Many Democrats embarrassed themselves by voting for Rep. Thomas Massie’s (R-Ky.) outrageous U.S. House of Representatives amendment to strip Israel of all American military assistance. The amendment failed, but every Congress member who supported it now owns that vote.
It is a stain on their record that will not easily be removed.
The Jewish community thought that some of them were friends. Sadly, that includes Rep. Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.), among others.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) deserves particular scrutiny because he did more than cast a vote. He publicly declared: “I’m voting yes on Rep. Thomas Massie’s amendment to zero out all aid to Israel, including aid for offensive and defensive weapons like the Iron Dome.”
That distinction matters.
Many simply cast their votes. Khanna publicly highlighted his opposition to defensive systems whose sole purpose is to stop rockets, missiles and drones from killing innocent civilians.
Massie’s amendment was a scorched-earth proposal. It sought to eliminate every dollar of American military assistance to Israel. There was no nuance, no effort to distinguish between offensive and defensive capabilities, no attempt to separate weapons used in combat from systems designed solely to protect civilians.
Members of Congress who routinely insist that the smallest distinction in legislation can justify an entirely different vote suddenly abandoned every pretense of nuance. Faced with an all-or-nothing proposal, they chose all or nothing.
This was not legislative precision. It was brazen political self-preservation. It reflected a willingness to sacrifice moral clarity to appease the far-left, anti-Israel wing of the Democratic Party.
The Iron Dome—developed jointly by Israel and the United States—intercepts rockets aimed at cities, schools, playgrounds, hospitals, houses of worship, civilian infrastructure and residential neighborhoods. It protects innocent Jews, Muslims, Christians, Arabs, residents and tourists—men, women and children from the indiscriminate attacks of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, the Houthis and other terrorist organizations.
Every intercepted missile is a funeral prevented.
Ironically, one of Iron Dome’s strongest champions was former President Barack Obama. At a time when Israel’s civilian population was under relentless rocket attack, he asked Congress to provide the funding that accelerated the system’s production and deployment because he understood that missile defense saves lives. He recognized that defending innocent civilians from indiscriminate rocket attacks was not a partisan issue. It was a humanitarian one.
How remarkable that some members of his own party now oppose funding the very defensive system their Democratic president helped bring to fruition.
Those U.S. representatives who deliberately voted to deny Israel funding for defensive systems should have to explain that vote to the American people.
These are the very technologies that Israel and the United States developed together to protect civilians from ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones and other indiscriminate attacks. The United States relies on similar missile defense capabilities to protect American forces, bases, allies and strategic interests throughout the Middle East and around the world. Democracies across the globe are racing to acquire these technologies because ballistic missiles and armed drones have become defining weapons of modern warfare.
Reasonable people can debate military strategy, diplomacy and the scope of American assistance to Israel. They can disagree over offensive military operations.
But there is a fundamental moral distinction between launching missiles at civilians and intercepting those missiles before they strike.
Anyone who cannot recognize that distinction has forfeited the moral authority to lecture others about human rights, democracy, humanitarian values or peace.
We already know exactly who Khanna is. The Graham Platner debacle in Maine stripped away any remaining illusion about his judgment. His fitness to lead is no longer in question. Then came his political theater in Judea and Samaria, followed almost immediately by appearances on American television that appeared designed to shift the national conversation.
Then there was the vote that said the quiet part out loud.
The American people, and particularly those who never miss an opportunity to gaslight and lecture Israel about human rights, democracy and a two-state solution, should take notice.
When the opportunity arose to distinguish between offensive weaponry and defensive systems designed solely to protect innocent civilians—of whatever culture, background and religion—from indiscriminate missile attacks, many of those same self-righteous voices voted no.
That vote exposed brazen political self-preservation. It placed political survival above moral clarity and reflected an abandonment of long-held American values.
It may have been just one vote.
But history will remember it. And so will we.
