnership programs jointly funded by both sides — which constitute a portion of current U.S. assistance to Israel — rather than direct financial aid, but the comments by Huckabee appear to be the first confirmation from a U.S. official that such plans are in the works.

Huckabee’s comments did not make clear whether the next agreement would phase out aid gradually or immediately.

The comments also come following repeated declarations by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he wants to end U.S. financial assistance to Israel in the next decade, and on a backdrop of growing skepticism of U.S. aid to Israel on both sides of the aisle.

Prominent pro-Israel Republicans have endorsed Netanyahu’s effort to wind down U.S. aid.

But some critics of current U.S. aid are not likely to be satisfied by a shift to a cooperative model, or any system in which the U.S. continues to supply funding that benefits Israel’s defense.

Last November, Rahm Emanuel, the tough-talking Democratic operative and prospective presidential candidate, took the stage of the Jewish Federations of North America’s annual conference in Washington to deliver a blunt word of warning about Israel’s declining reputation in the United States and around the globe.

“I don’t mean to be the party pooper, but look, this is not going to be helpful if we’re not going to be honest with each other,” he said on an opening panel, urging the crowd to reckon with a marked downturn in support for the Jewish state over its war in Gaza, particularly among younger voters. “Israel is extremely unpopular.”

Emanuel, a veteran Jewish politician and party official who had recently concluded a tour as U.S. ambassador to Japan in the Biden administration, acknowledged his message might not ingratiate him to the thousands of Jewish communal leaders in the audience who were no doubt deeply familiar with the issue he was highlighting.

“This may be the last time I’m asked to speak to you. I get it,” he said with a hint of indifference. “But we have to be honest about the task we have” for those “who believe that there is something special” to the U.S.-Israel relationship. “We have our work cut out, and it’s not here to get applause,” he told the crowd.

In hindsight, Emanuel’s frankly worded comments marked something of a turning point in his approach to Israel and the Jewish community, foreshadowing more recent remarks in which he has voiced harsh criticism of the country’s military tactics in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 terror attacks and championed new policy proposals against American military aid to Israel.

Yet even as he builds a profile as a potential candidate willing to tell the Democratic Party hard truths and challenge orthodoxy on a range of issues from trans rights to child social media bans to age limits for politicians, Emanuel, 66, was reticent in exploring his views on Israel in more depth during an interview with Jewish Insider, which he had resisted for nearly a month.

“What I said couldn’t have been clearer,” he told JI last Thursday, referring to his recent comments on “Real Time With Bill Maher” calling for an end to U.S. military aid to Israel that raised eyebrows in the Jewish community. “There will no longer be U.S. taxpayer subsidies for the purchase of U.S. military equipment. Israel will be like every other ally. They can buy what they want, and they have to live within the restrictions.”

“You can decide to slice it, dice it, but that’s what it is,” he said.

While U.S. military funding to Israel has increasingly faced pushback in the Democratic Party, particularly on the far left, Emanuel’s argument that Israel no longer needs the sort of special treatment that he helped promote in the Obama White House has been striking to watch precisely because he has long been a staunch defender of the Jewish state and its founding ideals.

Emanuel, whose middle name is Israel and who speaks fluent Hebrew, holds a uniquely personal connection to the Jewish state. His late father, an Israeli immigrant born in Jerusalem, served in the Irgun, the Zionist paramilitary force that fought for Israeli independence. As a child, he spent summers in Israel and later volunteered as a civilian assistant to the Israel Defense Forces during the Gulf War. His son celebrated his bar mitzvah in Israel.

Emanuel, a moderate former congressman and mayor of Chicago, pointed out in the interview that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had himself proposed winding down U.S. military aid over the next 10 years, saying in January that the country had “come of age” and “developed incredible capacity” to continue on its own. 

Emanuel, however, said that he would instead suspend the assistance “immediately,” characterizing his position as “part of an overall policy” tied to Israel’s strategically secure position in the region as well as its political isolation on the world stage — both of which he argued have never been greater than now.

“If you or anybody thinks you’re going to continue the American taxpayers paying for this, good luck passing that in the U.S. Congress. You’re asking a president of the United States to spend X amount of political capital to do something that even Israel’s own prime minister acknowledged isn’t going to happen,” he said, referring to continued U.S. military aid.

The Jewish state “has made a decision to only lean on its defense and not lean on its diplomatic front,” he told JI, adding that Netanyahu had chosen to “walk away” from pursuing a two-state solution, support for which has declined in Israel since the Oct. 7 attacks and ensuing war in Gaza.

In his view, the U.S. should continue to stand with Israel only if its efforts in the region help contribute to peace. “Every risk you will take, the State of Israel takes, for peace, then America will stand by you,” he said. “We understand there’s risks. We have stood by Israel through thick and thin.”

“But,” he said, “when one friend in that relationship abandoned something that’s contrary to our interests and contrary, in my view, also to Israel’s interests,” it is reasonable, he suggested, to rethink that alliance.

“There will no longer be U.S. taxpayer subsidies for the purchase of U.S. military equipment. Israel will be like every other ally. They can buy what they want, and they have to live within the restrictions,” Emanuel said of his vision of the future of military aid to Israel.

