Rep. Brad Schneider, the leader of the House’s centrist New Democrat Coalition, is trying to understand how his party became so divided on Israel.
Earlier this week, over 100 House Democrats voted for a Republican-authored amendment to a State Department funding bill that would have cut Israel off from U.S. aid. That amendment failed amid near-unified GOP opposition, but progressives celebrated the Wednesday vote as a seismic victory, saying the break with Israel was born out of years of fury inside the Democratic base over Israel’s treatment of Palestine and, more recently, its handling of the war in Gaza.
In the aftermath, Schneider, a pro-Israel Illinois Democrat, said he is searching for an explanation for how a “hastily crafted, cynically introduced” legislative proposal to cut humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza generated support among his own peers, who have largely supported the longtime ally.
Yet even as hard-left candidates topple incumbents around the country, an Israel-critical bloc of House Democrats will be more powerful than ever next term — and Schneider insisted in a Thursday interview that his party can unite on the fractious issue.
This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
On Democrats ultimately having similar goals: The goal in the Middle East in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to get security, stability, dignity and a holy peace for the people in Israel, in Gaza, the West Bank, in the whole Middle East. … What can we do that will advance peace? And what can we stop doing that has allowed the status quo? I think for many people, that was their intention in how they were voting.
How do we get to a place where members of Congress are sharing a common purpose and advancing peace for the region, recognizing Israel’s need for security as a Jewish, democratic state, recognizing Palestinian rights and their aspirations for sovereignty and a state of their own one day that’s living side by side in peace with Israel, not threatening Israel but providing a future for Palestinian children?
On Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries voting against the amendment, while Minority Whip Katherine Clark voted in favor — and members being left to make their own decisions: I don’t think you’ll see cynical amendments [in a Democratic majority]. I expect what you’ll see is us … working on advancing the interests of American voters. … I think to do that, we need to work together, and leadership has to be coordinated and speaking in one voice.
… Hakeem Jeffries has kept the Democrats united. We have been able to legislate from the minority … and where there’s times and differences, he’s allowed those to be reflected without festering or ultimately tearing apart the caucus. I think next year [if Democrats win the House] you’ll see that leadership take a step up to the next level. There’s a difference between being minority leader and majority speaker.
On whether Democrats can find consensus next term with the influx of hard-left new members: I suspect we will not get unanimity. … I think where Democrats almost universally come down is how do we make the world safer, more secure for Americans and for our allies around the world.
On whether Israel’s divisive prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has pushed Democrats leftward: Netanyahu is not popular. I’m not a fan personally myself. I think it’s more than just Netanyahu. … They have to address the settler violence in the West Bank. I will always be committed to Israel’s security and safety. I believe addressing settler violence is critical for that.
On more Democrats disavowing money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee: Members will do what they want. I’d like to see members doing more to advance peace rather than advancing their own personal careers.
Read the full article here