Uncategorized
The JTA conversation: Pogrom? Terrorism? What do we call what happened in Huwara?
(JTA) — On Sunday, after a Palestinian gunman shot and killed two Israeli brothers in the West Bank, Jewish settlers rioted in the nearby Palestinian town of Huwara, burning cars and buildings. A Palestinian was killed and dozens were injured.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the Jewish rioters for “taking the law in their own hands,” but many observers — including the top Israeli general in the West Bank and Abraham Foxman, director emeritus of the the Anti-Defamation League — used stronger language, calling the attacks a “pogrom.”
The use of the word, which most famously refers to a wave of anti-Jewish violence in the Russian empire beginning in the late 19th century, in turn became the subject of debate. Does using “pogrom” co-opt Jewish history unfairly and inaccurately by suggesting Jews are no better than their historical persecutors? Does avoiding the term mean Israel and its supporters are not taking sufficient responsibility for the actions of its Jewish citizens?
The debate is not just about language, but about controlling the narrative. Political speech can minimize or exaggerate events, put them in their proper context or distort them in ways that, per George Orwell, can “corrupt thought.”
We asked historians, linguists and activists to consider the word pogrom, and asked them what politicians, journalists and everyday people should call what happened at Huwara. Their responses are below.
Sidestepping the real issue
Dr. Jeffrey Shandler
Distinguished Professor, Department of Jewish Studies, Rutgers University
The meanings of the word “pogrom” in different languages are key here. In Russian, it means a massacre or raid, as it does in Yiddish; in neither language is it understood as specifically about violence against Jews. The Oxford English Dictionary concurs that pogrom means an “organized massacre… of any body or class,” but notes that, in the English-language press, it was first used mostly to refer to anti-Jewish attacks in Russia, citing examples from 1905-1906.
Therefore, though the association of pogrom with violence targeting Jews is widely familiar, its meaning is broader.
That said, because of English speakers’ widely familiar association of the term with Jews as victims, to use pogrom to describe violence perpetrated by Jews is provocative. As to whether it is appropriate to refer to recent attacks by Jewish settlers on Palestinians, it seems to me that this question sidesteps the more important question of whether the actions being called pogroms are appropriate.
Call it what it is: “settler terrorism”
Sara Yael Hirschhorn
’22-’23 Research Fellow at the Center for Antisemitism Research at the ADL, and author, “City on a Hilltop: American Jews and the Israeli Settler Movement”
Let me say first with a loud and clear conscience: What happened in Huwara was abhorrent, immoral, and unconscionable and certainly was not committed in my name.
But to paraphrase Raymond Carver’s famous formulation: How do we talk about it when we talk about Huwara? What kind of descriptive and analytical framework can adequately and contextually interpret that horrific event?
The shorthand of choice seems to be “pogrom” — but it isn’t clear that all who deploy the term are signifying the same thing. For some, pogrom is a synonym for pillage, rampage, fire, property damage and violence in the streets — a one-word general summary of brutal acts. For others, pogrom refers to vigilante justice, an abbreviated story of the non-state or non-institutional actors and their motivations.
More specifically, however, pogrom is seemingly being mobilized as a metaphor to Jewish history, juxtaposing the Jewish victims of yesterday to the Jewish-Israeli perpetrators of today, an implicit analogy to the prelude to the Shoah, recasting Zionists as organized bands of genocidaires (with or without regime sponsorship) like the Cossacks, the Nationalist Fronts or even the Einsatzgruppen. Some would use the word to incorporate all three meanings (and more).
As a historian, I am troubled by the haphazard and harmful use of terms that are attached to a specific time and place — such as the thousand-year history of Jews in the Rhinelands and Eastern Europe, with many layers of imperial, national, local, economic and religious forces that precipitated these events — in such an ahistorical manner. Nor do I find the parallels between Zionists and Nazis to be historically careful (if deliberately offensive) — the State of Israel is committing crimes in the West Bank, but not a genocide. The equivalence also all too easily and incorrectly grafts tropes of racism and white supremacy drawn from American history into the West Bank’s soil.