His comments indicate that he is now embracing a fundamental reassessment of the U.S.-Israel alliance, abandoning even the pretense of tough love that once characterized his approach, among other moderate voices in the Democratic Party. 

For example, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a centrist Jewish Democrat who is also weighing a presidential campaign in 2028, recently reiterated his support for continued U.S. aid to Israel but said that it should be seen as “leverage” to exert pressure over the country’s use of American-made weapons.

“Rahm’s move tells you a lot about the politics of the Democratic Party on Israel now. And that is a sign of how Israel’s image has changed in the country,” said Dennis Ross, a former U.S. diplomat and Middle East negotiator who overlapped with Emanuel in the Obama administration.

Despite his strong attachment to Israel, Emanuel is reckoning with a changing party no longer broadly sympathetic to the pro-Israel perspective that had long been central to his political identity, even as he has tussled with Israeli leadership during his time as a public figure.

Last Friday, for example, Emanuel signaled he would back Graham Platner, the far-left Senate candidate in Maine now poised to become the Democratic nominee, even as the Marine veteran has called to block U.S. military aid to Israel while facing controversy over a Nazi tattoo he recently covered up.

“Whether it’s people chanting ‘Jews will not replace us’” in Charlottesville, “or somebody bombing Gov. Shapiro’s home, or somebody painting Nazi insignia on my fence, or the candidate saying ‘I did not know that was a Nazi’” insignia on his chest, “we’re going to have to confront this,” Emanuel told JI the day before announcing his support for Platner, while touting his record of fighting antisemitism.

“I’ve dealt with it when I ran for Congress,” he said on the phone from Chicago, noting that he was outside an Anne Frank exhibition opening in his home city. “And I’ve also been upfront when I think a decision is going to lead to the strategic and diplomatic isolation of, not only the State of Israel, but, more importantly, the Jewish people.”

Still, Emanuel seemed reluctant and even somewhat frustrated to answer further questions seeking clarity on the implications of his new approach to Israel and how he arrived at his position. He refused to confirm explicitly, for example, if he would back defensive aid for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, which has recently emerged as a subject of intense debate in some corners of the Democratic Party.

It is a significant contrast with where Emanuel stood during his time as Obama’s chief of staff. In the White House from 2009-2010, Emanuel was one of Obama’s top consiglieres on policies relating to Israel. He was involved in initial funding to boost Israel’s Iron Dome system, an effort that culminated in a 10-year memorandum of understanding between the two countries that provides $3.8 billion in annual aid through 2028, which the White House touted, at the time, as “the largest single pledge of military assistance in U.S. history.”

In 2009, Emanuel shared more reassuring words in his address to the JFNA’s annual gathering, praising Netanyahu while citing his own familial ties to Israel as well as what he had called the “privileged point of view” from understanding the Jewish state’s “value as a homeland.”

“Those who have questioned” whether the Obama administration’s opposition to Israeli settlement building in the West Bank and outreach to the Arab world “implies diminished support for Israel, that is not the intent,” he said, filling in for his boss. “It is not the case and it never will be. The truth is the opposite. Only through dialogue will Israel achieve the peace it seeks.”

Emanuel now takes a more jaundiced view of Israeli diplomacy, fueling his calls for an end to U.S. aid. “Under Prime Minister Netanyahu, in the last three years, you’ve lost Europe, you’ve lost the American public, and you picked up Somaliland,” he scoffed to JI, referring to Israel’s decision to formally recognize the secessionist region in the Horn of Africa last year. “As my grandmother would say, ‘Such a deal.’ That is your only diplomatic achievement.”

Julie Fishman Rayman, senior vice president of policy and political affairs at the American Jewish Committee, called Emanuel’s views “disappointing and worrying,” arguing that U.S. security assistance to Israel “is not just vital to deterring further attacks and ensuring the survival of the state of Israel, but is integrally tied to safeguarding American interests in the region.”

Emanuel argued that his position on U.S. aid is a logical extension of sentiments he had conveyed in 2009 while in the Obama administration, when he repeatedly clashed with Netanyahu over settlement expansion in the West Bank, which the White House cautioned would jeopardize prospects for achieving a two-state solution.

“I went straight to the prime minister to his face and said, ‘What you’re doing is going to lead to the great isolation of Israel,’” Emanuel recalled, noting, as he often does, that Netanyahu called him a “self-hating Jew,” underscoring the highly personal tenor of their long-testy relationship. “Look, I have a longstanding relationship,” he explained. “I’m honest about it.”

But even as he argues that Israel is today “a different country from a sense of wealth and capacity,” he has strained to harmonize the motives now animating his current approach. He has dismissed speculation over the sincerity of his stance and whether it is rooted in a good-faith view of Israel’s economic standing or if it is instead a more cynical political calculation tailored to a rising anti-Israel faction in the Democratic Party.

Though in contrast with high-profile voices on the far left, Emanuel has shied away from charged rhetoric about genocide in Gaza, saying it is a legal question, as well accusations that Israel had tricked President Donald Trump into war with Iran, which he says ignores U.S. agency in the conflict. He has said it is a “mistake” to restrict arms sales to Israel, suggesting that he is not aligned with related resolutions that were introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) last month and notably drew backing from most Senate Democrats.

