Uncategorized
‘We have to be here fighting’: Deborah Lipstadt opens up on her Poland-Germany trip with Douglas Emhoff
BERLIN (JTA) — Second gentleman Douglas Emhoff made headlines late last month during a trip to Europe, where he met with other foreign leaders working to combat antisemitism and returned to his ancestors’ town in Poland.
But the trip was originally Deborah Lipstadt’s mission.
The historian, an authority on Holocaust issues and now the U.S. special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, had planned to go to Krakow and Berlin on behalf of the Biden-Harris administration. The trip included a visit to the memorial and museum at Auschwitz-Birkenau on the 78th anniversary of the death camp’s liberation by Soviet troops and, in Berlin, a meeting with special envoys and coordinators who, like Lipstadt, are charged with the task of countering hatred against Jews.
The itinerary fit perfectly with Emhoff’s own anti-antisemitism campaign, so he asked Lipstadt late last year if he could come along.
As she reflected in an interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency after returning home, Emhoff was not the only one to get emotional on the trip.
This interview has been lightly condensed and edited for clarity.
JTA: You met with special envoys on antisemitism from other countries, as you and Emhoff continue to work on a national plan to fight antisemitism at home. Did any concrete policy suggestions come out of those meetings?
DL: The meeting with the special envoys on antisemitism now is the third meeting we have had together.
But I think it was very important to send the message that we are all government appointees, and we speak government to government. So we have already gotten into that rhythm, and it was a very useful meeting. It was also a useful meeting because there were people there from the White House, from my staff, who are involved in this interagency process, and they got to hear from the people who are composing, writing, who have written national plans. And I think that was very helpful. So it was one of the most productive meetings.
You also attended an interfaith meeting with Jewish, Catholic, Protestant and Muslim participants, hosted by the Central Council of Jews in Germany in Berlin. What came out of that?
That actually went very well. The groups tended to talk about what they do together. …One of the things I urged the group, and it may have been bringing coals to Newcastle, but it is a sort of a new effort on their part… is that [talking about things that affect multiple faiths] is a good way of building relations. For instance, [my office had] a meeting in October, convened by the EU but with very strong support from the State Department, from my office, on ritual slaughter. Which of course affects both Jews and Muslims, kashrut and halal. So here is a tachles [goal], a brass tacks area which we could work on together. And that was an excellent meeting, a whole day at the EU.
What do you see as the main challenges in fighting antisemitism and hate today?
You know, some people say this is just like the 1930s. It is not. Back then, you had government-sponsored antisemitism. Whether it was Germany, whether it was other countries, even in the United States. We didn’t have government sponsored antisemitism, but there was a failure of the [U.S.] government [to respond].
On Monday morning, we were sitting in Topography of Terror [Berlin’s museum and archive on the history of the Gestapo], and it was government officials discussing “how do we fight antisemitism?” And everybody around that table is paid by the government. They are government officials, officially appointed. That’s a big difference. That is a humongous difference. That is a sea change.
And then we had the second gentleman there who could easily have said, “We came into office, we put a mezuzah up at our residence. We had a Chanukah party, a Rosh Hashanah party, we had a seder…” [Instead, it] is really clear that he has taken to this issue. He has really said it a number of times… and his wife [Vice President Kamala Harris] says, “He didn’t find this issue. This issue found him.”
RELATED: We’re visiting Auschwitz because the fight against antisemitism didn’t end with liberation
On the first day I met him, which was before I was sworn into office, he said he wanted to meet me and I spent some time with him. He said, “I want to work with you.” And then in October, we had a sukkah event at Blair House [the state guest house], where the State Department brought a sukkah, and we invited ambassadors and deputy chiefs of mission from Middle Eastern and Muslim-majority countries. So sitting around the table were the Israeli ambassador, the Turkish ambassador, the Pakistan ambassador, the deputy chief of mission from Qatar, the deputy chief of mission from Saudi Arabia… And [the Second Gentleman] and I were standing in the kitchen waiting to be escorted into the room, when people took their seats. And he said to me, “Deborah, where are you traveling, where are you going?” I said “Well, in January I am going to Auschwitz-Birkenau for the 27th.” And he said “I’m in.” And that’s how it happened.
You have been to Auschwitz many times…
Dozens of times, I can’t keep count. You know I have been many times, but I work very hard so that it never becomes de rigeur. That it becomes “min haminyan” as you would say in Hebrew. … All you have to do is remind yourself of what happened there. And so it doesn’t matter if it’s your first time or your 15th time. If you are cognizant of what happened there, it sits with you.
…When I go to Auschwitz, especially when it was around my trial [after being sued by British writer David Irving for calling him a Holocaust denier], I had to look at things in a very forensic way, you know: How do we prove this, how do we show that. And that of course sits with me still. But I was well aware that this was [Emhoff’s] first time and what an emotional impact this was having on him. … The thing that always strikes me about Auschwitz, the thing that you hear resounding in your ears in a thunderous way, is the silence. The absence. The little kid that would have worn the shoes that you saw in the display. The people who wore the eyeglasses. The men who shaved with that shaving stuff.
