What Was the Real Point of the Massie Amendment?

Jewish Politics & Power is published every other week. Sign up for our newsletter for updates.

---

1. 103 + 1

Sometimes, an unserious, ill-conceived, long-shot piece of legislation can make a big splash. Such was the case with last week’s vote on the Massie Amendment, an amendment to the State Department foreign operations appropriations bill, named after its author, Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie, that would immediately zero out all U.S. military assistance to Israel. Massie, a staunch critic of the State of Israel and a lone voice on the Republican side calling to sever military ties with it, never expected his proposition to actually make it into law. And even if it had passed the House, it would never have made it through the Senate, not to mention the challenge of getting the president to sign such a bill.

But that was never the point.

What made the Massie Amendment a watershed moment in U.S.-Israel relations was the vote count: 104 members voted in favor—103 Democrats and one Republican (Massie). 

It was a moment of realization, a roll call that exemplified how toxic an issue support for Israel has become and how the wish to see a change in America’s carte blanche policy toward the Netanyahu government is no longer a cause limited to the progressive wing or the far left, but rather one that has taken root in all areas of Democratic politics. Nancy Pelosi of California, the former House Speaker known for her staunch support for Israel and close ties with Israeli leaders, voted yes. As did Democratic Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts. Even some members who had previously been endorsed by AIPAC were among those supporting the dramatic cut. 

The GOP identified an opportunity to advance an otherwise meaningless legislative move in order to force Democrats into a public debate they are not yet ready to have.

Ninety-eight Democrats voted against the amendment and ten voted present, but even there, the tone was different than ever heard before. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, in an open letter to his fellow Democrats leading up to the vote, explained why he would vote “no,” explaining that the proposed language was “overly broad.” But Jeffries, a moderate voice on Israel, didn’t try to make the case for perpetuating aid to Israel. On the contrary, the Democratic leader expressed his support for “meaningful change” in the way the United States provides aid to Israel, which is currently based on an annual $3.8 billion funding package used by Israel to purchase American-made weapons and military equipment. “Israel has an advanced economy and is capable of paying for its own sophisticated weapons, as the Prime Minister recently acknowledged,” wrote Jeffries. “Accordingly, any future security arrangement between our two countries should be structured consistently with defense agreements that exist with our other Western allies and strictly adhere to our human rights laws and values.”

A 10-year Memorandum of Understanding ensuring aid levels to Israel is set to expire this year. It is now clear that the next aid deal will look very different: Direct U.S. funding will gradually end, and stricter rules of usage will be imposed. 

2. A Turning Point?

The vote did nothing to change reality on the ground, nor did it advance the discussion within the Democratic Party about how to address the issue of Israel. But it did help draw the boundaries of this discussion. In broad strokes, this is what the Democratic political map looks like right now when it comes to supporting Israel: 

On the left, there’s a strong and committed minority bent on cutting all U.S. military funding for Israel; conditioning or even prohibiting the sale of arms to Israel, both offensive and defensive; and advancing sanctions and punitive measures if Israel does not change course on the Palestinian issue. 

In the center, a majority of Democrats who were once an almost-automatic “yes” vote on any legislation pertaining to Israel have now grown skeptical and support a gradual phasing out of American funding, as well as stronger scrutiny over Israel’s use of U.S.-made weapons.

To their right, there is still a relatively small group of Democrats who would like to see the current status quo continue and who, while at times critical of Netanyahu’s policies, do not believe in leveraging American support to pressure Israel.  

3. How Do Dems Move Forward?

Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, called the Massie Amendment vote “a cynical Republican ploy to highlight Democratic divisions on U.S. policy toward Israel,” which it definitely was. The GOP identified an opportunity to advance an otherwise meaningless legislative move in order to force Democrats into a public debate they are not yet ready to have. Analyzing the vote, Soifer writes that “There may be a handful of Democrats whose ‘yes’ vote was driven by antipathy for Israel. Yet, there are more Democrats with long records of supporting the U.S.-Israel security relationship who still voted ‘yes’ or ‘present’ because they fundamentally disagree with Netanyahu and Trump.”

