Several House Democrats, including in leadership and top progressives, remain divided or notably noncommittal over whether Israel’s right to exist in safety and security should continue to be a policy position of the Democratic Party moving forward.
The official 2024 Democratic Party Platform, released by the DNC for former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris, stated that party leaders “believe a strong, secure, and democratic Israel is vital to the interests of the United States” and that the party’s “commitment to Israel’s security, its qualitative military edge, its right to defend itself … is ironclad.”
However, the Democratic Party has continued to face internal division over how to exercise that support, or to what extent that support should continue to exist at all.
When asked on Tuesday whether support for Israel’s right to exist in safety and security should continue to be an official policy position of the Democrat Party moving forward, House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) was noncommittal and avoided the question.
He instead told Jewish Insider that Democrats are “continuing to focus on driving down the high cost of living, fixing our broken healthcare system and cleaning up corruption in an environment where the Trump cartel is the most corrupt administration in American history.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) also did not provide a concrete answer, instead telling JI she is “less concerned with slogans” and more interested in “what it would mean in terms of policy.”
“I think what is being litigated, and what has been litigated, is that it’s a vague statement,” Ocasio-Cortez said on whether the Democratic Party should affirm Israel’s right to exist as an official platform position. “I’m less concerned with slogans and more about the United States’ commitment in honoring its own laws and defending and protecting human rights and preventing war, catastrophe and needless death across the board.”
Ocasio-Cortez said that the main “ideal” behind the party’s approach to Israel is that “Palestinians are safe, that Israelis are safe” and that conflict in the region is “de-escalated.”
“I think that when we start litigating phrases that are not attached to the material commitments, then we create a lot of conflict where there doesn’t need to be,” she added.
Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX), who chairs the House Progressive Caucus, said that the party’s position is clear on supporting the safety of Israeli civilians, but argued that there is a difference in providing funds to an Israeli government that some Democrats disagree with.
“Democrats have been very clear — every Democrat I’ve spoken to has been very clear that security, peace and safety for Israeli civilians is a priority and is our position,” Casar said. “It’s just that I don’t think that giving $3.3 billion in weaponry to the Netanyahu regime actually helps with that cause.”
Casar said he believes “deeply in the safety and security of everyday folks in Israel.”
“What I think is at issue here is the human rights violations that have occurred because of decisions by the Israeli government and the Israeli military, and the fact that I think America’s national security interests, as well as, in my view the security interests of everyday people in Israel … are being harmed by Netanyahu’s decisions.”
Meanwhile, other House Democrats expressed strong backing for continued support of Israel. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA), the No. 3 Democrat, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus, said support for Israel’s existence and security should “absolutely” remain part of the Democratic Party platform moving forward.
“I think that supporting a free Jewish state is important for Democrats and it’s important for our country,” Aguilar said. “Israel is a lone democracy in the region.”
“That doesn’t mean that we agree with everything that Israel is doing, and we shouldn’t sign onto a policy statement that says that, and we wouldn’t,” Aguilar continued. “But do they have a right to exist and defend themselves? Yes, but the manner in which they conduct [themselves] that matters a great deal to Democrats.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), similarly said: “Absolutely, of course it should be.” He criticized “right-wing politics and right-wing government” for having “undermined” Israel. “We’ve got to stand up for the democratic forces in Israel and against all of that reactionary politics.”
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) stated that while “everybody [in congress] … all have their own individual opinion” on the subject, he believes that “Israel has a right to exist” and that “[Israel’s] security should be ensured.” Still, the Massachusetts congressman issued sharp criticism of the Jewish state’s handling of the war in Gaza and said the Democratic party platform should “stand loud for human rights.”
“I also believe that what Netanyahu is doing against Palestinians are war crimes and they need to stop,” McGovern said. “So I think we need to, in our party platform, make it clear that we stand loud for human rights, that we are committed to the human rights of every single individual on this planet.”
A Pew Research Center poll published in April of this year found that 8 in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents responded as having an unfavorable view of Israel. Among Democrats 76% of those 50 years or older hold unfavorable views of Israel, while 84% of Democrats 18-to-49 years old held negative views.
Earlier this year, the DNC referred a resolution on Israel – which would have labeled the Jewish state’s actions in Gaza as a genocide and called for conditioning U.S. military aid to Israel – to a working group on the Middle East.
Leave a Reply