(JTA) — A majority of House Democrats voting on Wednesday approved Rep. Thomas Massie’s amendment to cut military aid to Israel.
The amendment was soundly defeated with virtually no support from Republicans, with the exception of its sponsor, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a maverick who has made his disagreement with his party on Israel a signature issue.
A number of progressive groups pointed to the widespread support among Democrats as a sign that the U.S.-Israel relationship is in need of a fundamental change.
“This is a moment that signifies an end to the era of paying lip service to the need to change the reality in the region,” the liberal Jewish Middle East policy group J Street wrote in a statement.
The amendment, which proposed cutting $3.3 billion in military aid to Israel, split Democratic House members as well as party leadership. 103 voted in favor while 98 voted against, with another 10 abstaining. There are 212 Democrats currently in the House.
ADVERTISEMENT
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York opposed the amendment, though he called for a “change in direction” in the American-Israeli relationship. Rep. Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, the minority whip and the party’s number two House member, supported it.
The vote is the latest reflection of how American military support for Israel has plunged in popularity among Democratic voters and their representatives. Earlier this year, all but seven Senate Democrats voted in favor of a Bernie Sanders-led resolution to block certain weapons sales to Israel.
Massie’s amendment also received broader support than the separate Block the Bombs Act, which would prohibit the sale of certain weapons to Israel and has gradually gained support among House Democrats, with 77 of them now co-sponsoring the legislation.
The Republican Jewish Coalition celebrated the amendment being blocked and criticized the Democratic party, writing that “vociferous hostility to Israel is not the fringe, it is their future.”
“Make no mistake, Thomas Massie is a voice of one in the Republican Party,” the RJC wrote in a statement. Massie was the only Republican to vote in favor of his amendment, with the other 215 voting against. “He is a lame duck outlier, and the Republican majority left no doubt about where our party stands: resolutely with the Jewish state.”
A handful of progressive challengers with sharply critical Israel stances have won Democratic congressional primaries during this year’s midterms. The Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project, a pro-Palestinian advocacy group, warned that Democrats who voted against Massie’s amendment would also face challengers down the road.
“Any Democrat who continues to stand with AIPAC’s fringe agenda of funding to Israel, and against their voters on the moral issue of our time, is inviting a primary challenge,” the group wrote.
New York Rep. Pat Ryan, notably a moderate, wrote on Wednesday afternoon that he voted in support of the amendment, and that he does not want AIPAC’s endorsement and would be returning its funds.
A number of Democrats put out statements saying that they voted in favor of the amendment, but would continue to support subsidies for defensive weapons. (Massie’s amendment did not target the $500 million designated for missile defense programs like the Iron Dome.)
J Street did not support the amendment, calling it “overly broad” and a “poorly drafted political stunt designed to divide Democrats.” Nonetheless, the group wrote that it welcomed “House Democratic leadership taking a stronger stance on using U.S. leverage to pressure the Israeli government to change course.”
Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, wrote in a statement that Republicans pushed the vote forward as “a cynical political ploy,” and that “Republicans and Democrats alike — even many of those who voted for it — haven’t turned their back on Israel, recognizing there’s a distinction between the people of Israel and the current Israeli government.”
New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, who is Congress’ most senior Jewish member, did not vote but told The Hill last month that it was “poorly drafted.” He added that it would have unintended consequences such as eliminating funding for U.S. Embassy operations in the country.
Clark, the minority whip, had similar misgivings to Nadler, calling it “overly broad.” Nonetheless, she wrote earlier on Wednesday that she would be voting yes — “not because I agree with the entirety of the amendment, or the GOP’s cynical motivations for its consideration, but because I believe we must change course.”
