Three months after a ceasefire largely ended the fighting between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, the battle over the future of U.S.-Israel relations still rages in Washington. Both the left and the right face an erosion of support for traditionally pro-Israel positions. Amid the upheaval, the progressive Israel advocacy group J Street sees an opportunity: a chance to solidify Democrats’ shift away from unconditional support for Israel and its security needs. 

J Street is betting that the shift within the Democratic Party reflecting a chillier relationship with the Jewish state — wrought by two years of war in Gaza — is here to stay. At the start of an election year, interviews with J Street’s top political official and its policy chief make clear that the group is eager to create space for Democrats who have taken a more critical approach to Israel, reflecting and reinforcing a shift toward greater distance in the historically close U.S.-Israel alliance.

“There’s going to be a new normal,” Ilan Goldenberg, J Street’s senior vice president and chief policy officer, told Jewish Insider in an interview. “There were two years of trauma that, I think, with the return of the hostages and the end of the war, people can finally start processing, but things are not going back.”

Following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks, public opinion, particularly on the left, began to shift against Israel during its aggressive war against Hamas in Gaza. That change was reflected in increased calls from congressional Democrats to place conditions on American security assistance to Israel, a position that a decade ago was largely a fringe idea.  

AIPAC has, at least publicly, written off the shift as “noise,” noting that American security assistance to Israel remains intact. Earlier this month, Congress voted to approve a State Department funding package that included the expected $3.3 billion in military aid to Israel. 

But J Street’s influence in the Democratic Party is growing. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) accepted an endorsement from J Street for the first time last year. The group now counts every member of House Democratic leadership among its endorsees. (Jeffries has also been endorsed by AIPAC.) 

Even though the Gaza war is largely over, J Street doesn’t expect the Democratic Party to return to its historic pro-Israel posture. Instead, the group wants to see a permanent shift in how Washington supports Israel militarily, even if its endorsees hold a range of views on that question. 

“We’re not looking for complete ideological fealty from our endorsees. We just don’t ask for that,” J Street’s national political director, Tali deGroot, told JI. “We want to see candidates affirm that U.S. aid to Israel should conform to U.S. law, that Israel’s use of our aid should comply with international law and that our aid to Israel shouldn’t be viewed as a blank check.” 

Israel is nearing the end of a 10-year security agreement with the U.S. that provides it $3.3 billion in annual foreign military financing (FMF), along with $500 million for cooperative missile-defense programs, though the funding needs to be approved by Congress every year. That memorandum of understanding expires in 2028, and the question hanging over the next MOU is, if the Trump administration comes to a similar agreement with Israel, whether the political will still exist in Congress to appropriate it over another decade. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu surprised even some of his closest backers by telling President Donald Trump last month that he wants to wind down U.S. FMF to Israel as part of a bid to increase Israeli self-sufficiency. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a staunch pro-Israel advocate, said he intends to work with Netanyahu to achieve that goal. It’s a rare position where Netanyahu and Graham now find themselves aligned with a J Street policy position. 

“I agree with Bibi Netanyahu and Lindsey Graham. It’s time to wind down the FMF piece of this,” Goldenberg said. “It doesn’t mean we don’t sell Israel weapons. It doesn’t mean we don’t cooperate on joint research together on things like Iron Dome.” 

The “exceptional” way that the U.S. treats Israel — particularly Israel being the largest recipient of U.S. FMF — “actually is bad for Israel in that it draws all this extra attention to the relationship,” said Goldenberg. Instead, he argued that the U.S. should “put the relationship on normal grounds,” meaning withdrawing unconditional support. 

“When [other allies] do things we disagree with, we don’t go along with that, and don’t necessarily give them weapons for that, or necessarily sit in international institutions and defend them when we disagree with their policies,” Goldenberg said. 

J Street’s influence in electoral politics is relatively limited. The group’s war chest does not come close to that of rival AIPAC. Save for a handful of races, J Street largely does not play in primaries, although the group is planning to roll out a super PAC this year that is “pretty large,” at least by “J Street standards,” according to deGroot. On top of that, J Street’s policy priorities almost certainly stand no chance of getting adopted during the Trump administration. 

And while large Jewish groups like the Jewish Federations of North America and the Anti-Defamation League have deepened their support for Israel since the Oct. 7 attacks, J Street has continued to test the boundaries of just how critical one can be towards the Jewish state while remaining in the Zionist camp. J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami said in August that he would no longer push back when people claim that Israel’s actions in Gaza amounted to genocide. “I simply won’t defend the indefensible,” he wrote. And J Street has endorsed candidates who use the term genocide, like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). 

“That’s up to the candidates of how they’re going to say it,” deGroot said regarding the word “genocide.” “We’re looking for broad values alignment, and if they are extremely concerned about the situation for Palestinians in Gaza, so are we.” 

