Mouz

Why some Dems are standing by Israel

· Vox

Demonstrators hold US and Israeli flags during a rally in Central Park on March 10, 2024 in New York City. | Noam Galai/Getty Images

Last week, House Democrats voted on an amendment that would have cut $3.3 billion in annual US military aid to Israel from a State Department funding bill. The amendment was brought to the floor by Rep. Thomas Massie, an outgoing Republican from Kentucky. It failed 314-104, but 103 Democrats — nearly half of the House Democratic caucus — supported it, signaling a significant shift in the party’s longstanding support for aid to Israel.

Visit saltysenoritaaz.org for more information.

In 2024, a similar vote came up in the House to cut military aid to Israel. Then, just 37 House Democrats voted for the measure. Now, two years later, 103 House Democrats voted to cut funding. That shift in support was accelerated after the October 7 Hamas attacks and Israel’s subsequent military campaign in Gaza, which has killed large numbers of Palestinian civilians. The debate is also playing out in Democratic primaries across the country. In New York and Colorado, Democratic socialist candidates who have sharply criticized Israel and opposed continued US military aid recently won House primaries.

Historically, Jewish Americans have overwhelmingly identified with and voted for the Democratic Party, while Democratic lawmakers have generally supported Israel and US military assistance to the country. In 2016, the Obama administration signed a 10-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Israel, committing the US to seek $38 billion in military assistance for fiscal years 2019 through 2028. Congress must vote to approve this funding, so the shift in Democratic support of Israel could have real consequences.

There is still a very strong support for Israel among many House Democrats, but the shifting views are notable. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries opposed the Massie amendment, arguing that it was overly broad and could jeopardize humanitarian assistance. But in a letter addressed to his House colleagues he also called for a “major reset” in US policy toward what he described as Israel’s “far-right Netanyahu government.”

Today, Explained host Sean Rameswaram spoke with Democratic Rep. Brad Schneider, who represents Illinois’s 10th Congressional District, and remains a strong supporter of Israel.

Below is an excerpt of the conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify

Can you walk us through last week’s vote? You voted against the measure to cut aid to Israel, and a lot of your colleagues obviously did not. How did that play out for you?

Growing up in the ’60s, ’70s, and for the last 65 years, I fundamentally believe that the US-Israel relationship is important. I also believe that the aspiration for peace in the Middle East, not just between Israelis and Palestinians, but broadly throughout the region, is something that is in the United States’ interest and the interest of the people in the region. So this is not a new issue to me, and it’s something I thought long and hard about. 

Tom Massie doesn’t believe any of that. His intentions with this amendment were anything but pure. It was hastily crafted and poorly written. And one of the biggest issues with it is not only does it [not] address this 10-year memorandum of understanding, something negotiated by President Obama eight years ago, but there are also two years left on the MOU

It was a messaging bill and nothing more, and it was a negative message. I voted no because I think if we’re going to move toward peace, we need to do so in a constructive way. A lot of my colleagues were saying we need to send a message to the Netanyahu government.

“I have to hold onto that optimism for the prospects of peace because the alternative is too dark.“

I’ve been extremely critical of this government, their failure to address the settler violence in the West Bank, the failure to plan for a day-after in Gaza following what was a horrific war. If we’re going to move towards peace, if we’re going to find a path where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side and the region can have the peace they deserve. Because we’re not just talking about Israelis and Palestinians, there’s progress being made between Lebanon and Israel in giving Lebanon, the people of Lebanon, the liberty and freedom they all deserve. 

Can I ask you if you still take money from AIPAC? And if so, how much?

I appreciate the support I get from people who care about the issues that I advocate for. So people who are pro-Israel, pro-US-Israel relationship are likely to support me because I’m pro-US-Israel, pro-US-Israel relationship. I’m also pro-addressing gun safety and reducing gun violence in this country. So I get the support of those groups. The support I get doesn’t determine my positions. I think my positions determine who supports me. 

Has your position on Israel shifted at all since October 7th, or at any point in your political career? And if so, can you tell us how?

So my position hasn’t changed because I’ve always been committed to promoting peace between Israelis and Palestinians and finding a path where both can live together, which I believe ultimately is two states: a Jewish democratic state of Israel, and a Palestinian state 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’s the US ambassador to Israel, whom I’ve had the privilege of working with many times, or my meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I’ve had an engagement with the prime minister going back now for almost 30 years. But in the last several years, every single conversation I have with them talks about the need to address settler violence, the need to get humanitarian aid.

One of the things that I am proud of and will say loudly and proudly is that immediately after October 7th, as the war began, my team and I worked hard to push for humanitarian aid into Gaza to do everything we could to make sure that the civilians who were always caught in the middle of any war wouldn’t suffer more than they did. And the suffering was horrific. And I did challenge Israel when they made what I’ll call ill-conceived, ill-advised, in some cases illegal decisions to deprive humanitarian relief from entering Gaza. We pushed hard, and we worked with the Egyptians to get the Rafah crossing open. We pushed the Israelis to open the Karam Shalom crossing. And to not just get aid to those crossings, but get aid into and across the territories within Gaza.