Emanuel’s allies said in recent interviews that they were not surprised with his approach, saying that he has been building to this moment for some time. “Do I agree with him? Not necessarily,” former Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), who served with Emanuel in Congress, told JI. “But this is not a breakthrough position. He’s expressed those concerns for years.”

David Axelrod, a former chief strategist to Obama, likewise agreed in a text message to JI that “Rahm’s basic concerns about where Bibi is leading are not new,” using Netanyahu’s nickname. “Rahm, like a lot of us, has always believed a two-state solution was the only road to peace and Bibi has been deeply, irretrievably opposed and actively hostile to the notion.”

“You ask these questions like somehow I’ve changed. The prime minister used to articulate a two-state solution. He was for it. He’s the one that’s changed,” Emanuel said of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

One prominent Jewish Democrat, who asked to remain anonymous to discuss a charged issue, called Emanuel’s stance a practical response that “takes the wind out of the sails of the far left and the far right,” which have politicized funding for Israel. “As long as we’re giving aid to Israel, Americans will feel like they have a say in Israeli policy and how that investment is managed.”

But if that is Emanuel’s aim, he has not made it clear. In conversation with JI, he was hesitant to clarify his own positions when pressed. Asked if he would back Iron Dome funding, he said he had been “part of the financing” for a “joint project” that he called “key for Israel’s security” when it was first developed with the United States.

He declined to elaborate further about such aid. “U.S. taxpayers should not be in the position of subsidizing a country,” he reiterated. “You know my history with the Iron Dome,” he said. “I’m done. I’ve answered it.”

Though some allies of Emanuel are willing to indulge his views more favorably than other 2028 prospects with thinner resumes related to Middle East policy, a range of Jewish and pro-Israel organizations are now pushing back on his recent turn against U.S. military aid.

“It’s in America’s interests to keep our word and help a democratic partner shield innocent civilians from missiles,” Deryn Sousa, a spokesperson for AIPAC, told JI, referring to the Iron Dome. “Reneging on the Obama administration’s signed agreement with our closest ally in the Middle East would send a devastating message to our allies, empower our enemies and do nothing to advance peace.”

Brian Romick, president of Democratic Majority for Israel, said that “Israel’s situation is not comparable to our other close allies.”

“Unlike Japan, South Korea and Germany, Israel does not have permanent U.S. troops on the ground,” he told JI recently. “It’s also surrounded by enemies who actively want to wipe it off the face of the earth. U.S. security assistance reflects that reality and the significant strategic benefits the aid provides.”

Michael Makovsky, president and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, told JI in a recent interview that he disagreed with Emanuel, even as he acknowledged the sentiment as a “legitimate view.” Still, he added that it is “in the U.S. interest” to continue providing military aid to Israel, “which anyway all goes to buying U.S. weaponry.”

Even some pro-Israel Democrats sympathetic to Emanuel and his perspective said his comments on military aid raise more questions than they answer. One influential Jewish Democrat who has long been acquainted with Emanuel, speaking on the condition of anonymity to address a sensitive topic, expressed concerns that ending aid to Israel could stoke further calls from the far left to condition military funding or block future weapons sales outright.

For his part, Emanuel avoided commenting on the question of Israel’s qualitative military edge, which the U.S. is legally obligated to ensure but allies say could suffer without military aid. “I feel like we’re taking the same question from 50 angles,” Emanuel told JI. “I want Israel to fight for peace the way it’s proven that it’s fought in the last three years. That’s what’s missing,” he said last week.

“You ask these questions like somehow I’ve changed,” Emanuel said earlier in the call. “The prime minister used to articulate a two-state solution. He was for it. He’s the one that’s changed.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PITTSBURGH — On the eve of the NFL Draft on Wednesday, Pittsburgh, the host city, was in full spectacle mode. Israel, 6,000 miles away, was abuzz for a very different reason: the country was celebrating Yom HaAtzmaut, marking 78 years of independence. 

As he jumped between draft events, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro shared his thoughts about both. 

“I think we’re here to celebrate an iconic event in sports and sports in general. Sports has the power to bring people together, and we need more of that in our society,” Shapiro told Jewish Insider in an interview following a “unity dinner” in Pittsburgh that brought together 100 Black and Jewish students from local universities. 

At the event — organized by New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft’s Blue Square Alliance Against Hate, in partnership with Hillel International, the United Negro College Fund, the NFL and the Pittsburgh Steelers — Shapiro appeared on a panel with Kraft and retired Steelers quarterback Charlie Batch. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell stopped by to introduce the event.

“The fact that the commissioner and Robert decided to dedicate a portion of draft week to finding ways to come together to a unity dinner, I felt that it was not just something I should do, but a responsibility of mine,” said Shapiro. 

Asked about Yom HaAtzmaut, Israel’s independence day, Shapiro expressed affection for Israel. He also called for America to do more to rein in its government.

“I’ve always been really clear that I have a love for Israel, even while I have real concern about the leadership of Israel,” said Shapiro. 

A growing number of progressive lawmakers have in recent weeks called for an end to U.S. aid to Israel, including funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile-defense system, a position adopted by the progressive Israel advocacy group J Street. Shapiro declined to endorse that position. 

