House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries speaks at a Capitol Hill press conference.Jeffries and Clark Split as 103 Democrats Vote to Cut Israel Aid
Intra-Party Split Detected
House Democrats were nearly evenly split, with 103 (including Whip Katherine Clark and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi) voting for Massie's amendment to cut Israel aid, while 98 (including leader Hakeem Jeffries) voted against it and 10 voted present — exposing a deep rift between progressive and establishment/centrist Democrats over Israel policy.
Left says
- •Over 100 House Democrats voting to cut aid reflects a genuine sea change in the party's base, driven by horror at the scale of death and destruction in Gaza and Lebanon under Netanyahu's government.
- •Even long-time staunch Israel defenders like Nancy Pelosi and Whip Katherine Clark concluded that unconditional military aid can no longer continue given how it has been used, without abandoning support for Israel's security or a two-state solution.
- •The vote is understood as a message to Netanyahu specifically, not a rejection of Israel itself, aimed at pressuring a change in course from a far-right government many see as isolating Israel internationally.
- •Progressive lawmakers frame this as accountability for how taxpayer dollars are spent, arguing there should be no blank check for any country, including Israel, that may violate U.S. law or values.
Right says
- •The vote reveals a dramatic and alarming shift among Democrats away from historic bipartisan support for Israel, with critics linking it to a broader retreat from defending Jewish communities amid rising antisemitism.
- •Rep. Massie's amendment was deliberately broad, cutting off all funding including humanitarian and diplomatic aid, which even many Democrats who voted for it admitted was poorly drafted or a political stunt.
- •Republicans largely stayed unified in support of Israel, with Massie the lone GOP defector, framing Israel as a strong, self-sufficient ally that has been a top recipient of U.S. foreign aid for decades.
- •Some Democrats privately admitted they voted yes not on the merits but out of fear of primary challenges from the left, suggesting the vote reflects political pressure more than policy conviction.
Common Take
High Consensus- The amendment failed decisively, 314-104, with 103 Democrats and Massie voting yes and 10 members voting present.
- Both sides recognize the vote as a symbolic marker of a real and significant shift in the politics surrounding U.S. support for Israel.
- Jeffries and Clark, the top two House Democratic leaders, publicly split on the vote, an unusual and notable break in caucus leadership.
- There is agreement that the amendment as written was overly broad, lacking carve-outs for humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement, or embassy operations.
The Arguments
Left argues
The vote of 103 Democrats, including institutionalists like Pelosi and Clark, reflects a genuine and growing conviction that unconditional aid cannot continue given the scale of death in Gaza and Lebanon, without abandoning support for Israel's security itself.
Right counters
If this were a principled policy shift rather than political pressure, Democrats would have drafted a targeted amendment addressing military aid specifically, rather than voting for a bill they themselves called 'poorly drafted' and admitted would gut humanitarian and diplomatic funding.
Right argues
The Massie amendment was a blunt, poorly drafted instrument that cut off all funding including humanitarian aid and diplomatic operations, and even many Democrats who voted for it admitted it was a GOP stunt rather than serious policy — undermining the claim this was a thoughtful, values-driven vote.
Left counters
Voting yes despite the amendment's flaws was itself the message: lawmakers like Clark explicitly said they weren't endorsing the bill's design but signaling that the status quo of unconditional aid is no longer tenable, which is a legitimate use of a blunt instrument when no better vehicle was offered.
Right argues
Reporting shows some Democrats privately admitted they voted yes primarily out of fear of primary challenges from the left rather than policy conviction, suggesting the vote reflects intra-party political pressure more than a genuine ideological realignment.
Left counters
Even if political pressure played a role, that pressure itself is evidence of a real base-level shift — elected officials respond to their constituents, and the fact that primary threats now come from being 'insufficiently critical of Israel' rather than the reverse is itself the sea change the left points to.
