Democrats squirm over vote to shut off aid to Israel

An upcoming House vote on a measure blocking U.S. aid to Israel has Democrats divided over how far they should go to signal displeasure with the Netanyahu government.

Why it matters: The vote is revealing just how much anxiety Democratic lawmakers have about the growing anti-Israel sentiments coming from their grassroots base.

• "Even I'm a lean yes and think it's a crappy amendment," said one House Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity to offer candid thoughts on their vote.
• "For me, it's more of a signal that something needs to change and we can't just provide aid despite how it's being used," the lawmaker said, predicting "at least 40" of their colleagues will vote for the measure.

Driving the news: The House is scheduled to vote this week on Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-Ky.) amendment to a State Department funding bill that would prohibit any of the money from going to Israel.

• The measure — which does not make any carveout for non-military aid — has been the subject of frenzied internal discussion among House Democrats for weeks.
• House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) announced in Democrats' closed-door caucus meeting Tuesday morning that he would vote against the amendment, according to several lawmakers who were present.

What they're saying: In a letter to colleagues obtained by Axios, Jeffries said the "overly broad" amendment would limit funding for "humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement, peace-building and U.S. Embassy operations."

• He also warned that it would "restrict our country's ability to confront Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations in the region who are sworn enemies of both the United States and Israel."
• "In my view, there are more decisive ways to achieve the urgent change necessary when it comes to the far-right Netanyahu government," the Democratic leader wrote.

Zoom out: Centrist, pro-Israel Democrats cheered Jeffries for taking what they said is a brave and much-needed stand against the growing influence of the party's pro-Palestinian wing.

• "He was courageous this morning," Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) commented to his staff as he was leaving the Tuesday morning meeting.
• Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) told Axios: "That's called putting principle and what's best for America's national security ahead of finger in the wind politics."

The other side: Progressive Caucus chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) told Axios he still plans to vote for the amendment and expects a "very sizable number of people [to] vote for the Massie amendment if it comes up this week."

• "I simply think that a 'yes' vote ... is what clearly signals that the Netanyahu government's actions are acceptable," Casar added.
• The Democrat who spoke anonymously said "some will vote 'yes' to signal their opposition to unconditional [foreign military financing] and support for stronger oversight of how U.S. security assistance is used."

Reality check: The amendment has little chance of passing the House given largely unified Republican support for Israel. It would have an even tougher time getting through the Senate.

• Democrats are instead approaching this as a symbolic vote, with some arguing that GOP leaders would only bring it to a vote as a political trap.
• "The Republicans don't like Massie, but they let this bill go because that could divide us," House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.) told Axios.

Between the lines: Jeffries made clear Democratic leadership isn't whipping the vote, instead letting lawmakers vote their conscience.

• J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami said he and his group "support Leader Jeffries' decision to oppose the amendment while not whipping against it" and recognizes that many Democrats want to express opposition to how U.S. military aid to Israel is being used.
• "Members may reasonably conclude that voting no, present or yes is the best way to reflect those competing concerns," he said.

The intrigue: Jeffries signaled openness to conditioning U.S. aid to Israel moving forward, writing in his letter that "a meaningful change in direction is needed" as the two nations prepare to negotiate a new memorandum of understanding.

• "Any future security arrangement between our two countries should ... strictly adhere to our human rights laws and values," he said.
• Casar said those comments are encouraging but that "the details are going to matter."