Why are you so optimistic about the situation? 

I am always going to be optimistic. I have to hold onto that optimism for the prospects of peace because the alternative is too dark. And let’s separate the issue for folks living in the region and the folks living here. And for the Israelis and Palestinians, these are two peoples who are totally traumatized — traumatized not just over the last couple of years, but for decades. So I recognize the trauma that Israelis have and are experiencing, and I recognize the trauma that the Palestinians have and are experiencing. And that’s part of what I feel is my obligation: to hold onto that optimism and speak to a better future and work to try to find ways to bring the parties on both sides of the issue together to make the hard choices and take the risk to get to a path to peace.

So the reason I’m holding onto optimism — and it’s not 24/7; I have my moments when I am down and where I feel like the hill we’re climbing is just too steep — is you take a deep breath and you dig deep, and you say, I can’t give up on hoping and working towards peace because otherwise peace is never going to happen. And I want to find people who are like-minded.

And that is not just on the Israeli side of the equation. We have to find people on the Palestinian side, and for those on the Palestinian side, we have to find Israelis. And I meet, and I spend time with them on a regular basis. They come to my office. When I’m in the region, I talk to them. We have to strengthen and empower those voices who believe that peace will only come when the Israelis see the Palestinians as a people worthy of engagement and a shared future, and the Palestinians see the Israeli as a people worthy of engagement and a shared future, and recognize that until they get there, there’s no future for either side. We’ve got to have a path where both are pointing in the same direction.

Read full story at source

Who are India's top medal contenders in Commonwealth Games?

· India Today

Why Michigan should look outside for its next leader

· Yahoo Sports

The University of Michigan will be in search of a new athletic director, with Warde Manuel stepping down at the end of the year. That gives the maize and blue some time to find the next option to lead the charge of intercollegiate athletics for perhaps a decade or more. But who will it be and what will they bring to the table? After all, college athletics have changed greatly, even from the time Manuel took over the reins in 2016 to now.

Visit syntagm.co.za for more information.

One thing that enigmatic CFB media personality Josh Pate believes is that Michigan shouldn't be thinking too inside the box as the program has tended to. After all, the Wolverines haven't had an AD without a Michigan degree since Jack Weidenbach, who served from 1991-93, and was preceded by Bo Schembechler, who went to Miami (Ohio) and Ohio State before ending up in Ann Arbor as coach and then athletic director.

Pate appeared on The Rich Eisen Show on Tuesday and shared how, much like the maize and blue may have fallen upward going from Sherrone Moore to Kyle Whittingham, such could be the case now if the university is smart about it.

"Here's what I hope for Michigan: what I appreciate about Michigan that's in short supply elsewhere in college football is they really, really appreciate their tradition," Pate said. "They really cling to it. Again, I don't blame them for it. I actually credit them for that. The one downside is when you cling to that tradition too much, you can almost close yourself off from the world, and you can make your athletic department, you can make your football program feel more like pond water than a lake that's got tributaries and streams coming into it, and you got new hires from outside with fresh ideas. Instead, it's just all Michigan all the time. And there's some good to that and there's some bad to that. 

"And one of the bads is when it comes time to hire a coach or an AD in this case, is it let's go find the best candidate out there or let's go find the best candidate that is Michigan because that greatly dilutes your pool of candidates. And so if there's a lesson to be learned from this, well, as it relates to the future, if there's a lesson to be learned from it, I hope it's that Michigan understands it's not the worst thing in the world to open the gate sometimes. Don't break the gate down, but open it sometimes. Because sometimes there are people who are very, very tailor-made to lead your program, athletic department, et cetera, that they may reside in Boise, Idaho. They may reside in Tucson, Arizona. Bama learned that, and they went and hired Nick Saban. I think it took Alabama going through some really tough times to do that. I think Penn State had to go through some really tough times before they finally looked external, and it paid off for them.

"And so, look, this may end up being that you and I are talking five years from now and we're saying, oh, some of that sucked, but it ended up being such a blessing in disguise for Michigan because look what we got here now. Look who we got here now. Would we ever have gone down this road if our hand wasn't forced? And so that's the great, remains-to-be-seen part here."

Manuel will be on until the end of the year, as noted. His ousting comes in the aftermath of the Jenner & Block investigation, one that Michigan essentially summarized but didn't detail specifics. His ability to remain in the role for the next five months indicates that there's no 'smoking gun' that led to his dismissal, as much as it was a series of missteps that ultimately did him in.

This article originally appeared on Wolverines Wire: Why Michigan should look outside for its next leader

Read full story at source