“In the case of Israel, you have a country that is constantly being attacked with missiles and other weapons that put civilians at risk, and America is invested in providing assistance like Iron Dome to protect innocent civilians from those terrorist attacks,” said Shapiro. “I think that is in America’s national security interest.”

But he did argue that the U.S. should use its position as a major financial backer of Israel to exert leverage over the country’s use of American-made weapons. Shapiro said Washington has not done a good enough job of that.

“I would say that our last two presidents, President [Joe] Biden and now President [Donald] Trump, have failed to use the leverage of an American president to force Israel’s hands to use that military aid in ways that comport with our American values, to limit the loss of innocent lives as the key factor there,” said Shapiro. “I think what we need to examine is the rubber stamp that Donald Trump has been to the Netanyahu government.” 

Shapiro noted that more than 100 countries receive some form of military assistance from the U.S., a figure that includes nations who may not receive funding but who instead partner with the U.S. military for training or purchase U.S. weaponry. 

“In any one of those 100 countries comes leverage for an American president to exercise to ensure that the military assistance we provide to that country is being used in accordance with our values, our American values,” said Shapiro. “What we need is an American president who’s going to use the leverage that we have when we provide that kind of assistance to Israel or any one of the other 90-plus countries.” 

In recent months, as Shapiro eyes a 2028 presidential bid, he has appeared on several popular podcasts, including “Pod Save America,” “Higher Learning” from digital media company The Ringer and the “All-In Podcast.” As one of the most vocally Jewish politicians in the country, Shapiro is almost always asked about his views on Israel.

“Every day I do, of course, get asked about Israel and the Middle East, and I think it’s important to just speak truthfully about how I feel,” said Shapiro. “I think it’s important to be true to who you are, to not put your finger in the wind and just sort of follow which way it’s blowing.” 

One show he has not appeared on? The Twitch stream hosted by Hasan Piker, a far-left commentator with a history of antisemitic and anti-American views who has hosted conversations with several progressive lawmakers. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, another potential 2028 contender, has said he would sit for an interview with Piker. 

Piker has generated a great deal of controversy among Democrats in recent weeks after he appeared at two campaign rallies with Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed this month. Those events prompted sharp criticism from several Michigan Democrats, including Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and El-Sayed’s primary opponents, Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow.

Shapiro opted not to weigh in. Asked if he would appear on Piker’s stream, he demurred. 

“I haven’t been invited,” said Shapiro. “I haven’t really thought about it.”

As U.S. discourse about Israel has become increasingly polarized and the left has grown increasingly hostile to the Jewish state, support for Israel’s missile-defense systems that protect the lives of millions of civilians remained a popular bipartisan priority.

Even among many progressives who were otherwise critical of Israel, U.S. aid for systems such as Iron Dome remained a rare exception, with most praising the system as an important protection measure for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Emblematic of that fact: Just four House Democrats and two Republicans voted last year in favor of cutting $500 million in cooperative missile-defense funding that the U.S. provides to Israel annually.

But in the wake of the wars in Gaza, Iran and Lebanon, that consensus appears to be shifting quickly on the left. A growing number of progressive candidates — along with J Street, the left-wing Israel advocacy group — are now racing to disavow all military support for Israel, including for defensive systems such as the Iron Dome.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), one of the most prominent progressive standard-bearers, has been a trendsetter on the issue. She said earlier this month that she would not support any funding for Israeli missile defense going forward, after previously vociferously defending her vote against last year’s amendment cutting missile defense as a clear and easy choice.

Her reversal on the issue came amid criticism and pressure from Democratic Socialists of America members over that vote, as the far-left group debated whether to endorse her once more in her upcoming reelection bid.

Ocasio-Cortez argued that Israel is fully financially capable of funding Iron Dome and other defensive systems itself  — pointing in part to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s comments earlier this year that he wants to wind down U.S. aid to Israel, which have proven to be a thorn in the side of some pro-Israel advocates.

She was quickly followed by another prominent progressive Democrat, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who also harbors presidential ambitions, and other left-wing candidates. Another abrupt about-face on the issue came from former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who came out in support of Iron Dome funding during his 2025 mayoral campaign, but is now opposing it as he runs to the left of Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) in a congressional primary.

Michael Blake, the far-left challenger to Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), also said he would continue to support Iron Dome funding just months ago, but has now flip-flopped to oppose it. Meanwhile, Torres doubled down on his support for Iron Dome funding in a post on social media over the weekend, saying, “I will never join that bandwagon—no matter how politically expedient it may become. Even the world’s most committed pacifist should have no objection to Iron Dome. It is purely defensive. It does not attack anyone. It simply intercepts projectiles that would otherwise strike homes, hospitals, schools, and synagogues. Its sole purpose is to prevent mass murder.”

Strikingly, J Street, which frames itself as a pro-Israel group, is echoing the same rhetoric used by far-left lawmakers like Ocasio-Cortez. “What progressives are saying is not radical, and in fact, Benjamin Netanyahu and Lindsey Graham are arguing the same thing. Israel is capable of paying for its own military equipment, including supplies for its missile defense systems,” a J Street spokesperson told JI.

