Jewish Politics & Power is published every other week. Sign up for our newsletter for updates.
1. Playing it Safe on Israel: the DNC Version
Much—some would say too much—has been written about how Democrats have reached their breaking point with Israel. Including this newsletter— which has documented the gradual shift within the Democratic Party, from “no daylight” with Israel to feeling free, perhaps even obliged, to criticize Israel in public.
Last week, the Democratic establishment hit the brakes. Or at least tried to.
Gathered in Minneapolis for their summer meeting, members of the Democratic National Committee debated, among many other issues, the party’s policy toward Israel and the Gaza war. DNC members were well aware of the growing sentiment in their party. With the war in Gaza dragging on, and with Israel’s military operation continuing to cost the lives of civilians, aid workers and journalists, not to mention the horrific reports of starvation dominating world media, it was impossible for the DNC to stick to its old playbook on Israel.
Two resolutions were presented at the meeting. One, backed by progressives and students, called for an arms embargo on Israel and the recognition of a Palestinian state. The other, put forward by DNC chair Ken Martin, took a much softer tone toward Israel: While calling for an immediate ceasefire and a surge in humanitarian aid, it demanded the release of hostages and encouraged a “negotiated pathway toward a two-state solution.”
Martin’s resolution was adopted, easily winning a majority of votes, while the progressive resolution failed to pass.
This outcome surprised no one. The DNC—the heart of Democratic mainstream thinking—acted like the establishment body it is and chose a moderate voice on Israel.
But here’s where it gets interesting. After the votes were in, Martin withdrew his own resolution, and instead announced that all issues pertaining to Israel will receive further discussion and debate in a special task force that will be set up. “As we’ve seen, there’s a divide in our party on this issue,” he explained, adding that he had decided “to listen” in order to allow the party to “move forward united today and have the conversation.”
Martin’s move provides a pretty good sense of where the party stands now on Israel: Strong enough to defeat progressive anti-Israel measures, but smart enough to understand which way the wind is blowing. Democrats are eager to find a middle road on Israel. It might prove to be impossible to find, but they’re trying.
Congressional initiatives to limit U.S. arms sales to Israel are still on the table and are now expected to come up in the House, where progressive Democrats are pushing for a resolution similar to the one proposed by Bernie Sanders (and rejected) in the Senate.
This is perhaps the clearest dividing issue for Democrats. Progressives believe that the era of a blank check on arms supplies to Israel has come to an end, while centrists argue that taking away weapons from an ally at a time of war doesn’t amount to wise policy.
Some centrists have veered to the left on this issue, joining the call or restrictions (Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, just to name a couple), but so has perhaps the last person you’d expect to voice his support for an arms embargo, former national security adviser Jake Sullivan.
During his four years with the Biden administration, Sullivan tried to keep the arms issue out of the debate over Israel’s actions in Gaza, and while supporting the idea of a very limited and specific embargo on one single shipment of massive bombs to Israel, he—along with the rest of Biden’s national security team—believed that Israel needs the arms and that America should provide them.
Last week, in an interview with The Bulwark podcast, the former national security adviser said that “the case for withholding weapons from Israel today is much stronger than it was one year ago.” Being the careful analyst he is, Sullivan gave four reasons for supporting a partial arms embargo on Israel: The threats that existed two years ago are no longer there; Israel has unilaterally broken the hostage-ceasefire deal; there is now a “full- blown famine” in Gaza; and lastly, Israel has no more serious targets to hit in Gaza and is just “bombing the rubble into rubble.”
Sullivan also disclosed in the interview that he had advised Democratic lawmakers to support congressional measures to block certain types of military shipments to Israel.
Who should care about what Sullivan thinks? Israel should. He’s a centrist with a proven track record of actively supporting Israel, he’s an insider who knows exactly what it means to withhold weapons, and he’s not a politician who can be written off as making statements to win over votes. If you lose Jake Sullivan, well, you’ve lost a lot.
3. Nadler’s Exit
Speaking of losing allies, Israel has long been watching one of its staunchest supporters in Congress drift further and further away. Jerry Nadler, the longest serving Jewish member of Congress, announced Sunday that after 34 years in the House, he will not seek reelection.
Representing some of the most Jewish neighborhoods of New York City, Nadler felt free in recent years to criticize Israel and has inched toward the progressive view when it comes to Netanyahu and to the war in Gaza.
In a New York Times interview in which he announced his decision not to run, Nadler admitted: “I can’t defend what Israel is doing.” And yes, he plans to vote in favor of the House measure calling for a partial arms embargo on Israel.
4. Trump Takes on the “Day After,” in a Very Trump-like Way
Nearly two years into the war, the United States finally held a high-level discussion on what happens after hostilities in Gaza end. Headed by President Trump, last week’s White House meeting sought to find ways to increase the flow of aid to Gaza and discussed ideas on the key “day-after” issues: Who will rule Gaza? What will become of its Palestinian residents? And who will pick up the tab for this multi-billion-dollar undertaking?
Alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump brought to the table a couple of outside experts: his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who served as his top Middle East adviser during Trump’s first term and has not been involved up to now with the second Trump administration, and Tony Blair, who during his tenure as British prime minister, as well as afterwards, was deeply involved in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking efforts.
There was no bottom line to the meeting, but a few days later, in what may not have been a coincidence, The Washington Post published a leaked proposal that has been circulating in the administration. The idea, put together by unnamed businesspeople, seems to flesh out the “Gaza Riviera” idea initially floated in February by Trump but later discarded when he learned that Arab states would not buy into it. The plan, which calls for “voluntary” removal of most Palestinians and for a modern rebuilding program, was not on the table at the meeting last week, nor is it part of the Trump administration’s policy. But it does highlight the fact that many people believe Trump will eventually focus on the real estate development aspects of the Gaza recovery, and less on questions of borders, governance and security.
5. The President Misses the Good Old Days when Jews Controlled Congress
In an interview with the Daily Caller published Monday, President Trump was asked about polls showing that Israel is losing support in America, including among young and MAGA Republicans. Trump acknowledged the problem and then, after digressing into his usual rant about the press not giving him credit for attacking Iran, seemed to express bewilderment at Israel’s declining approval ratings. “If you go back 20 years,” the president said, “I mean, I will tell you, Israel had the strongest lobby in Congress of anything or [any]body, or of any company or corporation or state that I’ve ever seen. Israel was the strongest. Today, it doesn’t have that strong a lobby. It’s amazing,” he said.
This is an issue that had been on Trump’s mind even before the Gaza war. “The biggest change I’ve seen in Congress is Israel literally owned Congress,” Trump said in a 2021 radio interview. “You understand that— 10 years ago, 15 years ago. And it was so powerful. It was so powerful. And today it’s almost the opposite.”
Israel’s relationship with the U.S. Congress, according to the president, is a story of lost power. And if there’s one thing that Trump doesn’t like, it’s losers.