A bipartisan pair of House lawmakers will reintroduce legislation on Wednesday to address the threat of killer drone strikes by the Iranian regime and other foreign adversaries through increased cooperation between the U.S. and Israel, Jewish Insider has learned.

Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Andrew Garbarino (R-NY) are the lead sponsors of the U.S.-Israel Anti-Killer Drone Act, which the duo first introduced together back in 2023. That bill proposed increasing annual funding caps for existing U.S.-Israel counter-drone programs from $40 million to $55 million. 

This latest iteration of the legislation increases that annual funding cap to $100 million. It also now includes all unmanned drone systems rather than solely covering aerial drones. The updates to the legislation mirror the expansion of the existing U.S.-Israel counter-drone program to address various types of drones — not only airborne ones — in the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act.

The joint counter-drone program is currently set to be funded at $75 million for 2026, based on the appropriations legislation introduced on Tuesday.

The Gottheimer-Garbarino bill states that it is the sense of Congress that the U.S. and Israel should continue to collaborate and expand their ongoing work in counter-drone technology, increases the proposed funding — though any actual funding allocations would have to be finalized separately — and directs the Department of Defense to report to Congress annually on the program.

The legislation comes as Israeli leaders look to shift the future of U.S. aid to the Jewish state, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announcing that he wants to wind down direct U.S. financial support in the next decade.

Analysts and experts have predicted that the next U.S.-Israel memorandum of understanding, and the future of U.S. aid and cooperation with Israel, could focus more heavily on these sorts of jointly funded cooperative programs, which are appropriated through the Department of Defense and aim to benefit both countries, rather than direct financial assistance to Israel.

The bill’s text runs through a litany of incidents of Iranian and Iranian proxy drone attacks and attempted attacks on Israeli and U.S. targets throughout the region; the expansion and advancement of Iran’s drone production capacity; and Iran’s provision of drones to Russia.

Both Gottheimer and Garbarino cited the Iranian drone threat as reason for promoting the legislation back in 2023.

“Iran’s arsenal of killer drones has only grown in recent years, and attacks across the Middle East have killed and wounded Americans — showing once again why the threat of terrorism remains so pervasive,” Gottheimer said at the time. “We continue to see Iran-backed terrorist groups target innocent civilians which is why we must take concrete action to counter their deadly drone capabilities.”

“Time and again, the Iranian regime has used unmanned aerial systems (UAS) to continue its destabilizing behavior, threatening not only the broader Middle East region, but also American troops, interests, and our greatest ally in the region, Israel,” Garbarino said. 

Reports that Saudi Arabia may strike a deal with Pakistan to acquire Chinese-Pakistani JF-17 Thunder fighter jets are raising concerns in Washington, as Riyadh’s potential acquisition of the aircraft signals a continuation of its recent shift in alliances and could complicate its efforts to secure the U.S.’ F-35 jet. 

The discussions between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, first reported by regional outlets, would deepen defense ties between the two longtime partners while easing Karachi’s financial strain by wiping out its $2 billion in loans from the kingdom. 

The JF-17, which is widely used by the Pakistani Air Force, was jointly developed by Pakistan and China, and incorporates Chinese electronic systems and a Russian engine. 

Grant Rumley, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the aircraft would offer little operational benefit to Saudi Arabia, which already fields a fleet of U.S.- and European-made fighter jets, and could instead be a sign that Riyadh is aiming to strengthen ties with multiple defense partners.

“I don’t think there’s any military justification for Saudi Arabia purchasing this plane,” Rumley said, noting that the kingdom’s existing F-15s and Eurofighter Typhoons — along with its planned acquisition of the F-35 — would significantly outperform the JF-17. “Saudi understands Pakistan is in a tough economic situation and converting it into JF-17s is a way to alleviate some economic pressure and further intensify or accelerate defense cooperation.” 

Rumley added that despite the lack of military advantage from the JF-17, Saudi Arabia’s desire to acquire the fighter jet linked to U.S. adversaries raises concerns about U.S. national security and Riyadh’s political alignment, potentially prompting backlash that could complicate or even derail Riyadh’s procurement of F-35s from the U.S.

“The fact that [the JF-17] has a Russian engine and Chinese avionics means it will very likely be viewed as a security risk if it’s co-located near U.S. forces,” said Rumley, who warned this arrangement could pose a danger to the protection of U.S. intel. “The F-35 is one of the crown jewels of American military equipment. Protecting that proprietary information and capabilities is a top priority across party lines in the U.S. national security apparatus.”

Such a deal could create “undue turbulence” for Saudi Arabia’s acquisition of the F-35, potentially “complicating the discussion” around the deal and even putting it “into jeopardy,” Rumley said. 

While experts said it is unlikely Congress would be able to stop an F-35 sale to Riyadh if the White House gives it the green light, they warned the JF-17 talks could provoke internal pushback within the administration, particularly among officials focused on competition with China.