Left argues
Progressives frame this as basic fiscal and legal accountability — no country, including Israel, should get a blank check of military aid that may be used in violation of U.S. law or human rights standards, a principle Democrats apply elsewhere in foreign policy.
Right counters
Applying that accountability standard by voting for an amendment that also strips humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians and refugee resettlement funding undercuts the stated humanitarian rationale, since it would harm the very people Democrats claim to be protecting.
Right argues
Republicans remained almost entirely unified in defending a longstanding bipartisan ally with Massie as the lone GOP defector, reinforcing that Israel remains strong and self-sufficient and doesn't need conditional aid debates driven by domestic political trends.
Left counters
Republican unity doesn't address the substance of Democrats' concern — that the Netanyahu government's specific conduct, not Israel's existence or strength, is what's driving the shift, and unconditional support regardless of conduct is precisely what critics say has isolated Israel internationally.
Challenge Questions
These questions target genuine internal contradictions — meant to provoke honest reflection.
Right asks Left
“If the goal was truly to send Netanyahu a targeted message about military conduct while preserving humanitarian and diplomatic support, why did 103 Democrats vote for an amendment they publicly admitted was poorly drafted and would cut off exactly the humanitarian aid they claim to want to protect?”
Left asks Right
“If Republicans believe this vote reflects dangerous political opportunism rather than sincere policy conviction, why did GOP leadership bring a bill to the floor that even Democratic critics like Jeffries said was designed as a trap to divide Democrats rather than to advance a serious policy outcome?”
Outlier Report
Left Fringe
Progressive Caucus members like Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, along with commentators who frame this as 'complicity in genocide,' represent roughly 15-20% of the left pushing for total aid cutoff regardless of amendment drafting quality.
Right Fringe
Figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene and some America First commentators who oppose all foreign aid (aligning oddly with Massie) represent a small 5-10% fringe that breaks from mainstream GOP pro-Israel consensus, while Sen. John Fetterman represents a Democrat amplifying the 'antisemitism' framing more aggressively than most centrist Democrats.
Sources (10)
<p>A measure to prevent any State Department funding <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/07/14/israel-aid-vote-house-massie-amendment-jeffries" target="_blank">from going to Israel</a> failed by a decisive margin in a House vote on Wednesday.</p><p><strong>Why it matters: </strong>The vote exposed deep divisions among House Democrats, with even <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/07/15/israel-vote-house-massie-amendment-clark-jeffries" target="_blank">the party's top two leaders</a> taking divergent positions.</p><hr /><ul><li>House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and 97 other Democrats voted against the amendment, along with 215 Republicans.</li><li>But Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) — along with 102 other Democrats and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the measure's sponsor — voted for it.</li></ul><p><strong>By the numbers</strong>: The amendment to the State Department funding bill ultimately failed in a 104-314 vote, with 10 members voting "present."</p><p><strong>Catch up quick: </strong>At issue for many Democrats was that the amendment made no carveout to protect non-military funding.</p><ul><li>Jeffries and many other Democrats who opposed it said they could not vote to cut off diplomatic funding — even if they may have issues with continued military aid to Israel.</li><li>But others, including Clark, said they felt compelled to vote for the amendment as a signal to Israel that their actions in Gaza and Lebanon have been unacceptable.</li></ul><p><strong>Between the lines: </strong>Many Democrats felt political pressure to vote for the measure despite misgivings about its substance.</p><ul><li>Lawmakers noted that several incumbents have already been <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/07/01/melat-kiros-colorado-degette-democrats-reaction" target="_blank">ousted this year</a> by left-wing primary challengers who said they were insufficiently critical of Israel.</li></ul><p><strong>The bottom line:</strong> "The vote reflected a real antipathy toward Israel among the Democratic base," Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs during the Obama administration, told Axios. "The base wants to terminate any relationship with Israel and that will only grow in the next Congress. It's really stunning and it's not going away."</p>