That stance is at odds with J Street PAC’s own endorsement criteria for candidates, as displayed on its website as of Friday afternoon. J Street President Jeremy Ben Ami said in a Sunday Substack post that he wants to see U.S. direct aid and subsidies to Israel ended “responsibl[y] yet rapid[ly]” upon the conclusion of the current U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding, but that the U.S. should continue to sell and co-develop defensive systems to Israel, subject to Israeli compliance with U.S. arms sales law.

Systems like Iron Dome are also co-produced by the U.S. and Israel, and similar arrangements would likely continue even if direct U.S. financial aid to Israel was ended in the short term.

And as the consensus among the left shifts, some anti-Israel Democratic candidates are pushing the envelope even further. Saikat Chakrabarti, a far-left candidate running for retiring Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) San Francisco House seat, said Thursday that “ending funding isn’t enough — we need sanctions.” Chakrabarti previously served as Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff.

There are signs that some more moderate lawmakers are also feeling the pressure from the left amid the declining support for Israel within the Democratic party: Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), who last year rejected efforts to block U.S. arms sales to Israel, said last week he’ll now oppose offensive aid while saying he views missile-defense support differently — a similar position to the one that progressives like Ocasio-Cortez and Lander held just months ago.

Former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who is challenging Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) in a bitterly contested June primary, called for ending all U.S. aid to Israel during an interview published Friday, reversing his prior support for funding to bolster Israel’s Iron Dome missile-defense system.

Lander, a Jewish Democrat who identifies as a progressive Zionist, told The New York Editorial Board, a Substack of New York City journalists focused on local campaigns, that he “would not vote for any more aid [to Israel] at this moment,” when asked about his position on Iron Dome, saying he believed Israel was not following international law in the wake of its war in Gaza that he has called a genocide.

“I think we need to follow the Leahy Law and condition all of our foreign policy aid on human rights and international law compliance,” Lander said in the April 9 interview, referring to U.S. laws banning security assistance to foreign military units that engage in “gross” human rights violations. “At the moment, Israel is very far from complying with human rights and international law.”

Lander joins a handful of leading progressive lawmakers who have also recently vowed to reject further funding for Iron Dome and other defensive systems used by Israel, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA). New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, one of Lander’s top allies in his race to unseat Goldman, confirmed last week that he holds the same position regarding aid to Israel.

Lander had declined to comment when asked by Jewish Insider this week to share his position on defensive funding to Israel, raising questions about where he would land on an issue that is emerging as a sort of electoral litmus test among the far-left activists he is courting in his campaign to represent a heavily Jewish district covering Lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn.   

Goldman, a pro-Israel Jewish Democrat, affirmed his support for continued Iron Dome funding in a statement to JI earlier this week, saying the system “provides critical protection to millions of civilians and saves hundreds of innocent lives every day.”

Lander had endorsed Iron Dome funding during his unsuccessful mayoral campaign last year, even as he had otherwise backed broad conditions on offensive aid. In February, he came out in support of a House bill seeking to impose sweeping new restrictions on offensive arms sales to Israel.

In a statement to The Forward on Friday, Lander called Iron Dome “critical to ensuring the safety of civilians in Israel” and said that “Israel should have access to purchase it with their own funds.”

But he added that the United States “should not provide taxpayer-funded financial aid for it at this time.”

“I genuinely hope that changes in the future, speedily and in our day, as part of a deal that protects the human rights and safety of all civilians in the region,” he told The Forward.

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) said on Sunday he now opposes U.S. aid for offensive weaponry for Israel but continued to defend U.S. support for defensive systems like Iron Dome.

The new stance from Gallego, who positioned himself as a pro-Israel moderate during his 2024 Senate campaign, highlights the changing currents within the Democratic Party. Gallego also acknowledged in an interview with NBC News that he’s considering a 2028 presidential run.

Gallego said that he would not support providing Israel with funding for offensive weapons due to disagreements with the country’s military operations in Iran and Lebanon. Gallego, a military veteran, has been among the Senate’s most strident opponents of the war in Iran.

But he said he would continue to support aid for missile-defense systems.

“Like any other ally in this in this world, I can’t imagine stopping defensive weapons going to any of our friends, because in that situation, if they’re raining down bombs, you’re hitting people that are, especially in Israel, they’re Arabs, Christians, Jews, people that are pro-war, against war. It’s indiscriminatory,” Gallego said. “I know that’s not a popular thing. I’m sure everyone wants to be on the other side, but I’ve seen civilians get hurt in war by both sides, and it’s not, it’s not something you want to be responsible for.”

Gallego missed Senate votes last July on resolutions by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to block certain arms shipments to Israel, but a spokesperson said he would have voted against those resolutions — allowing the arms transfers to proceed. 

Sanders has introduced a new set of similar resolutions, which are expected to come up for a vote when the Senate returns from its Passover and Easter recess. It’s unclear whether Gallego’s stance will extend to blocking Israeli purchases of U.S. weapons, in addition to U.S. aid.

Gallego’s new stance nonetheless positions him in a more moderate lane than other prospective Democratic presidential candidates including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA), who said last week they would oppose funding for Iron Dome and other missile defense systems, arguing that Israel should be responsible for paying for them itself.