So what to say about Huwara? Israel — for reasons both political and lexiconographical — has failed to consistently adopt a term for such attacks. (Often the euphemism of “errant weeds” who are “taking matters into their own hands” is the choice of Knesset politicians.) To my mind, the best term is “settler terrorism,” which puts Jewish-Israeli acts on par with Palestinian terrorism. It should also mean that these actions merit the same consequences under the occupation like trial, imprisonment, home demolition and other deterrents enforced against all those who choose the path of violence.
Last but not least, a pogrom was historically an unpunished crime against humanity that led only to war and annihilation. Don’t we aspire for more in Israel/Palestine?
Palestinians call it “ethnic cleansing”
Ibrahim Eid Dalalsha
Director, Horizon Center for Political Studies and Media Outreach, Ramallah, and member of Israel Policy Forum’s Critical Neighbors task force
Palestinians generally view and describe what happened during Sunday’s Huwara attacks as “racist hate crimes seeking to destroy and dispossess the Palestinian people of their homes and properties.” While no specific term has been used to describe these attacks, it was likened to the barbaric and savage invasion of Baghdad by Hulagu, the 13th-century Mongol commander.
Palestinian intellectuals tend to use “ethnic cleansing,” savage and barbaric ethnically motivated violence against innocent civilians, as another way of referring to these attacks. When such events include killing, Palestinian politicians and intellectuals tend to use the term massacre, or “majzara,” to underline the irrational and indiscriminate violence against defenseless civilians. I don’t think the term “pogrom” and its historic connotation are widely known to most people here. From a Palestinian perspective, using such terms, including “Holocaust,” is not considered a mistake. In fact, even using “Holocaust“ to describe violence against Palestinian civilians in and around 1948 was not considered a mistake until very recently when it caused such a saga for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Germany.
View of cars burned by Jewish settlers during riots in Huwara, in the West Bank, near Nablus, Feb. 27, 2023. (Nasser Ishtayeh/Flash90)
In the name of historical accuracy
Rukhl Schaechter
Yiddish Editor, The Forward
The recent attacks by Israeli settlers on Palestinians in Huwara are abhorrent. I commend those in Israel calling them peulot teror, “actions of terror,” and I trust that the perpetrators will be brought to justice. But these riots were not pogroms.
The word pogrom refers to one of the many violent riots and subsequent massacres of Jews in Eastern Europe between the 17th and 20th centuries. These attacks were committed by local non-Jewish, often peasant populations. They were instigated by rabble-rousers like Bogdan Chmielnicki, who led a Cossack and peasant uprising against Polish rule in Ukraine in 1648 and ended up destroying hundreds of Jewish communities. According to eyewitnesses, the attackers also committed atrocities on pregnant women.
Note that the massacres of Jews carried out by the Nazis, and the murders of Armenians by the Turkish government at the turn of the 20th century — as horrific as they were — were never called pogroms because in both cases, there was a government behind it. In the name of historic accuracy, let’s continue to use the word pogrom solely for mob attacks on and massacres of Jews.
When the Poles banned “pogrom”
Samuel D. Kassow
Professor of History, Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut
In Poland in the late 1930s, altercations between a Jew and a Pole sometimes ended with either the Jew or the Pole getting badly hurt or even killed. When the victim was a Pole, mobs of Poles rampaged through Jewish neighborhoods smashing windows, looting shops and often beating or even killing Jews. Poles often held Jews collectively responsible for the death of one of their own. This happened in Przytyk, Minsk-Mazowieck, Grodno and other places. Jews called these riots “pogroms,” which they were. But the Polish government banned use of the term in the press. After all, “pogrom” was a Russian word, and “pogroms” happened only in a place characterized by barbarism and ignorance. Since Poland was not Russia, and since Poles were eminently civilized, logically speaking, pogroms simply did not take place in Poland. What happened in these towns were to be called “excesses” (zajscia). But certainly not pogroms!