So that is always there. And it hits me at moments and then I become the historian. Analyzing. But it was very powerful, and what was also powerful was, in a way, though this seems counterintuitive, going to Poland first, which was just laden with emotion, especially for him, he went to the town where his family comes from, and got a lot of information. And then going to Germany. One would have thought, go to Germany first and then go to Poland, but in a way the emotional part became the backdrop for the business meetings in Germany.
[Emhoff] very kindly at one point described me as his mentor. Well, if I am his mentor, he is an A1 student. He is really intent on showing not just his passion about the issue but in learning about the issue. He is an accomplished lawyer, an experienced lawyer, and he knows that feeling is not enough, you’ve got to have information, and he gathered that every place he went.
Do you really have the feeling that antisemitism is on the rise or is it just more acceptable to express it?
I think both. I am not out there crunching the numbers statistically, but certainly it is more acceptable. Certainly, it is increasingly normalized. Whether it’s among comedians, whether it is articles in the newspaper, whether it is at demonstrations, it is increasingly normal. And even becomes fodder for entertainers. So whether those same people felt the same before and didn’t say anything or they now suddenly feel that, I don’t know. But many people who might otherwise have been more reticent about expressing certain things previously seem to feel freer to say antisemitic things now.
If antisemitism keeps coming back, what gives you hope?
First of all, what gives me hope, what gives me strength, is I know what I am fighting for, I am not just fighting against. I have a very strong sense of my Jewish identity, I have a very strong sense of who I am, Jewishly. I am lucky, I had a great education, etc.
Earlier this year, I guess it was September, the president did a phone call, it was his practice during the vice presidency, before Rosh Hashanah, or between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, to do a phone call with — this time I think it was 1,200 rabbis. And I came along after he spoke with them to answer questions. And one of the questions was what gives me joy and what gives me strength. And what I said to the rabbis was that I never want to become a “because of antisemitism Jew.” Driving me out of the woodwork because everyone dislikes me, hates me, or wants to harm me. Not everyone — but there are people who want to harm me.
On Monday when I was at all those meetings [in Berlin], it was Jan. 30, 90 years after Hitler came to power, right there where we were standing. Not far from there people were marching in the streets with tiki torches! Championing among other things “death to the Jews.”
And here we were, back: Yes, the good news is here we are back, openly talking about fighting [antisemitism], here we are back, government officials tasked with fighting it, someone at the ambassadorial level from my country, the second gentleman, anxious to help in this effort, but nonetheless we were back there fighting. So on one hand, you can say, “Great, we have the special envoy, great we have the second gentleman who was so open to taking this on. This is unbelievable.” But we are here fighting. We have to be here fighting.
What was your most memorable experience from the recent trip?
On Saturday night [in Poland], one of the members of the White House staff that was with us after Shabbos had hired a car to go to the little village, shtetl, whatever, that her family came from. She wanted to go to the cemetery to see if she could find any names. Now the chances of her finding the names, in the daylight, when it is 70 degrees out and comfortable [would be hard enough]. Here it was below freezing, snow was falling, the ground was icy, and it was pitch black. We were with a genealogist, but the cemetery was locked. So we thought we would have to climb the fences. I thought, “Oh my God, we are going to have an international incident!” But our driver got the key to the cemetery from the people across the street, and I asked, “How did you know?” And he said, “The people across the street always have the key.”
So we didn’t have to break in. She wanted to say a prayer, and she was totally capable of saying the prayer herself but obviously she was deeply moved, and she asked me to recite the “El Maleh Rachamim” [prayer for the soul of a person who has died] for her. And when I stopped, she gave all the names of the people, many of whom were buried there but we couldn’t find the exact places. And then I said “shenikberu” [“who is buried here”], and the person holding the flashlight for me, I couldn’t see, it was tiny print, and he’s Israeli, he said, “po.” Here, here, here! I had never said an “El Maleh Rachamim” for people who were caught up in this tragedy, here. In situ. It was very powerful.
And then on the 30th [in Berlin] after our special envoy meeting, we all walked over to the [city’s] Holocaust memorial. And Felix [Klein, Germany’s special commissioner on antisemitism and Jewish life] had brought stones. And we were standing there, and to borrow a phrase from Herman Wouk’s “The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial,” there was this pregnant pause. And I said, “Would you like me to recite a prayer?” And I recited the prayer, another “El Maleh Rachamim,” and I became totally verklempt [overcome with emotion]. Because I was just a 12-minute walk, if that long, from where it was planned and carried out, and that was very powerful as well.
So the trip was pregnant with meaning, but I think more than just meaning, hopefully also impact.
—
The post ‘We have to be here fighting’: Deborah Lipstadt opens up on her Poland-Germany trip with Douglas Emhoff 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.