Jewish leaders in Georgia say that Sen. Jon Ossoff’s (D-GA) reversal in early April on efforts to block U.S. aid to Israel marks an important step toward repairing relations with the Jewish community, but several said that he’ll need to do more and show he’ll remain on that track going forward to regain their trust.

Ossoff’s votes last November in favor of resolutions led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) attempting to block arms sales to Israel shocked and frustrated Jewish Democrats in Georgia, who could help tip what might be a razor-thin margin of victory in Ossoff’s 2026 reelection campaign. The November votes prompted condemnation from a coalition of 50 Jewish organizations in Georgia and led a group of Democratic donors to offer to support Republican Gov. Brian Kemp if he runs for the seat.

Norman Radow, a major Democratic donor in Georgia, told Jewish Insider that Ossoff’s April votes against anti-Israel resolutions again brought by Sanders, are “helpful. I think we want that to continue.” But he noted that Ossoff had not apologized for his previous votes and comments. He said he appreciated Ossoff’s latest votes and comments, but said he wanted to see them become part of a consistent pattern, rather than a momentary shift.

“My fear is that that’s the real Jon, and that our political pressure and his running for reelection has temporarily moved him towards our position,” Radow continued. “I’m hoping that he recognizes the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and that he will not only support us, but he’ll become a champion for the U.S.-Israel relationship and the Jewish community. That’s my hope.”

David Lubin, a former Democratic state Senate candidate, said that Ossoff’s latest votes were “exactly what we wanted to see happen.” He noted that Ossoff had also recently attended a play at a local Jewish day school, describing his attendance as an additional sign that Ossoff understands the frustration within the Jewish community and realizes that he has work to do.

“The healing process — I think it will take more for a lot of people,” Lubin continued. “I think it’s hard for people to explain why he voted that way, which makes it difficult for Democrats when you’re talking to people that are on the fence on who to vote for … The healing part is going to be tough, I think, for people that put Israel as one of their top priorities.”

Aaron Goldman, another Democratic Georgia donor, said that Ossoff had heard and responded to the widespread outcry from the Jewish community following the November votes and deserved thanks for his pivot. Goldman added that he wanted to see it followed by similar votes and actions, and called on Ossoff to remain communicative with and available to the Jewish community ahead of consequential votes on Israel, as well as to be more vocal in support of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

“Our door is open. We are here to work with him collaboratively, to support the U.S.-Israel relationship, which has historically been a strong Democratic value,” Goldman said.

Dov Wilker, the regional director of the American Jewish Committee in Atlanta, which was a lead signatory to the organizational letter, told JI, “We’re pleased with the direction of the senator’s votes and hope that his continued engagement with the Jewish community on behalf of the hostages, in support of Israel will continue.”

Cheryl Dorchinsky, the founder of Atlanta Israel Coalition, a grassroots pro-Israel nonprofit that signed the letter from local pro-Israel groups, told JI that she was “thrilled [Ossoff] changed his stance” which was “truly a sign that he was listening.” Dorchinsky declined to say whether she had supported Ossoff previously and said she does not associate with either political party.

“I think he has more to do,” Dorchinsky continued. “Now it’s about seeing how he votes and how he acts from that point moving forward. I applaud him for changing his stance … [but] it’s like if you kick someone, the pain doesn’t just go away. You wait, you heal, and you hope for the best.”

Dov Wilker, the regional director of the American Jewish Committee in Atlanta, which was a lead signatory to the organizational letter, told JI, “We’re pleased with the direction of the senator’s votes and hope that his continued engagement with the Jewish community on behalf of the hostages, in support of Israel will continue.”

Others in the community believe that Ossoff has addressed their concerns.

Lori Kagan Schwarz, a former board co-chair and current trustee of the Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta, said she was “hugely disappointed and upset” by Ossoff’s votes in November. But she said his public advocacy against the similar resolutions in April had helped address her concerns, along with direct engagement with his staff. She said she believes that Ossoff was “surprised” by the level of outcry from Democratic Jews following the November votes. 

Kagan Schwarz said that many Jewish Georgians she knows “were so upset by his vote in November, and even before he voted against the most recent resolution, they were encouraged by his outreach, by his words and actions.”

She added that supporters of Israel should and will continue to advocate to Ossoff, as they do with all elected leaders. “I’m not concerned at all, but I’m vigilant in terms of my advocacy and my deep concern for Israel.”

Both Goldman and Radow emphasized that it was not only Ossoff’s votes but also his floor speech in favor of the Sanders resolutions, in which Ossoff said Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza had been “gratuitously brutal” and that it had shown “reckless disregard for the innocent,” that they and others had found particularly objectionable.

“Last November, Senator Ossoff was wrong to vote with Bernie Sanders to jeopardize Israel’s security as it fights a seven-front war against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists,” AIPAC spokesperson Marshall Wittmann said. “His recent vote was a notable step to rectify his previous mistake.”

Ossoff said following the April votes that he felt the new resolutions “would have been damaging” and that all focus should be on restoring a ceasefire and freeing the remaining hostages.

AIPAC was one of the lead signatories on the Jewish organizational letter. AIPAC spokesperson Marshall Wittmann told JI that the April vote had been a step to correct Ossoff’s past moves.