I take it that since we Jews are so civilized, we too are incapable of pogroms. So should we label what these settlers did “‘excesses”? Or perhaps we should take a deep breath and call them pogroms?
A Jewish, but not exclusive, history
Henry Abramson
Historian
The word “pogrom” is rooted in time and place, although the type of violence it describes is as old as human history. It is a Russian word, but it entered the English language in the late 19th century through the medium of Yiddish-speakers, outraged at the wave of antisemitic disturbances that surged under rule of the last tsar of the Russian Empire, Nicholas II. Russians themselves used a variety of words for the ugly phenomenon, with translations like “riot” or “persecution,” but the term “pogrom” proved the most evocative: the Slavic prefix “po” suggests a directed attack, and the root “grom” is the word for “thunder.” A pogrom, therefore, meant a focused point where a great deal of energy was dissipated in a single dramatic act of violence.
The focused point, in the context of that dark history, was the civilian Jewish population in the tiny shtetls that dotted the Pale of Settlement. In this regard the word could be used to encompass attacks on Jewish populations from as long ago as the year 38 in Alexandria, Egypt. It does not, however, have any specific designation to indicate that Jews are the victims.
—
The post The JTA conversation: Pogrom? Terrorism? What do we call what happened in Huwara? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Being a soccer superstar couldn’t save him from the Nazis
For the past 20 years, the German Soccer Federation has awarded the Julius Hirsch Prize for organizations combating racism. This year, the recipients included an 11th-grade class that created an educational tool for anti-discrimination events, a children’s soccer league based in a disadvantaged area and a club originally founded in a refugee center.
Now, graphic novelist Julian Voloj has decided that it’s time for people to learn Hirsch’s story.
In 1911, Hirsch became the first Jewish player to serve on the German national team. He was the first player to score four goals in a single game, and he played for several soccer clubs that won the German football championship. Hirsch also was a decorated war veteran in WWI. Nevertheless, Hirsch was not spared from being a victim of the Holocaust.
“He was first seen as a hero and then seen as evil that needed to be destroyed,” Voloj said.
Voloj’s previous graphic novels have included an anthology of diverse Jewish voices and a story about the first Jewish congregation in America. He learned about Hirsch when he was working with Bayern Munich on a novel, completed in 2020, that explored the life of Oskar Rohr, another Jewish soccer player, who helped lead Bayern Munich to a 1932 championship.
With the help of a grant from the German soccer federation, Voloj is planning to complete Hirsch’s novel, “Juller,” in three years. He is working with an Israeli artist, Avi Blyer, to illustrate his work.
Voloj told me that, prior to the second World War, Hirsch was one of many Jewish German soccer players. “Soccer was an academic sport,” he said. Popular within universities, soccer emphasized values like teamwork and brotherhood, which stood in stark contrast to “the Nazi ideal” of manliness, which praised individual displays of strength and talent. In Austria-Hungary, many Jews became pioneers of the sport, including Hirsch’s teammate Gottfried Fuchs, who set a world record of 10 goals in a single soccer match. Unlike Hirsch, Fuchs survived the Holocaust by immigrating to Canada; he never returned to Germany.
For Voloj, the biggest struggle in writing about Hirsch comes with illuminating his personal life, rather than solely celebrating his accomplishments. “I know a lot about the statistics, but I don’t know so much about Julius Hirsch, the human being,” he told me.
He plans to start by depicting the religion and culture Hirsch was a part of — which he says might be the first time for non-Jewish readers to learn about these traditions. Voloj told me how he plans to recreate Hirsch’s Jewish wedding: showcasing the Chuppah and the smashing of the glass. In the scene, a rabbi will discuss its symbolism — a reminder of the fragility of life and the destruction of the Temple.