<p>House Democrats' internal split over a vote to <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/07/14/israel-aid-vote-house-massie-amendment-jeffries" target="_blank">cut off U.S. aid to Israel</a> has extended to leadership, with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) planning to vote differently.</p><p><strong>Why it matters: </strong>Such a divergence between the caucus' top two leaders is exceedingly rare and underscores just how much anxiety this vote is giving some in the party.</p><hr /><ul><li>Many House Democrats have substantive misgivings but plan to vote for the measure anyway due to <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/06/24/mamdani-lander-valdez-chevalier-espaillat-goldman" target="_blank">growing political pressure</a> from the left. </li><li>"There are going to be people within our own party trying to drag us over the coals," one House Democrat told Axios on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly about the political pressures undergirding their vote.</li><li>"So you don't get to a place of like, 'Okay ... it isn't good for us to vote for an amendment that is poorly drafted and has all kinds of unanticipated consequences,'" the lawmaker added.</li></ul><p><strong>Driving the news: </strong>Clark said in a statement Wednesday morning that she will vote for an amendment to a State Department funding bill proposed by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to block any of the money from going to Israel.</p><ul><li>"It is clear that the status quo is not tenable. We should not provide a blank check for military aid to any country that does not comply with U.S. law, interests, and values," the No. 2 House Democrat said.</li><li>Clark said she "will 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."</li></ul><p><strong>State of play: </strong>Jeffries said Tuesday he planned to vote against the amendment but that his team would not be whipping it and that members were free to vote their consciences.</p><ul><li>He wrote in a letter to colleagues that while "a meaningful change in direction is needed" for the U.S.-Israel relationship, "there are more decisive ways to achieve the urgent change necessary when it comes to the far-right Netanyahu government."</li><li>Members tell Axios the vote could split the 212-member caucus squarely down the middle, with estimates ranging from 100 to 150 votes in favor of the amendment.</li></ul><p><strong>Between the lines: </strong>At issue for many Democrats is that the Massie amendment includes no carveout for non-military aid.</p><ul><li>The measure, Clark said in her statement, "blocks all foreign aid to Israel, including humanitarian funding from Palestinian refugees and civilians in Gaza."</li><li>She added: "This is not an attempt to have a serious and necessary debate about offensive military aid to Israel. It's more stunts from Congressional Republicans who would rather score cheap political points than lead."</li></ul><p><strong>The bottom line: </strong>For many Democrats, this is simply about avoiding anger from the left — and a <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/07/01/melat-kiros-colorado-degette-democrats-reaction" target="_blank">potential primary challenge</a>.</p><ul><li>The House Democrat who spoke anonymously said the expectation is that the grassroots will "absolutely" punish anyone who votes against the measure.</li><li>"Even if it doesn't make any sense, even if it's poorly drafted, even if there's no precedent for anything like this — you can't message that."</li></ul>
<p>An upcoming House vote on a measure <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/06/30/israel-aid-vote-house-democrats-massie-gaza" target="_blank">blocking U.S. aid to Israel</a> has Democrats divided over how far they should go to signal displeasure with the Netanyahu government.</p><p><strong>Why it matters: </strong>The vote is revealing just how much anxiety Democratic lawmakers have about the growing anti-Israel sentiments coming from their grassroots base.</p><hr /><ul><li>"Even I'm a lean yes and think it's a crappy amendment," said one House Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity to offer candid thoughts on their vote.</li><li>"For me, it's more of a signal that something needs to change and we can't just provide aid despite how it's being used," the lawmaker said, predicting "at least 40" of their colleagues will vote for the measure.</li><li>Said a second Democrat who is leaning towards voting for the measure: "The Jewish caucus is completely split. Some people are voting yes, some voting no, some voting present. All of it is bad. Every option is bad."</li></ul><p><strong>Driving the news: </strong>The House is scheduled to vote this week on Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-Ky.) amendment to a State Department funding bill that would prohibit any of the money from going to Israel.