After a week in which Democrats nominated a slate of antizionists to Congress in a troika of New York City House races, it would be tempting to think that their party is now the greater threat to Israel and to the Jewish community in this country. But we were simultaneously reminded by Vice President JD Vance that our challenge is a bipartisan one and that we face equally significant challenges from the political right as well as the left.
Animosity toward Israel was not the only factor that allowed three ultra-progressive congressional candidates backed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani to win their primary campaigns in deep-blue districts over establishment-backed pro-Israel opponents. But there’s no question that antizionism fueled by Mamdani and his Democratic Socialists of America allies was the driving emotional force that brought Darializa Avila Chevalier, Brad Lander and Claire Valdez to victory (as evidenced by the chants of “Free Palestine” at their victory party).
The Democrats face a daunting and worsening problem with the progressive base of their party on these issues. Their congressional leaders Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer seemed flummoxed by the uprising and most of the party’s potential presidential candidates are tiptoeing away from the type of pro-Israel advocacy that was once necessary for a plausible contender in either party.
Zionist Democrats can and will retake their party, but the path back is longer and more complicated today than it was two weeks ago. The upcoming Senate primaries in Minnesota and Michigan will provide additional guidance on the scale and scope of this challenge. If Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota and Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan win the Democratic nominations in their states, they will be just as troublesome on Israel-related issues for Schumer as the Gotham trio will for Jeffries.
But for those who prioritize their love for Israel over their domestic partisan preferences, Vice President Vance came forward this week to illustrate an equally frustrating set of obstacles we face from the opposite end of the political spectrum. Like most VPs, Vance tends to be a fairly reliable echo for his president on most matters. But Vance wants to be president himself in a few years, so he is very aware that an ill-chosen statement could create significant problems for him in a 2028 primary against the longtime Israel ally Marco Rubio. Unlike his shoot-from-the-hip leader, Vance is usually mindful of the potential consequences of his public statements.
So while Donald Trump’s angry criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu reflects his current frustration with what he sees as Israel’s lack of cooperation in ending the Iran war, Vance’s careful and premeditated comments may provide us with a more reliable roadmap of current conservative thinking on the Middle East. Vance has been tasked with the unenviable responsibility of steering the Iran negotiations toward a relatively peaceful conclusion. While attempting to navigate this excruciatingly unforgiving diplomatic landscape, the vice president engaged in an exercise in moral equivalence that was as ill-informed as it was repulsive. Using the age-old “chicken and egg” formulation in a futile effort to pacify both Israel and Hezbollah, Vance suggested that there is no way to know whether terrorist violence or Israeli defense of its citizens was the root cause of the conflict.
The problem, of course, is that there would be no need for the Jewish state to defend itself if Hezbollah and other Iranian clients did not attack Israel’s citizens so frequently and so viciously. Putting the two on the same moral plane allowed Vance to both excuse the terrorism and condemn the victims, implying that Israel has no right to defend itself.
Vance has waded into these waters before, with similarly unsatisfying results. Earlier this year, he did not mention Jews or Nazis in commemorating Holocaust Remembrance Day. His verbal contortions to avoid denouncing Tucker Carlson’s overt antisemitism would earn him a gymnastics medal in the next Olympics. Unlike the DSA members who attack Israel as a matter of political conviction (albeit dangerously misguided conviction), Vance’s criticisms are instead the product of pure political calculation. It’s hard to know which is worse.
Dan Schnur is the U.S. Politics Editor for the Jewish Journal. He teaches courses in politics, communications, and leadership at UC Berkeley, USC and Pepperdine. He hosts the monthly webinar “The Dan Schnur Political Report” for the Los Angeles World Affairs Council & Town Hall. Follow Dan’s work at www.danschnurpolitics.com