“The Saudis are publicly entertaining this deal because of their dissatisfaction with U.S. policy, their desire to build leverage that brings America around to the Saudi position and, if that fails, to enable Riyadh to develop alternative security ties,” said Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “The fact that the Saudis are considering such inferior aircraft, from a less established partner, emphasizes their dislike of how the broader U.S. defense relationship is trending.”

“The China hawks within the U.S. will not look favorably on this type of arrangement in general,” said Rumley. “Buying a fighter jet that’s co-produced with China and has Chinese technologies, as well as Russian technologies, is going to burn through a lot of goodwill with the folks in Washington.” 

Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, said a Saudi deal for the JF-17s could also “throw a major wrench in existing defense cooperation with Riyadh,” framing the reported talks as part of a potential reassessment of the kingdom’s security partnerships.

“The Saudis are publicly entertaining this deal because of their dissatisfaction with U.S. policy, their desire to build leverage that brings America around to the Saudi position and, if that fails, to enable Riyadh to develop alternative security ties,” said Ruhe. “The fact that the Saudis are considering such inferior aircraft, from a less established partner, emphasizes their dislike of how the broader U.S. defense relationship is trending.”

He added that Saudi Arabia has historically used major arms purchases to build political leverage rather than to fill operational gaps, noting that Saudi officials have closely watched Qatar’s use of “checkbook diplomacy” to secure a unilateral U.S. security guarantee last year, even as Riyadh’s own mutual defense treaty discussions stalled.

In recent weeks, observers have noted that Saudi Arabia has increasingly pivoted away from moderation and toward Turkey, Qatar, Iran, and Pakistan, as seen in their actions in Yemen, Sudan, and the horn of Africa, along with attacking the UAE over its relationship with Israel. 

“Riyadh’s current security cooperation with China is not the behavior Washington can reasonably expect from a partner who would like to be trusted with the F-35,” said Justin Leopold-Cohen, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who noted that any deal should be viewed “in the context of Riyadh’s recent naval exercises with China.” 

“Saudi Arabia looks at Turkey and Pakistan and sees sort of a middleweight power that is able to exert a ton of influence in the profession of arms and is able to put platforms on the market that drive, not only revenues at home, but is also a pretty effective instrument of national power,” said Rumley. “And they [Saudi Arabia] want that.”

Justin Leopold-Cohen, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the reported talks likely reflect Saudi Arabia’s desire to “avoid overreliance” on any single defense partner, though he echoed concerns from the U.S. perspective.

“Riyadh’s current security cooperation with China is not the behavior Washington can reasonably expect from a partner who would like to be trusted with the F-35,” said Leopold-Cohen, who noted that any deal should be viewed “in the context of Riyadh’s recent naval exercises with China.” 

However, Rumley argued that such a deal may not necessarily reflect “realignment from a security standpoint,” but could be “more about gaining access to some other technologies.”

“It may be that this is simply a way for Saudi Arabia to get access to these jets, rip them up, or reverse engineer them and take those technologies and use them for their own defense, industrial base development,” said Rumley. 

Tensions between the U.S. and Iran escalated on Sunday as President Donald Trump weighed options for striking Iran amid the regime’s crackdown on protesters, and Tehran threatened to strike U.S. bases in response.

Trump was briefed in recent days on options for sites to strike in Iran, The New York Times reported, after he issued several threats warning that the U.S. could get involved if the Iranian regime attempted to violently suppress the nationwide demonstrations that have racked the country for several weeks. 

The options include nonmilitary sites in Tehran, the Times wrote, as well as a large-scale aerial strike on military targets, The Wall Street Journal reported. Trump has not yet made a decision whether to proceed and no U.S. military action has been taken in preparation thus far, U.S. officials told the Times and the Journal. 

In response to the reports, Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran’s parliament, said on Sunday that the country would attack American military bases in the region if the U.S. follows through, and even raised the possibility of a preemptive strike. Ghalibaf also threatened to attack regional shipping lanes and Israel.

Over the last week, Trump has made repeated threats against the Iranian regime that the U.S. was “locked and loaded” and would “rescue” demonstrators if security forces began killing them. Human rights groups say the death toll has reached over 200 as the protests, sparked by a severe economic crisis in the country, have spread, with protesters explicitly calling for regime change.

The president wrote on Truth Social on Saturday that “Iran is looking at FREEDOM, perhaps like never before” and that the “USA stands ready to help!!!” 

Trump has floated the possibility of regime change in Iran before. During the country’s June war with Israel, when the U.S. struck nuclear sites inside Iran, Trump wrote on social media that the U.S. knows “exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.” Later, he wrote, “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!”

GOP lawmakers have voiced their support for renewed U.S. strikes on Iran, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sharing a message to Khamenei on Fox News last week: “You need to understand, if you keep killing your people who are demanding a better life, Donald J. Trump is gonna kill you.”