“Last November, Senator Ossoff was wrong to vote with Bernie Sanders to jeopardize Israel’s security as it fights a seven-front war against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists,” Wittmann said. “His recent vote was a notable step to rectify his previous mistake.”

There are some members of the Jewish community who supported Ossoff’s initial votes.

“Many of us in the Jewish community feel like it’s reasonable to want to see an end to the killing of innocent people and of course a return of the hostages,” Jodi Greenwald, a Jewish Ossoff supporter, told JI. “Jon Ossoff has supported Israel in so many ways and so many votes, and I think he’s just going with a reasonable approach to minimize the damage of loss of innocent life. I personally was not upset by that. I certainly did not interpret it as an abandonment of his support for Israel.”

Greenwald told JI that she felt the letter from 50 Jewish organizations criticizing Ossoff misrepresented the level of support for those views among the members of those institutions. 

Lubin, the former state Senate candidate, said that for some in the community, frustrations with Ossoff were not limited to the Sanders votes, but rather reflected a broader sense that he was not standing with members of the Jewish community, even at a time of rampant antisemitism. Lubin said he’s concerned that Ossoff’s November votes were reflective of a larger and deeper pattern than just a few votes. Other previous Ossoff supporters echoed that view.

Kagan Schwarz disagreed that there has been a broader pattern of concern with Ossoff. “It never occurred to me that he was not hugely a proponent against antisemitism.”

She added that supporters of Israel “have to be a little accepting of people expressing concern about Israel’s leadership, especially right now.” She argued that such criticisms don’t mean that someone is not a supporter of Israel. “I love Israel and want to do everything I can to protect and preserve her. But it doesn’t mean that I love Israel’s government.

Radow said that Ossoff, after the November votes, avoided his and other longtime, major Jewish supporters’ outreach for months, until a February New York Times article highlighted Jewish donors interested in supporting a Kemp campaign.

Ossoff subsequently sat down with a group of around 50 Jewish leaders from Georgia, including Radow, at an AIPAC conference in Washington in February, where the Jewish leaders confronted him about his past votes and urged him to commit to supporting a series of three priority legislative initiatives.

Radow said that Ossoff, at the meeting, was not willing to commit to any of the three, including voting against further Sanders resolutions; however, Ossoff did so days after the meeting. He said Ossoff had tried to avoid discussing his past remarks and votes and told the leaders that they would have to agree to disagree, but the Jewish leaders pushed back.

“Jon is not out of the woodshed but he did come and meet with 50 of us. He spent an hour. He did meet with me privately for 45 minutes. He has voted for us on three important pieces of legislation since then,” Norman Radow, a major Democratic donor in Georgia, said. “I hope that that relationship can continue to build and we can reestablish trust.”

“What surprised me was, he’s coming to that audience, he was not prepared then to say he’d participate [in] or support any of the three,” Radow said. “It took him days, and all these issues were out there. He’d been contacted in advance. All this legislation was on his desk, and he hadn’t prepared for it.”

Radow also met privately with Ossoff following the AIPAC sit-down, where he said they had an “honest” and “forthright” discussion and “made progress.”

“Jon is not out of the woodshed but he did come and meet with 50 of us. He spent an hour. He did meet with me privately for 45 minutes. He has voted for us on three important pieces of legislation since then,” Radow said. “I hope that that relationship can continue to build and we can reestablish trust.”

Ossoff’s deputy chief of staff met separately with at least two groups of Jewish Democratic female leaders in Georgia, including Kagan Schwarz, in late March. The meetings were organized in collaboration with members of the Jewish Democratic Women’s Salon.

Kagan Schwarz said that Ossoff’s staffer told the group that Ossoff had heard the feedback from the Jewish community and wanted to keep an open conversation with community members. She said that the Ossoff staffer was open to discussing all of their concerns and explaining Ossoff’s November votes and why his positions had shifted since then.

She added that Ossoff’s staffer also highlighted other actions he’d taken in support of Jewish community priorities, like numerous meetings with hostage families and working with law enforcement to ensure adequate security for the Jewish community following Oct. 7 — reassuring actions Kagan Schwarz said Ossoff’s office should have better publicized.

Lubin said that, to rebuild bridges with those hurt by his past actions, Ossoff will need to continue to be present in the Jewish community, reach out to Jewish leaders and “make it clear that he is supporting Israel” and that he fully grasps the significance of the fight that Israel is facing. “It seems like there’s some disconnect with him, in regards to that,” Lubin said.

Going forward, Dorchinsky called on Ossoff to be more active in fighting antisemitism.

“Stand up for us. We are part of this community,” Dorchinsky said. “It’s not just impacting us, it impacts everyone … Our representatives are responsible for protecting their communities, regardless of religion.”

Radow, who signed the letter to Kemp encouraging him to run against Ossoff, said that he hasn’t yet made a decision on who he’ll support in 2026.

“It would be imprudent of me to say I would support Jon, not support Jon, until, A, I see how Jon continues to act in the next 18 months and, two, who the Republicans put up,” Radow said. “If it’s Marjorie Taylor Greene, I think the decision is clear.”

Goldman, who also signed onto the letter expressing support for Kemp, said that letter “reflected the frustration and the disappointment” in the community.