Tragically, though, this moment will be followed by one later in life, in which Hirsch divorced his non-Jewish wife as the German climate became increasingly dangerous for Jews. Hirsch hoped this would spare his children from persecution, but it was no use: Both of Hirsch’s children were sent to concentration camps. They ultimately survived, though, and Hirsch’s son later worked with a historian, Werner Skretny, to publish a biography of Hirsch.
A grandchild of Holocaust survivors, Voloj says he doesn’t want to focus overwhelmingly on Hirsch’s death, but instead to honor the life he led. However, it was still important for him to represent the antisemitic reality that Hirsch lived in; in the last part of the book, Voloj said, he will discuss how “the people who celebrated him basically abandoned him.”
Voloj says he believes that exploring Hirsch’s story is especially important today, when soccer is more diverse than ever and the German soccer team has become inclusive of many ethnic minorities. However, prejudice has also increased in many ways.
Voloj told me he sees “a lot of parallels in the experience” between the hatred that Jewish players faced under Nazi rule and what many Muslim players are experiencing today. However, he also said that many lessons could be taken from Hirsch’s early experiences when few fans cared that he was Jewish.
“There is something we can learn about the acceptance of the German Jewish players back then on the national team,” Voloj said. From his work, he hopes that readers can learn both from Germany’s dark past and also “overcome misconceptions about Jewish identity.”
The post Being a soccer superstar couldn’t save him from the Nazis appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
As Jewish Republicans sour on JD Vance, many are rallying behind Marco Rubio for 2028
(JTA) — It’s no secret that JD Vance has lost the confidence of many Jewish Republicans, who have taken issue with the vice president’s reprimanding of Israeli officials, indulgence of anti-Israel conspiracy theories and silence on Tucker Carlson, the prominent pundit who has turned against Israel.
But Vance is still thought by many to be Donald Trump’s likeliest successor at the top of the party’s ticket in 2028, leaving the GOP’s Jewish supporters with the question of whom to back when Trump’s second term ends.
Many are finding an answer elsewhere in the Trump administration.
“The overwhelming majority of American Jewish MAGA voters, donors, and policymakers are enthusiastically supporting a Marco Rubio presidential run,” Shabbos Kestenbaum, whose high-profile activism against campus antisemitism has made him a hero among Jewish conservatives, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency this week. “I look forward to voting for him as well.”
Kestenbaum was offering an update on a claim he made in an interview at a Republican Jewish Coalition gala in May.
“I can certainly tell you with confidence that in the American Jewish conservative circles, it’s Marco Rubio by a margin of 99 to 1,” he said at the time. “In fact that’s probably underselling it, it’s probably closer to 100 to 0. I can’t think of anyone within the American Jewish MAGA movement who would not want Marco Rubio as the nominee.”
Rubio, who is Trump’s secretary of state and national security adviser and served as a U.S. senator from Florida for 15 years, has won the support of a number of Jewish Republicans with his staunch support of Israel and hawkish opposition to Iran. He has signaled a willingness to remove restrictions the Biden administration had placed on violent Israeli settler groups in the West Bank and this week vowed to dismantle the International Criminal Court, which has an arrest warrant for multiple Israeli leaders including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The RJC praised Rubio’s ICC vow on Monday, tweeting, “Leadership. Thank you, @SecRubio.”
Some, including the far-right Jewish activist Laura Loomer, have also pointed to Rubio’s hardline stance on pro-Palestinian protesters; he celebrated revoking hundreds of student visas in connection with such protests last year.
“We are finally getting the pro-Hamas thugs OUT,” Loomer wrote on X, adding that Rubio “is a LEADER” who is “not afraid of taking on Islamic immigrants who don’t belong here.” In another post, Loomer revealed her ambitions for Rubio: “He is going to be President someday. Mark my word.”
Rubio’s deep ties to the pro-Israel community predate his national profile; his main benefactor during his career in the Florida legislature was Norman Braman, a major donor to Jewish causes. Rubio’s support for Israel is typical of Cuban-American politicians who see the country as a bulwark against communism. His closest ally in the Florida legislature was Adam Hasner, who is Jewish.
