Some Democratic politicians have honed a political contortion that would make a gymnast blush: one day affirming support for Israel and the next day pivoting to hammer Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, all while sidestepping a full-throated condemnation of Hamas. This isn’t nuance. It’s political theater, designed to placate a loud progressive base while pretending to keep a foothold in the pro-Israel camp.
The playbook is simple. Begin with a vague affirmation of Israel’s “right to defend itself.” Then, under pressure from the progressive caucus, shift the spotlight to Netanyahu, accusing him of single-handedly creating the “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza. With that sleight of hand, the Hamas-led massacre in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and the group’s years of rocket fire before that become footnotes.
Hamas—the actual aggressor—becomes a ghost in the narrative.
Let’s look at some of the big names doing the big pivot by starting with New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who begins every speech to a Jewish audience by saying his name means shomer, or Israel’s “watchman.” Once among Israel’s staunchest defenders, the Senate Majority Leader stunned many when he publicly called for new elections in Israel, charging that Netanyahu was undermining the country’s future. Schumer framed it as “saving” Israel’s image, but doing so in the middle of a war, he handed Hamas a political gift and emboldened those who want to drive a wedge between Israel and the United States.
Former President Joe Biden initially vowed his “ironclad” support after Oct. 7, later branding the actions of the Israel Defense Forces as “over the top” and accusing the military of “hurting Israel more than helping.” His vice president, Kamala Harris, pushed for a six-week ceasefire and warned of a “humanitarian catastrophe” in the Gaza Strip, although her language was reportedly softened before delivery. These shifts didn’t occur in a vacuum; they signal to Israel’s enemies that U.S. backing is conditional.
Pete Buttigieg, former U.S. secretary of transportation, and California Rep. Ro Khanna are considered rising Democrats who once comfortably wore the pro-Israel label but have, of late, moved toward proposals to condition aid or halt arms sales, citing humanitarian concerns. They’re increasingly shaping their Israel positions to fit the 2028 Democratic primary litmus tests, where progressive activists demand loyalty to their framing of the conflict.
Buttigieg made a fairly dramatic shift on U.S. policy toward Israel that bears looking at. In a recent appearance on the Pod Save America podcast, he described Israel as a “friend” and emphasized how America should wrap “our arm around our friend … and talk about what we’re prepared to do together.”
He fumfered his stance on halting arms shipments or how he would respond to action from Netanyahu. These responses were criticized for lacking clarity by Democrats like Khanna, who called for “moral clarity, not status quo,” and Ben Rhodes, a former U.S. national security advisor, who remarked: “Just tell us what you believe.”
Buttigieg heard the criticism. In a subsequent interview with Politico, he revised his position, saying that he would have supported Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s proposed arms embargo on Israel—opposing renewing any decade-long U.S.-Israel military aid agreements and instead endorsing a case-by-case approach.
Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) was a consistent voice defending Israel in the early days of the war in Gaza started by Hamas. Now, he warns that Israel’s actions in the Strip could collapse the “traditional consensus” in U.S. politics. That’s a polite way of saying he’s recalibrating under political pressure.
The progressive “Squad” in the U.S. House of Representatives has made its position clear: Its members routinely oppose resolutions supporting Israel and have been quick to paint it as an apartheid state. Former New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman, who lost the primary in June 2024 for re-election, dismissed reports of Hamas raping women in the communities its operatives attacked on Oct. 7 before later walking it back.
This group of politicians doesn’t hide its hostility toward Israel. What’s more dangerous is when politicians outside of the far-left “Squad” borrow their framing while claiming they’re still “pro-Israel.”
Even some newer progressives are playing both sides. Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) signed a letter urging an end to U.S. weapons transfers to Israel, then just weeks later voted for a massive aid bill that bundled humanitarian relief with military support, explaining that she “couldn’t in good conscience” vote against humanitarian aid. This is what “political triangulation” looks like: enough ambiguity to keep from alienating either camp too much.
The excuse goes like this: “I’m not anti-Israel; I’m just anti-Bibi.” It’s an attractive line for politicians who want to reassure pro-Israel donors while avoiding the wrath of the progressive base. But in practice, this rhetoric shifts blame for Hamas’s war crimes onto Israel’s leadership. By making Netanyahu the singular villain, they obscure the reality that Hamas—not Israel—created the suffering in Gaza by embedding its fighters in civilian neighborhoods, hoarding aid, and using hospitals and schools as military assets.
Let’s be clear: Pro-Israel Americans vote. They donate. They organize. And they are paying attention. When politicians dilute their support for Israel or hedge their condemnation of Hamas, it doesn’t go unnoticed. The “anti-Bibi” pose might be clever politics in a coffee shop in Brooklyn, N.Y., or a San Francisco fundraiser, but it reads very differently in suburban swing districts, Florida retirement communities, and key counties in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Arizona.
In recent cycles, Jewish voters have leaned heavily Democratic; however, the party should not take that support for granted. Every equivocation, every moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas, and every gratuitous swipe at the Jewish state’s leadership chips away at trust. And not just among Jewish voters. Many evangelical Christians, moderates and independents also see unwavering support for Israel as a measure of moral clarity.
Allies don’t walk out on you mid-battle. They don’t give propaganda victories to terrorists by joining the “blame Israel first” chorus. And they don’t pretend that it’s possible to support a nation’s survival while undermining the leader who was elected to defend it.
The Democratic Party has a decision to make: Stand firmly with America’s only democratic ally in the Middle East or continue this rhetorical balancing act that satisfies neither justice nor truth. The voters will be watching—and they’ll remember who stood with Israel when it mattered most.