But Goldman noted that Kemp appears unlikely to run and that Ossoff “has shown his willingness to listen and deliberate and make a vote more reflective of not only his Jewish constituencies, but Georgia voters as a whole, and where they are on Israel … A continuation in that trend, as we’ve discussed, would be very comforting to Jewish Democrats in general.”

Lubin said he can’t yet speak firmly to how he will vote in 2026, given the many unknowns between now and the election, though he’s currently inclined to vote for Ossoff.

“There is concern to see that if we get closer, and other things do come up and he wavers too much, I think a lot of people will be looking at who to vote for,” Lubin said. “I can’t tell you where I’m going to vote in a couple of years from now.”

Lubin added that Ossoff’s April votes and outreach to the Jewish community will help some Democrats who were previously on the fence feel better about voting for him. He agreed that if Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) becomes the Republican nominee, many otherwise undecided Democratic Jews will likely line up behind Ossoff.

“I think that folks who are abandoning support for a Georgia senator based on just one vote about one element of support to Israel and willing to throw everything else good that he does and supports and is for away in our representation in the Senate — I think that’s not in the interests of our lives as Georgians,” Jodi Greenwald, a Jewish Ossoff supporter, said. “He’s been a friend to the people of Georgia regardless of their faith.”

If the GOP nominee is someone like Rep. Buddy Carter (D-GA), a supporter of the Jewish community, or Insurance Commissioner John King, viewed as a moderate, that could raise a trickier dilemma for voters than an Ossoff-Greene race, one individual familiar with the situation noted. Jewish Democratic voters may also be faced with questions of how and whether to vote tactically in the primaries — to vote in next year’s Democratic gubernatorial primary or the GOP Senate primary.

Kagan Schwarz, an Ossoff supporter, said that Israel is one of her top issues, but she wants to see the candidates she supports be strong “on all my key issues, not just one,” and described Ossoff as the clear choice. She said she was “very disappointed” by the letter from Jewish donors to Kemp and would not have signed it — though she said she does not “begrudge” the signatories and said it “might have been a wake-up call” for Ossoff.

“I think that folks who are abandoning support for a Georgia senator based on just one vote about one element of support to Israel and willing to throw everything else good that he does and supports and is for away in our representation in the Senate — I think that’s not in the interests of our lives as Georgians,” Greenwald said. “He’s been a friend to the people of Georgia regardless of their faith.”

At the annual J Street conference in Washington, Democratic presidential hopefuls were questioned on whether they would condition U.S. aid to Israel on the Jewish state not annexing any part of the West Bank.

In a presidential forum hosted by former Obama administration officials Ben Rhodes and Tommy Vietor, candidates were pressed to express their willingness to take a tougher stance on the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) took the hardest line of any of the attending candidates, telling Rhodes and Vietor that Israel will have to “fundamentally change” its relationship with Gaza if it wants continued military aid. Sanders has long been supportive of conditioning U.S. aid to Israel and using it as leverage to change the behavior of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, which he has repeatedly described as “racist.”

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg told attendees that he would support conditioning U.S aid as a means to discourage Israel from attempting to annex parts of the West Bank. The Democratic hopeful, who visited Israel last year, said the United States needs to “have mechanisms to do this to make sure U.S. taxpayer support for Israel doesn’t turn into U.S. taxpayer support for a move like annexation.” He also argued that “U.S. policy should not be promoting settlement construction because it is incompatible or at best detrimental to what we need to see happen” in the region. Buttigieg added, “you can be committed to the U.S.-Israel alliance without that entailing support for any individual choice of a right-wing government over there.”

Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro struck a more cautious note. Castro, who served in the cabinet from 2014-2017, would not take the idea of conditioning aid “off the table” but argued that the United States already has a “carrot-and-stick approach.” Castro expressed the hope that “we’re going to have a new [Israeli] government to work with our ally to ensure that there is not unilateral annexation and that we pursue a two-state solution.”

Colorado Senator Michael Bennet echoed Castro’s caution. “I would not rule out” conditioning American aid to Israel, said the two-term senator. However, he was hesitant to embrace it, worried that “if we pick one instrument like that in this town, it very quickly is going to become a partisan litmus test.” The Colorado Democrat also made clear that while he didn’t believe Israel should be building settlements and that the United States should be doing “everything we can to limit settlements,” Bennet also warned that the current Israeli government “basically has a permission slip from [the] Trump administration to do whatever they want.”

Speaking on Sunday, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) dodged the question. “It is not a good idea to negotiate these things right now,” said the Minnesota Democrat. She disagreed with Netanyahu’s September announcement that he would begin to annex settlements on the West Bank if re-elected, calling it “wrong.”

Other candidates submitted videos instead of attending the forum. In her video, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said, “If Israel’s government continues with steps to formally annex the West Bank, the U.S. should make clear that none of our aid should be used to support annexation.” In contrast, former Vice President Joe Biden said in a video that Israel should stop “settlement activity which takes us further from peace” and warned about support for the Jewish state becoming “a political football.”

Former Congressman Beto O’Rourke, businessman Andrew Yang and author Marianne Williamson also submitted videos to the liberal group, which advocates a dovish Middle East policy.