</p><ul><li>The measure — which does not make any carveout for non-military aid — has been the subject of frenzied internal discussion among House Democrats for weeks.</li><li>House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) announced in Democrats' closed-door caucus meeting Tuesday morning that he would vote against the amendment, according to several lawmakers who were present.</li></ul><p><strong>What they're saying: </strong>In a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28475648-jeffries-dear-colleague-july-14-2026/" target="_blank">letter</a> to colleagues obtained by Axios, Jeffries said the "overly broad" amendment would limit funding for "humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement, peace-building and U.S. Embassy operations."</p><ul><li>He also warned that it would "restrict our country's ability to confront Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations in the region who are sworn enemies of both the United States and Israel."</li><li>"In my view, there are more decisive ways to achieve the urgent change necessary when it comes to the far-right Netanyahu government," the Democratic leader wrote.</li><li>House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), asked if she is following Jeffries' lead, told Axios: "We as a team are evaluating where we are on that."</li></ul><p><strong>Zoom out: </strong>Centrist, pro-Israel Democrats cheered Jeffries for taking what they said is a brave and much-needed stand against the <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/06/24/mamdani-lander-valdez-chevalier-espaillat-goldman" target="_blank">growing influence</a> of the party's pro-Palestinian wing.</p><ul><li>"He was courageous this morning," Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) commented to his staff as he was leaving the Tuesday morning meeting.</li><li>Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) told Axios: "That's called putting principle and what's best for America's national security ahead of finger in the wind politics."</li></ul><p><strong>The other side: </strong>Progressive Caucus chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) told Axios he still plans to vote for the amendment and expects a "very sizable number of people [to] vote for the Massie amendment if it comes up this week."</p><ul><li>"I simply think that a 'yes' vote ... is what clearly signals that the Netanyahu government's actions are unacceptable," Casar added.</li><li>The Democrat who spoke anonymously said "some will vote 'yes' to signal their opposition to unconditional [foreign military financing] and support for stronger oversight of how U.S. security assistance is used."</li></ul><p><strong>Reality check: </strong>The amendment has little chance of passing the House given largely unified Republican support for Israel. It would have an even tougher time getting through the Senate.</p><ul><li>Democrats are instead approaching this as a symbolic vote, with some arguing that GOP leaders would only bring it to a vote as a political trap.</li><li>"The Republicans don't like Massie, but they let this bill go because that could divide us," House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.) told Axios.</li></ul><p><strong>Between the lines: </strong>Jeffries made clear Democratic leadership isn't whipping the vote, instead letting lawmakers vote their conscience.</p><ul><li>J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami <a href="https://jstreet.org/press-releases/j-street-statement-on-massie-amendment/" target="_blank">said</a> he and his group "support Leader Jeffries' decision to oppose the amendment while not whipping against it" and recognizes that many Democrats want to express opposition to how U.S. military aid to Israel is being used.</li><li>"Members may reasonably conclude that voting no, present or yes is the best way to reflect those competing concerns," he said.</li></ul><p><strong>The intrigue: </strong>Jeffries signaled openness to conditioning U.S. aid to Israel moving forward, writing in his letter that "a meaningful change in direction is needed" as the two nations prepare to negotiate a new memorandum of understanding.</p><ul><li>"Any future security arrangement between our two countries should ... strictly adhere to our human rights laws and values," he said.</li><li>Casar said those comments are encouraging but that "the details are going to matter."</li></ul><p><em>Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional lawmaker comment. It has been corrected to quote Casar as saying that a vote in favor of Massie's amendment "signals that the Netanyahu government's actions are unacceptable" (not acceptable). </em></p>
