last week, House Democrats voted on the amendment which would cut $3.3 billion in annual US military aid to Israel from the State Department’s funding bill. The amendment was originally introduced by Representative Thomas Massie, the outgoing Republican from Kentucky. It failed 314-104, but 103 Democrats — nearly half of the House Democratic caucus — voted in favor, signaling a strong influence. a change in the party’s long-term support for support for Israel.
In 2024, a similar vote came up in the House of Commons to cut military aid to Israel. Then, only 37 House Democrats voted for the measure. Now, two years later, 103 House Democrats voted to cut funding. The shift in support was accelerated after Hamas’ October 7 attacks and Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, which has resulted in the deaths of many Palestinians. The debate is also playing out in Democratic primaries across the country. In New York and Colorado, Democratic Socialist candidates are gaining momentum criticized Israel and those opposed to continued US military aid recently won the House primaries.
Historically, Jewish Americans have overwhelmingly identified and voted for the Democratic Party, while Democratic lawmakers have generally supported Israeli and American military aid to the country. In 2016, the Obama administration signature 10-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Israel, pledging the United States to seek $38 billion in military aid for fiscal years 2019 to 2028. Congress must vote to approve this funding, so that the shift in Democratic support for Israel can have real results.
There is still strong support for Israel among many House Democrats, but changing views are evident. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries opposed Massie’s amendment, argue that it was overly broad and could jeopardize humanitarian assistance. But in a letter addressing his fellow Council members he also called for a “renewal” in US policy toward what he described as “Netanyahu’s right-wing Israeli government.”
Today, It’s Explained host Sean Rameswaram spoke to Democratic Rep. Brad Schneiderwho represents the 10th District of Illinois, and remains a staunch supporter of Israel.
Below is an excerpt of the conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s a lot more in the full podcast, so take a listen Today, It’s Explained wherever you find podcasts, incl Apple Podcasts, Pandoraand Spotify.
Can you take us through last week’s poll? You voted against the measure to cut aid to Israel, and many of your colleagues did not. How did that play out for you?
I grew up in the ’60s, ’70s, and for the last 65 years, I believe fundamentally that the US-Israel relationship is important. I also believe that the prospect of peace in the Middle East, not only between Israelis and Palestinians, but broadly throughout the region, is something that is in the interests of the United States and the interests of the people of the region. So this is not a new issue for me, and it is something that I have thought about for a long time.
Tom Massie doesn’t believe any of that. His intentions with this amendment were not pure. It was hastily created and poorly written. And one of the biggest issues is not only (not) addressing this 10-year memorandum of understanding, something that President Obama negotiated eight years ago, but there are also two years left on the MOU.
It was a draft message and nothing more, and it was a negative message. I voted no because I think that if we are going to move towards peace, we need to do so in a constructive way. Many of my colleagues were saying that we need to send a message to the Netanyahu government.
“I have to hold on to that hope for the prospect of peace because the alternative is so dark.”
I have been very critical of this government, their failure to deal with settler violence in the West Bank, their failure to plan for the day after Gaza following the horrific war. If we move towards peace, if we find a way where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side and the region can have the peace it deserves. Because we are not only talking about Israelis and Palestinians; there is progress being made between Lebanon and Israel in giving Lebanon, the Lebanese people, the freedom and independence they all deserve.
Can I ask if you are still taking money from AIPAC? And if so, how much?
I appreciate the support I get from people who care about the issues I advocate for. So people who support Israel, pro-US-Israel relations are likely to support me because I am pro-US-Israel, pro-US-Israel relations. I also support addressing gun safety and reducing gun violence in this country. So I get the support of those groups. The help I get does not define my chances. I think my positions determine who supports me.
Has your position on Israel changed at all since October 7th, or at any point in your political career? And if so, can you tell us how?
Therefore, my position has not changed because I have always been committed to promoting peace between Israelis and Palestinians and finding a way that both can live together, which I believe is ultimately two nations: the Jewish democratic nation of Israel, and the Palestinian nation living side by side. My frustration with the current Israeli government has grown and continues to grow. Every conversation I have with them, whether it is the US ambassador to Israel, with whom I have had the opportunity to work many times, or my meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I have had a relationship with the prime minister going back almost 30 years. But in the last several years, every conversation I have with them talks about the need to deal with the settler violence, the need to get humanitarian aid.
One of the things that I am proud of and I will say loudly and proudly is that immediately after October 7, when the war started, my team and I worked hard to push humanitarian aid in Gaza to do everything we could to ensure that the civilians who were always caught in the middle of any war would not suffer more than they did. And the suffering was terrible. And I challenged Israel when they made what I would call ill-conceived, ill-advised, in some cases illegal decisions to deny them humanitarian aid into Gaza. We pushed hard, and worked with the Egyptians to open the Rafah crossing. We pushed the Israelis to open the Karam Shalom crossing. And not only to get help for those crossings, but to get help in and in Gaza.
Why are you so optimistic about the situation?
I will always have hope. I have to hold on to that hope in the hope of peace because the alternative is so dark. Let’s separate the issue for people who live in the region and people who live here. And for the Israelis and the Palestinians, these are two peoples who have been completely wounded – they have been wounded not just for the past few years, but for decades. So I recognize the trauma that the Israelis have and what they are experiencing, and I recognize the trauma that the Palestinians have and what they are experiencing. And that’s part of what I feel is my responsibility: to hold onto that hope and talk to a better future and work to try to find ways to bring both sides of the issue together to make the tough decisions and take the risk to find a way to peace.
So the reason I hold onto hope – and not 24/7; I have my moments when I’m down and where I feel like the hill we’re climbing is too steep – do you take a deep breath and dig deep, and you say, I cannot give up hope and work towards peace because otherwise peace will never happen. And I want to find like-minded people.
And that’s not just on the Israeli side of the equation. We have to find the people on the Palestinian side, and for the Palestinians, we have to find the Israelis. And I meet, and I spend time with them often. They come to my office. When I’m in the region, I always talk to them. We have to strengthen and enable those voices that believe that peace will come only when the Israelis see the Palestinians as people who deserve to be addressed with a common future, and the Palestinians see the Israelis as people who deserve to be addressed with a common future, and realize that until they get there, there is no future for both sides. We must have a path that both point in the same direction.