Some Israel critics who have spread conspiracy theories about Jews and the Jewish state are now accusing Rubio of working toward Israeli interests above American interests, and say Israel is pushing his candidacy.
Besides his pro-Israel bona fides, Jewish conservative commentators have also praised Rubio for his fiery rhetoric about his hope for the future of the United States, including in a speech at the Munich Security Conference, which Commentary editor Seth Mandel called “profound.”
Eric Levine, an RJC board member and major GOP fundraiser, said there is “overwhelming support” for Rubio, among both Jewish and non-Jewish Republicans.
“Look, my first choice in 2016 was Marco Rubio,” said Levine, who spoke in a personal capacity and not for the RJC, adding that he was an early fundraiser for Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign.
“Marco has always been an extraordinarily strong and effective advocate for the American-Israel relationship,” Levine said. “More importantly, he’s a very strong and effective communicator regarding America’s place in the world.”
Vance has seen his support eroding, both in and outside of Jewish circles. Some of Trump’s top advisers are reportedly pushing for Rubio, and not the vice president, to be the 2028 nominee. GOP megadonor Ken Griffin said last week that he would support Rubio over Vance in a 2028 presidential primary, Axios reported. Even live betting markets say Rubio’s chances are climbing.
Trump himself has floated a Vance-Rubio ticket, without saying which of the two he thinks should be president. The president asked a room of donors at Mar-a-Lago in late February, as he joined Israel in launching a war against Iran, which candidate they preferred, and Rubio carried the room, NBC News reported at the time. (Kestenbaum said he had heard about the vote from donors who were there. “To be fair, they’re in Florida, so it’s a bit of a self-selecting crowd — but Marco wins hands-down,” Kestenbaum said.)
The RJC has so far refused to wade into the 2028 waters. CEO Matt Brooks told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency at the RJC’s America 250 gala that the presidential primary is “light years away from right now,” and that the focus is on holding the Republican majority in the House and Senate come November.
But the group, and Jewish Republicans writ large, have been embroiled in a battle over the party’s stance on Israel, and how it should deal with figures like Carlson, Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens, all of whom have spread antisemitic conspiracy theories to their large online followings.
Trump drew the RJC’s effusive praise when he disavowed Carlson. Vance, on the other hand, has remained mum despite mounting calls by Jewish conservatives for him to condemn the former Fox News host.
“I’d like to see Vice-President Vance change tack on a lot of this; I hope that he will,” commentator Ben Shapiro said in a New Yorker interview earlier this year, when asked about who in the conservative world “would cast out the kind of characters that Tucker Carlson and company are encouraging.” Shapiro said he would “likely” support Rubio in a primary over Vance.
The State Department did not respond to a request for Rubio to comment on Carlson and whether he believes there is rising antisemitism on the right. Other possible 2028 presidential candidates — chief among them Texas Sen. Ted Cruz — have been outspoken in warning about the threat of right-wing antisemitism.
Brooks, asked about Vance, told JTA that Trump’s voice is “the voice that matters right now.”
“As we start to head into after the midterms and whether people run or not, I’m sure they’re going to be asked about all these things,” Brooks added.
Levine has weighed in on Vance, telling Politico this week that it’s “hard to find any support for him at all in the Jewish community.” He declined to discuss Vance with JTA.
In the months since calls first escalated for him to condemn Carlson, Vance’s role in seeking to broker a deal with Iran has only further alienated pro-Israel Republicans. He drew backlash from Republican Jews — both from the rank-and-file and from a sitting member of Congress — when he warned Israeli critics of the Iran deal, which has since fallen apart, not to cross Trump, saying, “If I was in the Cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world.”
Florida Rep. Randy Fine, the Jewish right-wing firebrand, called Vance’s comments “absolutely inappropriate and frankly disgusting.” He did not reply to a texted query about Rubio.
Valerie Greenfeld, an RJC member and former senatorial staffer who now lives in Jerusalem, said in an interview that “it was incredibly arrogant of him to say such a thing, because we’re partners.”