<img src="https://www.theblaze.com/media-library/house-vote-exposes-democrat-rift-over-israel-aid-as-massie-remains-a-party-of-one.jpg?id=67481595&width=1245&height=700&coordinates=0%2C15%2C0%2C194" /><br /><br /><p>Support for Israel is seemingly becoming a partisan issue in Congress.</p><p>On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives rejected an amendment that would have <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-democratic-leaders-split-us-aid-israel-public-opinion-shifts-rcna587681" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><u>eliminated $3.3 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel</u></a>. But the vote count told its own story: Nearly half the Democratic Caucus broke from party leadership to support it, while Republicans stayed almost entirely unified against it.</p><p class="pull-quote">'They're the biggest welfare recipient of the United States and have been for many years.'</p><p>The <a href="https://www.congress.gov/amendment/119th-congress/house-amendment/235?s=a&r=5" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><u>amendment</u></a> to the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for 2027, sponsored by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), would have barred any funds in the bill from being spent on Israel.</p><p>Ahead of the vote, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) laid out his position in a <a href="https://democraticleader.house.gov/media/press-releases/dear-colleague-massie-amendment-and-us-policy-middle-east" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><u>"Dear Colleague" letter</u></a>: He would vote no because the amendment was "overly broad," warning it would also cut off funding for humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement, and embassy operations and make it harder to counter Hamas and Hezbollah.</p><p>House Democratic Whip Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.) broke with Jeffries publicly. In <a href="https://democraticwhip.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/whip-clark-statement-on-massie-amendment-to-gop-foreign-aid-budget-bill" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><u>her statement</u></a>, she agreed that the amendment was "overly broad" and called it "stunts from congressional Republicans who would rather score cheap political points than lead" — but reached the opposite conclusion.</p><p>"However, it is clear that the status quo is not tenable. We should not provide a blank check for military aid to any country that does not comply with U.S. law, interests, and values," Clark said. "The Netanyahu government has failed to meet that standard. I will be voting yes ... because I believe we must change course."</p><p><strong><span></span>RELATED: </strong><strong><a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/democrat-congressman-s-israel-trip-takes-dramatic-turn-as-officials-dispute-viral-claims">Democrat congressman's Israel trip takes dramatic turn as officials dispute viral claims</a></strong></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image image-crop-16x9"> <img alt="" class="rm-shortcode" id="912c8" src="https://www.theblaze.com/media-library/image.jpg?id=67481622&width=1245&height=700&quality=50&coordinates=0%2C209%2C0%2C0" /> <small class="image-media media-photo-credit">ierney L. Cross/Bloomberg/Getty Images</small></p><p>In the end, <a href="https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2026243" target="_blank"><u>103 Democrats joined Massie in voting yes</u></a> — including <a href="https://pelosi.house.gov/news/press-releases/pelosi-statement-massie-amendment-8" target="_blank"><u>former Speaker Nancy Pelosi</u></a> (D-Calif.), who said she remains "committed to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship and supportive of a two-state solution," but that the amendment "presents an unfortunate choice to the House."</p><p>Ninety-eight Democrats joined 215 Republicans in voting no; Massie, who recently lost his House seat in the <a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/massie-vs-gallrein-whats-the-skinny-on-the-most-expensive-house-primary-in-us-history" target="_self"><u>most expensive House primary in U.S. history</u></a>, was the only Republican in favor. The measure failed 104-314.</p><p>In the floor debate ahead of the vote, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khwmtuVklpg" target="_blank">Massie argued</a> that the money would be better spent at home — on roads, bridges, and homeless veterans — before calling Israel "the biggest welfare recipient of the United States," citing <a href="https://www.cfr.org/articles/us-aid-israel-four-charts" target="_blank">$310 billion in inflation-adjusted aid</a> received over the years from American taxpayers.