Jewish Politics & Power is published every other week. Sign up for our newsletter for updates.
1. Pete Buttigieg Corrects Course
When former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg went on the popular podcast Pod Save America on August 10, he likely didn’t expect Israel to be the issue he would stumble over. Asked whether he supports legislation presented last month by Senator Bernie Sanders to halt certain U.S. arms shipments to Israel, the former and potentially future presidential candidate avoided a direct answer. In a long-winded response, he provided some harsh criticism of the situation in Gaza (“If a child is starving because of a choice made by a government, that is unconscionable”) and shifted to a Bidenesque line on how “as Israel’s strongest ally and friend, you put your arm around your friend when there’s something like this going on, and talk about what we’re prepared to do together.”
Buttigieg also ducked a follow-up question by host Jon Favreau about whether the United States should recognize a Palestinian state now, as other nations have. Instead, he expressed support for a two-state solution while not committing to any immediate action to pursue it. In between, Buttigieg had some harsh words about Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that the United States does not have to “make excuses for the choices Netanyahu is making.”
All seemed pretty standard.
Buttigieg stuck to the Democratic playbook. He spoke openly and directly about Israel’s wrongdoings and voiced moral outrage, but he did so while stressing his support for Israel’s right to defend itself and carefully sidestepping any specifics that could get him in trouble with the pro-Israel camp.
“Pete is a smart guy and I admire a lot of what he’s done,” former Obama administration official Ben Rhodes wrote on X, “but I have absolutely no idea what he thinks based on these answers. Just tell us what you believe.”
When asked by Politico about his comments on Israel, Buttigieg acknowledged the criticism and backtracked, updating his previous responses: Yes, he supports the Sanders legislation freezing some military aid to Israel, and yes, he supports recognizing a Palestinian state. “Democrats,” Buttigieg added, “are sickened by what’s happening and trying to hold several things in mind at the same time, all of which can be true: that what has to happen next is the killing has to end.”
Crisis averted. At least for Buttigieg. But for Democrats who watched this mini-fiasco unfold, the lesson was clear: There’s a new consensus over Israel, and those who don’t follow it should expect a clobbering.
2. Pete Should Have Listened
Elissa Slotkin had been through this just a few weeks ago.
The Democratic senator from Michigan was not in the Senate chamber when the Sanders resolution came to a vote. She was busy taping an interview with Stephen Colbert in New York.
Like Buttigieg, she got flak from voters and online commentators for not supporting the legislation, prompting her to issue a statement: “Had I made it back to the vote yesterday, I would have voted yes to block offensive weapons to Israel based on my concerns over the lack of food and medicine getting to civilians in Gaza.”
There are some differences. Buttigieg is moderately progressive, while Slotkin is a national security centrist. But both faced the same reality: Their centrist views on Israel and their old-school reflex to refrain from criticizing Israel too harshly are out of step with where their party currently stands.
Another centrist Democrat who recently learned this lesson is Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego. During a recent visit to Iowa, the state where aspiring presidential candidates go to feel the pulse of the voters, Gallego encountered not only tough questions on Israel during a townhall event but also ads running on TV and online criticizing his absence from the vote on the Sanders resolution. Gallego explained that his views on Israel are “evolving with the situation.” He later reportedly moved to lead a letter demanding the U.S. investigate Jewish settler violence in the West Bank. An unusual move for a moderate Democrat.
3. The Israel Test—Is That a Real Thing?
In their reporting on these issues, Politico argued that Israel has become “the new litmus test” for Democrats. In other words, if you want to survive in Democratic politics, you now need to be willing to be tough on Israel.
This might very well be a trend, but the real question is: Has the math flipped?
Conventional wisdom has it that Democrats who stray too far in criticizing Israel risk paying a political price and that voters—and donors as well—are less forgiving toward Dems who defy the Biden-era definition of being pro-Israel.
This calculation might be changing, or rather there might be enough Democrats out there willing to challenge it. Take a look at Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff, who was a yes vote on one of the Sanders resolutions. He’s up for reelection next year in a toss-up state that has a sizeable pro-Israel Jewish voter base. And yet, as vulnerable as he is, Ossoff voted yes.
Or Minnesota’s Amy Klobuchar, another yes vote. Just like Buttigieg, Klobuchar is mentioned as a potential 2028 candidate, so the last thing she needs is controversy surrounding her views on Israel. And still, she shifted away from her previous policies and supported certain cuts to military aid.
In other words, criticizing Israel may not rise to the level of being a litmus test for Democrats, but it is definitely no longer the political liability it used to be. And perhaps more important, the idea that Dems can somehow thread the needle and refrain from real criticism of Israeli actions is no longer valid. It worked great for Obama, it worked for Biden for a while, but it proved disastrous when Kamala Harris ran for president. The deteriorating situation on the ground, alongside shifting views among rank-and-file voters, makes this approach politically unsustainable.
4. Is There a Mamdani Test?
This could be the next big question, and it’s even tougher.
The emergence of Zohran Mamdani as the great new hope for New York City, and for Democrats across the country, represents a very different type of dilemma. His views on Israel cannot be defined as simply critical. He’s vehemently critical of Israel, refusing to accept the idea of a Jewish ethnic state, describing its policies as apartheid-like and suggesting that as mayor, he’d arrest Netanyahu when the Israeli PM comes to town.
The test here would be different—not whether Democrats adopt Mamdani’s views on Israel, which most of them clearly don’t and won’t, but whether they can support the progressive rising star despite his views on Israel without losing political capital.
Evidence is mounting that the answer is positive.
Mamdani is collecting endorsements, primarily from progressives but not only. The big prize, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, might be next in line. And if that happens, all eyes will turn to Democratic leaders Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer.
A year ago, it would have been unthinkable to imagine Schumer backing someone with views like Mamdani’s. Now, it doesn’t seem impossible.
5. A Look Forward
The awful situation on the ground in Gaza provides Democrats with more than enough reasons to step up pressure, and the fact that Trump is in power allows them sufficient room to criticize U.S. policy toward Israel. Another reason they can do all that is because elections are still far away.
A lot can happen in a year.
If, as so many are hoping and praying, the Gaza war winds down and the catastrophic conditions there improve, reality could easily move centrist Democrats back to the center, just in time for the midterms. Once the topic of Israel-Palestine moves to a back burner, voters’ anger will subside and Democrats won’t feel pressed on the issue.
That’s a big if. There’s also a scenario in which things get worse, or remain just as bad as they are. In that case, it will be extremely difficult for Democrats to run in 2026 with a moderate approach toward Israel. Not all will adopt Bernie Sanders’s actions and rhetoric, and no one is expected to cross into Mamdani territory, but many Dems will feel compelled to distance themselves from the current state of the U.S.-Israel alliance. And given the way things are looking now, they won’t lose a single vote for it.
Top image credit: Gage Skidmore.