She added that Rubio is currently the most popular choice for president in 2028 among her circle of American voters in Israel. Meanwhile, she said, “the more JD Vance speaks about Israel and antisemitism and teams up with Tucker Carlson and his ilk, the worse it is for him in terms of the Jewish vote.”
American Jewish voters skew heavily toward voting for Democratic candidates; somewhere between 63% and 71% of Jewish voters supported Kamala Harris in 2024.
But as a growing number of Jewish Democrats say they feel unwelcome in their party amid tensions over Israel and the pro-Israel lobby, there is a sense that a Republican nominee could pick up votes from a Democrat who is more sharply critical of Israel than any of their predecessors.
George Mason University law professor David Bernstein predicted on X that there will be “a significant shift in Jewish behavior” if Rubio wins the nomination. “The vote change will be relatively modest, but the energy and money will shift dramatically.”
He added, “If it’s Vance, nope.”
Pro-Israel criticism of Vance has grown in response to the terms of the Iran deal last month which delivered multiple concessions to the Islamic Republic. Shapiro told Fox News that Vance, as a key negotiator, had “not well served the president.” Trump this week resumed the war with Iran and said the deal was history.
Rubio, meanwhile, came out of the deal with positive reviews from the pro-Israel crowd, who viewed his silence as disapproving of the concessions made in the deal. Rubio notably brokered a parallel framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon that undercuts a key objectionable element of the Vance-brokered deal, which codified Iran’s role in Lebanon.
“Rubio does not look happy,” wrote Eylon Levy, a former Israeli government spokesperson, alongside a video of the secretary of state appearing stoic while Trump announced the deal.
Commentator Lisa Daftari wrote, “Today, we are all Marco Rubio.”
Meanwhile, Israel critics on both the left and right have been quick to call out the burgeoning support for the secretary of state.
Cenk Uygur, the host of The Young Turks, wrote that “half the officials” in Trump’s administration “work for Israel,” including Rubio.
Michael Rectenwald, who heads the Anti-Zionist America Political Action Committee, blasted Rubio’s plan to dismantle the ICC and said the “U.S. is ‘israel’s’ bitch.”
Clint Russell, host of the “Liberty Lockdown” podcast, accused Israel of launching a propaganda campaign and paying influencers to “tank Vance and boost Marco Rubio for 2028.” Russell did not provide proof but was steadfast in his accusation.
“They’ve been boosting him for months. Hard,” he wrote. “He’s their guy.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post As Jewish Republicans sour on JD Vance, many are rallying behind Marco Rubio for 2028 appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
In seismic party shift, nearly half of House Democrats vote to end aid to Israel
Cutting off U.S. military aid to Israel came closer than ever to becoming the majority position among House Democrats on Wednesday, a striking sign of how swiftly the party has shifted just months before the midterm elections that could determine control of Congress.
As many as 103 of 212 Democrats supported a measure to eliminate the $3.3 billion in annual military assistance to Israel, while 98 joined all Republicans in opposing the amendment proposed by Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a fierce Israel critic who lost the Republican primary in May. Another 10 Democrats abstained. It received more support than the Block the Bombs Act, which would only prohibit the sale of certain offensive weapons to Israel and has 77 co-sponsors.
The vote underscored that support for ending U.S. military aid to Israel is no longer confined to the Democratic Party’s progressive left.
Less than three years ago, only 37 members opposed an emergency defense package for Israel following Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack and the start of the war in Gaza. Opposition to U.S. aid to Israel has now moved toward the Democratic mainstream, fueled by voter anger over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s handling of the wars in Gaza and Iran, a string of progressive primary victories and growing frustration with the influence of election spending by the group AIPAC in Democratic politics.
The vote marks a break from one of the last bipartisan consensuses on foreign policy: stalwart support for Israel as a U.S. ally.