</p><p><strong><span></span>RELATED: </strong><a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/trump-iran-war-resolution-house"><strong>4 Republicans vote with Democrats to rebuke Trump on Iran war</strong></a></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image image-crop-16x9"> <img alt="" class="rm-shortcode" id="21b6f" src="https://www.theblaze.com/media-library/image.jpg?id=67481506&width=1245&height=700&quality=50&coordinates=0%2C524%2C0%2C-2" /> <small class="image-media media-photo-credit">Jon Cherry/Getty Images</small></p><p>"Israel has the strongest economy in the Middle East," he said. "Their debt per GDP is in much better shape than ours. They don't need our money." </p><p>Then he circled back to the word himself: "In fact, they've claimed recently they want to get off of the welfare, but I'm concerned that the other funding mechanisms they're talking about — <a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/congress-may-be-quietly-seeking-to-integrate-us-and-israeli-militaries-but-critics-have-taken-notice" target="_self"><u>commingling our technology and supply chains</u></a> — will have even less transparency than what's going on here today."</p><p>Massie was careful to frame the measure as part of his broader principle: "I'm opposed to all foreign aid. I didn't pick on Israel here. I've offered an amendment to defund Egypt and also to defund the aid to Jordan … but I am particularly concerned this year about the foreign aid to Israel."</p><p>That concern, he said, came down to the war itself: “American taxpayers should not be conscripted into funding the military adventures of Israel," he said, urging the adoption of his amendment.</p><p><em>Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. </em><em><a href="https://www.theblaze.com/newsletters/theblaze-articlelink" target="_self">Sign up here</a></em><em>!</em><br /></p>
<p>During an interview aired on Thursday’s broadcast of Newsmax TV’s “The Record,” Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) said that he has been warning that Democrats “are going to back, back, back, back away from Israel and not defend the Jewish community</p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2026/07/16/fetterman-vote-against-israel-aid-manifestation-of-dems-backing-away-from-defending-jews-which-wont-stop/" rel="nofollow">Fetterman: Vote Against Israel Aid a ‘Manifestation’ of Dems Backing Away from Defending Jews, Which ‘Won’t Stop’</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.breitbart.com" rel="nofollow">Breitbart</a>.</p>
As we continue our conversation with Congressmember Pramila Jayapal, we turn to recent developments involving the United States military. On Wednesday, Jayapal was one of over half of all House Democrats to vote in favor eliminating over $3 billion in military aid to Israel. Although the proposed amendment was ultimately shot down, the final tally with over 100 members voting yes is still a “sea change” in U.S. political support for Israel, says Jayapal. Following Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, “it is the horror of what has unfolded that has finally allowed us to confront the fact that we should not be using taxpayer dollars to send to Israel to perpetrate this kind of violence.”</p> <p>Jayapal also responds to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s new order mandating testosterone testing and offering testosterone replacement therapy for servicemembers aged 30 and over. “Providing testosterone is actually gender affirming care,” Jayapal remarks. Last year, Hegseth ordered a halt to all gender-affirming medical procedures for military servicemembers and banned openly trans people from service. These actions are “intrusive behavior,” says Jayapal, “where the government is getting involved in prescribing what medication you do or don’t take, without your consent.”
The proposal won’t become law, but it signals an ongoing shift in Democratic support for Israel.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said Thursday that widespread Democratic support in the House for an amendment to cut off U.S. aid to Israel is “a sign of shifting perceptions.” “I was the only Republican to say that, you know, ‘Yes, we need to not send American tax dollars overseas,’” Massie said on MS NOW’s “Morning…
<p>John Nichols</p> <div><img alt="" src="https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/GettyImages-2278321754.jpg" /></div> <div> <div class="wp-block-the-nation-dek article-title__dek"> <p>Yet Democrats such as Haley Stevens, Angie Craig, Wesley Bell, and Greg Stanton are still voting for blank checks. Their primary rivals have something to say about that.</p> </div> </div> <p>The post <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democrats-israel-aid-vote-pelosi/">Even Nancy Pelosi Is Voting to Cut Aid to Israel Now</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.thenation.com">The Nation</a>.</p>
The symbolic vote showed how far Democratic politics on Israel have shifted, as progressive candidates turn anger over Gaza and U.S. military aid into a campaign issue.