And this is where Democrats split in their view of the party’s future relationship with Israel. Some, from the centrist circles in the party, indeed believe that the negativity toward Israel stems from Netanyahu’s policies and his disregard for American norms and values, and from Trump’s lack of coherent policies toward the Middle East. To put it plainly, for these centrists, once Netanyahu is out of office, which may be as soon as this fall if he loses the majority in the upcoming elections, and once Trump ends his term, all will go back to normal, or at least to a supportive, albeit critical at times, approach to Israel.

The competing approach, promoted by those on the progressive side, argues that relations with Israel have passed the point of no return, and so while Netanyahu’s successor may be more moderate and forthcoming to American requests, Dems will not go back to the old status quo. For them, the era of a “special relationship” with Israel is over, and it will be treated like any other ally—based on its actions and policies, not on sentiments, shared history and personal ties.

4. Meanwhile, Vance Is Being Vance

Things aren’t looking great for Israel on the Republican side either. And the problem isn’tThomas Massie—it’s about someone way more powerful.

Vice President JD Vance has become the leading Republican critic of Israel and he’s been doing so by highlighting policy disagreements and expressing personal grievances—all topped with a sprinkle of conspiracy theories.

In a lengthy interview with Joe Rogan last week, Vance accused Israel of actively trying to undermine American diplomatic efforts to reach a deal with Iran. “I definitely think you have seen this very discreet, extremely well-funded campaign to try to derail the negotiation and try to derail the deal,” Vance said, adding that Israeli leaders “hate the deal.” He also spoke about reports that Israel has been funding an influence campaign to sway American public opinion against the deal: “There are some people within their system that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that are manipulating and trying to change American public opinion to keep the war going on indefinitely.”

Vance’s recent tirade reflects an existing narrative within the administration that while the United States is seeking a reasonable deal to end the war, ensure safe maritime passage and cap Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Israel is actively pushing for resumption of military activities. Vance, more than Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is averse to foreign wars and believes that, if started, they should end swiftly. But his complaints also stem from a sense of personal insult. Vance is the administration’s point man on talks with Iran and was in charge of negotiations that led to the June framework deal. Now, Israel is working to overturn his deal and is even enlisting American consultants to run multi-million-dollar influence campaigns aimed at convincing U.S. citizens to oppose the deal Vance negotiated.

5. A Dash of Conspiracy

Beyond accusing Israel of trying to manipulate America, Vance, in his interview with Rogan, veered into troubling conspiratorial territory. 

At issue were claims that convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein had been an Israeli agent. “Most people think he was Mossad,” Rogan told Vance. The vice president chose to lean in to this allegation, which has never been supported by any evidence. “Yeah, Mossad or CIA, or some other deep state, whether in America or Israel or another country,” he responded. “He clearly had connections to the highest levels of Israeli intelligence.”

In that, Vance provided a stamp of approval from the second highest office of the executive branch of the U.S. government to a conspiracy accusing the late pedophile Epstein of being an Israeli agent.

Needless to say, Jewish activists, including Jewish Republicans, immediately identified the danger in having the vice president of the United States falsely tie a Jewish criminal sex offender to Israeli secret intelligence operations. This is the stuff antisemitic conspiracies are made of.

One of two emerging candidates to lead the Republican ticket in 2028, Vance will likely not be favored by Jewish voters. Rubio, the other frontrunner, is much closer to Republican Jews on issues relating to Israel and religion (plus, he does not go around spreading stories about Jews being Mossad agents).

A lot will happen between now and the presidential elections. Vance may or may not seek the nomination, and he may or may not win it. But either way, the vice president is now the standard bearer of everything Jewish and pro-Israeli Americans have feared. And he’s a heartbeat away from the presidency.

(Top image credit: House Creative Services / United States Air Force)