Leadership and Jewish Democrats split
The Democratic leadership, Jewish members and Jewish organizations were split over Wednesday’s measure, which supporters described as an urgent message to the Israeli government to change course.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, hoping to become the chamber’s next speaker, opposed the amendment, arguing that cutting off all U.S. assistance to Israel would go too far and could also affect humanitarian aid for Palestinians. Still, he declined to pressure members to vote against the measure, and acknowledged the deep divisions within his caucus. Rep. Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, the Democratic whip, and outgoing Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker, supported the measure.
That balancing act and the overall vote may foreshadow an even bigger challenge should Democrats reclaim the House in November. A Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday found that 49% of Pennsylvania voters in the key presidential election battleground state believe the Democratic Party has moved too far to the left.
Ahead of the vote, Jeffries called to renegotiate the next memorandum of understanding between the United States and Israel to reflect what he described as a changed reality — a move welcomed by many Democrats. And he wasn’t humiliated by the outcome. But allowing nearly half the caucus to support even a symbolic vote to end aid could further empower the expanding democratic socialist bloc that may seek greater leverage in his upcoming speakership bid.
The vote also highlighted the growing diversity of views among Jewish members.
Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts, Becca Balint of Vermont, Sara Jacobs of California, Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois all voted in favor. Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, co-chair of the Jewish Caucus, did not vote due to a family medical emergency. Nonetheless, he said in a lengthy statement, had he been present he’d have voted against the measure because it would have also cut funding for U.S.-backed peacebuilding programs.
Rep, Brad Schneider of Illinois, the other co-chair of the caucus, echoed Nadler’s concerns and added, “We must work to rebuild a bipartisan consensus that supports Israel’s security and sovereignty as a Jewish and democratic state, while also recognizing the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to self-determination, and ultimately statehood.”
Jewish organizations were similarly divided.
Democratic-allied groups, the Jewish Democratic Council of America and Democratic Majority for Israel, called Massie’s bill a “cynical political ploy” by Republican leaders to allow a vote to “drive a wedge within the Democratic Party.”
J Street, the pro-peace advocacy group, likewise opposed the amendment, while saying the level of support among Democrats reflected a dramatic shift in the old consensus in Washington.
The Union for Reform Judaism lobbied lawmakers to oppose the amendment, arguing that eliminating aid outright would undermine Israel’s security.
The New Jewish Narrative welcomed the vote. “The level of support for this amendment reflects a sea change in how Americans view the actions of the Israeli government,” the organization said in a statement. “We hope that our Israeli brothers and sisters take notice of this loud and clear statement and will take the necessary steps to change what their government is doing.”
What happens to AIPAC?
The vote presented one of the biggest strategic tests yet for AIPAC.
In recent years, the pro-Israel campaign fundraising organization and its affiliated super PAC invested heavily in Democratic primaries, aiming to elect and protect candidates supportive of military aid while drawing clear lines around who it considered friends of Israel.
Wednesday’s vote raises new questions about whether that approach can still hold.
One early sign came from Rep. Pat Ryan of New York. Ryan, who has represented a competitive swing district and was once among the most outspoken pro-Israel Democrats — including voting to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib in 2023 — announced after the vote that he would reject future support and return contributions he had received from AIPAC.
In a statement following the vote, AIPAC proclaimed that “AIPAC members will be actively engaged throughout this election cycle, and future election cycles, to support members of Congress of both parties who support a strong U.S.-Israel alliance and oppose those who don’t. “
Whether Wednesday’s vote proves to be the high-water mark of Democratic frustration with Netanyahu or another step in a continuing realignment may depend less on Congress than on events in Israel itself.
Netanyahu, who is running for reelection in October, has himself suggested that Israel should eventually phase out its reliance on American military aid when the current 10-year memorandum of understanding expires in 2028. That possibility could make positions once viewed as politically risky increasingly acceptable even among traditionally pro-Israel Democrats.
The post In seismic party shift, nearly half of House Democrats vote to end aid to Israel appeared first on The Forward.
