In yet another signal to Democratic voters, especially progressive ones, Democrats selected pro-Israel fanatic Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) as the Ranking Member on the Middle East Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Making matters worse, Democratic leadership put two other AIPAC-tied Democrats—Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL) and Wesley Bell (MO)—on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
A more progressive representative, Marc Pocan (WI), was also appointed.
Supporters of Palestinian rights can do little but howl into the wind over this step which is clearly intended to strengthen Israel’s position in the House as its popularity is at a nadir.
But it should also be seen as an object lesson in the limits of popular power. Moskowitz, Wasserman-Schultz, and Bell all recently defeated primary challenges from progressives, all of whom made AIPAC and Israel focal points of their campaigns. That’s not a criticism of those challengers—it’s a tactic that has worked very well in many primary elections this year.
Undoubtedly, the success each of these pro-Israel Democrats had in those primaries was a factor in their appointments. Their ability to advocate for Israel and keep their seats means that pro-Israel forces—which, sadly, continues to very much include Democratic House leaders, up to and including the Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—have a strong incentive to put them in positions where they can have a direct influence on policy.
It’s also a message from Democratic leadership to progressive activists: you might primary pro-Israel candidates, but if you try and fail, we will maximize the damage our candidates can do.
Overstating the power of popular pro-Palestinian activism
My friend Stephen Zunes, professor of politics at the University of San Francisco wrote of the appointments: “Since the Democratic Party leadership clearly doesn’t care about what Democratic voters think, they shouldn’t be surprised if they lose support this November.”
While I agree with Stephen on the general point, I must respectfully disagree with applying it in this instance.
Democrats are indeed spitting in the faces of their own voters yet again with these appointments. But I very much doubt they will suffer for it in November 2026.
These appointments are not exactly front-page news. Most people won’t even be aware of them. Of those that are aware, how many will refuse to vote Democrat, and thereby increase the chances that Republicans keep control of Congress this November?
It’s hardly a far-fetched idea. While both houses of Congress are definitely in play, Republicans still hold the upper hand in the Senate and have an outside shot at keeping the House as well.
Democrats are foolishly repeating the same mistakes they have made for the past decade with their idiotic witch hunt against Hasan Piker and their reluctance to support Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, sending a very clear message to Muslims and the even larger group of Democratic voters who despise the thinly veiled Islamophobia and cynical weaponization of antisemitism being employed.
But these latest appointments are only likely to turn away a handful of people who observe Congress closely. Those people are mostly going to be in districts where the outcome of the votes is not really in doubt.
So, when Hakeem Jeffries and other AIPAC-aligned Democrats believe they can conduct business like committee appointments with little concern about repercussions, they’re right. That’s not an Israel thing; it’s a fact of American politics. Business in Congress like committee appointments is not democratic and it’s largely opaque to most of the public.
That’s why it’s so crucial that we not rely solely on popular mobilization.
The need to be inside
Progressives have proven themselves adept at organizing popular movements and have translated that skill into growing momentum at the ballot box. But for elected officials to be effective, they need to be able to mobilize numbers in Congress, and they need a presence in the upper echelons of every level of government.
That’s why it is crucial that significant energy be devoted to finding more candidates who can succeed within the structure of the Democratic party.
For those who advocate a third party, this is not a surrender.
After demonstrating how deadly it is for Democratic electoral ambitions to court the likes of Liz Cheney in 2024, and as corporate influences become ever more toxic, more conservative Democrats will leave party leadership. There will be more common cause with anti-MAGA Republicans. Essentially, Liz Cheney and John Fetterman will meet in the middle and carve out a narrow political space that will hold only small appeal to both conservative and liberal voters.
MAGA and Donald Trump succeeded by appealing to the most numerous sector of the Republican base. Their faux populism fed on the fear and bigotry of working-class conservatives while claiming to stand against “elites” who they said were giving away the wealth due to “loyal Americans” to people of color, queers, and immigrants.
The anti-elitism may have been bogus—those MAGA leaders, of course, are the wealthy elites—but it all touched a chord in Republican voters. Despite having enormous resources of their own, never-Trump Republicans had no way to fight those votes.
Corporate Democrats could find themselves in the same position. Voters are turning against them in droves. The Democratic base subscribes to progressive values. They need to be convinced that progressive leaders mean to deliver policy that speaks to those values, which addresses wealth inequality, social justice, an end to outrageous military spending, and respect for human rights around the world. They need to be convinced as well that, intentions aside, progressives are capable of delivering policies that promote those values.
That means more than just being a voice in Congress; it means being able to steer the political process. It means being in a position to place people at the head of committees whoa re committed to and capable of pushing progressive policies through, just as Jared Moskowitz will be doing for pro-genocide, anti-Palestinian policies.
Success breeds more success, and an engaged progressive Democratic constituency can ensure that its leaders push ever farther in expanding the social safety net, closing the wealth gap, and promoting justice and human rights. As those movements grow and expand, they will win even more support, allowing for even more ambitious programs. Supporters will be better able to financially support that movement, and will thus be able to reform or, if we will it, replace the existing system.
So, no, building progressive power within the Democratic party in no way means compromising on progressive vision or strategy. On the contrary, it enables us to grow, to think bigger, to do more, and to bring about sweeping change.
In the short term, it would allow us to call the shots in Congressional committees instead of the likes of Hakeem Jeffries, a man who never saw a corporate dollar or a grant to Israel he didn’t love.
We have done the hardest part, building a movement that can win elections. While that work must continue, progressives must also move toward more lobbying, more Capitol Hill advocacy, and, particularly, much more media.
We must support and promote progressive politicians. We must back them not only in campaigns, but while they’re in office. We must be present on Capitol Hill to push them and to prove to conservatives that a new day is dawning. And we must marshal more and more resources so we can continue to make more people understand the benefits to them of reducing the wealth gap, expanding the social safety net, and extending social, legal, and cultural justice and respect for rights to all people, whether they are U.S. citizens or not.
Postscript
One last note on Hakeem Jeffries. Some have promoted the idea that his recent meeting with Jared Kushner prompted the appointments of Moskowitz, Wasserman-Schultz, and Meeks.
This is highly unlikely. Jeffries does not need to get pro-Israel direction from a politically explosive meeting with a figure like Kushner, who doesn’t even hold a public office. AIPAC is quite capable of communicating with Jeffries directly and unimpeded.
Moreover, such direction as probably unnecessary. Jeffries knows where his bread is buttered and doesn’t really need to be told how to support Israel in the House.
We may never know exactly what he and Kushner discussed. But there are hundreds of people around the U.S. whom Jeffries can turn to for input around pro-Israel politics. These appointments held little interest for Donald Trump, and any interest in them Jared Kushner may have is immaterial to Jeffries.
Whatever they discussed, that wasn’t it.