Spanberger, 47, based her campaign heavily on economic and affordability issues, public safety, and her support for abortion rights, NBC News reported. Her campaign also attacked Earle-Sears over her conservative social issue record and her loyalty to Trump.

In her victory speech in Richmond, Spanberger stated, "Tonight, we sent message," according to NBC News. "We sent a message to the whole world that in 2025 Virginia chose pragmatism over partisanship. We chose our Commonwealth over chaos." She promised to "focus relentlessly" on "lowering costs, keeping our communities safe and strengthening our economy for every Virginian."

Earle-Sears, 61, Virginia's lieutenant governor, struggled to find a coherent message. She tried to emphasize the accomplishments of GOP Governor Glenn Youngkin's administration and championed "parents' rights" in schools. She also frequently praised Trump though the president never offered a formal endorsement and failed to mention her by name in a Monday night tele-rally.

During her concession speech, Earle-Sears acknowledged that many had "counted me out" but "we kept plugging and plugging." She also noted, according to NBC News, that Spanberger "ran as a moderate." Earle-Sears added, "If she governs as one, then she will unite us, and she'll heal our divides and win our support."

A former CIA officer, Spanberger flipped a Republican-held House seat in 2018 and cultivated an image as a more moderate Democrat during her gubernatorial campaign. NBC News reported she attracted numerous high-profile Democrats and potential 2028 presidential candidates to campaign with her, reinforcing her anti-Trump message in the race's final days.

The post Former CIA officer, woman wins VA governor's race appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Anyone wanting to protest the winners is welcome to remind everyone, for the who-knows-how-many-th time, how terrible and threatening Mamdani is. In the days leading up to the race, the young and inexperienced candidate did everything possible to signal to his opponents that he had no intention of compromising on his most extreme positions. On the contrary, Mamdani spent the race's final stretch in the company of Jeremy Corbyn, who was, as you'll recall, ousted from his position as leader of Britain's Labour Party due to excessive and enthusiastic antisemitism. For the million New Yorkers who voted for Mamdani, all this made no difference. Statements like "When the boot of the NYPD is on your neck, it's been laced by the IDF," whose sole purpose is blaming Israel for all of America's evils, real and imagined alike, only raised Mamdani's profile.

The post How the Republicans lost appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A new poll by the American Pew Research Center reveals that 53% of the American public holds a negative view of Israel. This represents an 11% increase over the past three years since the institute's previous survey.

Additionally, significant percentages of Americans do not believe that the United States will ultimately take responsibility for Gaza and advance the migration plan, according to the same Pew Research Center survey. Meanwhile, there are significant disagreements regarding whether President Donald Trump favors Israel or acts in a balanced manner in the conflict.

The Pew Research Center asked respondents about their position on the American plan to take control of Gaza and promote a migration plan. Of those surveyed, 38% think it is unlikely that Trump will continue with this policy, and 26% indicated "somewhat likely," meaning they are somewhere in the middle. Only 20% answered that it is very likely, and 16% said they were not sure.

The implication, according to the Pew Research Center, is that six out of ten Americans (62%) oppose US control of Gaza, including 49% who strongly oppose the plan. Surprisingly, Republicans are slightly more likely than Democrats to say there is no chance for the plan – 43% compared to 34%. At the same time, 27% of Republicans prefer the plan compared to only 5% of Democrats. 80% of Democrats responded that they oppose the move.

In the survey, researchers also examined the question of how Trump is handling relations between Israel and the Palestinians. Only 3% of Americans believe that Palestinians receive preferential treatment, but there are disagreements about whether Trump is acting in a balanced way. 31% believed that Trump favors the Israeli side compared to 29% who believe Trump is striking the right balance.

For comparison, a survey conducted last July found that 21% of Americans thought President Joe Biden favored Israelis over Palestinians, compared to 20% who thought the then-president favored Palestinians over Americans. 18% responded in this survey that he found the right balance, and 40% said they were not sure.

The division by party, in this case, is clear. 51% of Republicans believe Trump is finding the right balance. In contrast, 50% of Democrats believe the American president favors Israelis too much.

The post 53% of Americans view Israel negatively, doubt Trump's Gaza plans appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Throughout his career in public service – as legislator, vice president in the Obama administration, and as president of the United States – Joe Biden crafted his identity as a moral guardian committed to upholding legal norms without qualification or compromise in the public sphere, particularly among the highest echelons of the administration and Congress.

Indeed, his crusade against governmental corruption (manifested in his pivotal role in comprehensive campaign finance reform and his persistent confrontation of international partners who had strayed dramatically from democratic principles, integrity, and fair political conduct, turning their positions of power into vehicles for quick and ostentatious self-enrichment at the public's expense) emerged as one of Biden's most distinctive characteristics. The outgoing president positioned himself as the successor to the distinguished Senator Estes Kefauver, who dedicated his political life to an uncompromising battle to cleanse the political system of its moral and ethical afflictions.

Yet now, this very same stalwart who in recent years spared no criticism of Donald Trump and fully backed his prosecution and removal from politics over various ethical transgressions (including the "hush money" payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels and multiple tax violations), is set to exit the public stage as one of those politicians whose personal interests eclipse all other principles, including equal treatment under the law.

The irony is profound: Biden – who spent the past decade criticizing Southern courts for applying vastly different legal and moral standards to white defendants versus African American or Latino American suspects – has completely abandoned this legacy of integrity and impartial judgment by granting his son Hunter a sweeping presidential pardon for criminal offenses (including approximately $1.5 million in tax evasion and concealing information about his history of drug and alcohol addiction when applying for a firearms permit).

This pardon came just before an expected verdict in one of his trials that would likely have resulted in several years of imprisonment. In light of these developments, one cannot escape the conclusion that even the mightiest principles have crumbled. What precisely distinguishes Trump, who upon completing his first White House term pardoned associates, from his successor Biden, who readily discards his own established principles to act in blatant nepotistic fashion to spare his son from imprisonment? What fundamental difference exists between this barely explained pardon and the incoming president's practice of staffing his administration with relatives and associates? Does this not inflict grave damage on the Democratic Party's image as the complete antithesis to Trump's impending administration, which they argue threatens the foundational pillars of American democracy?

Historically, US presidents (President Bill Clinton among them) have not hesitated to exercise their presidential pardon privilege for suspects and offenders. However, such actions were not always driven by narrow personal, familial, or sectoral interests that were fundamentally problematic. President Gerald Ford's 1974 blanket pardon of his predecessor Richard Nixon for all Watergate-related offenses serves as an example. Unlike Biden, Ford acted to protect the presidency's institutional standing in America's collective consciousness and ethos from the threat of erosion and devaluation. He paid dearly for this decision – Ford's narrow defeat by Democratic candidate Jimmy Carter in 1976 stemmed directly from this choice.

By contrast, Biden's decision to grant his son Hunter a comprehensive pardon lacks even a trace of altruism. It stands as a cynical and self-serving choice that overshadows his long-preached pursuit of integrity and moral standards in public life, potentially leaving an enduring negative imprint on the Democratic Party and further complicating its recovery from the November 5 defeat.

Against this backdrop, one can only pose the question to Biden, the moral preacher: "Et tu, Brutus?" Or in other words, have you, the champion of unwavering ethical standards, also succumbed to the very behavior you condemned?

The post From moral guardian to family protector: Biden erodes his ethical legacy appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Democratic party officials are expressing growing concern over Vice President Kamala Harris' continued campaign fundraising efforts following the 2024 election, with some warning the persistent email solicitations risk damaging relationships with the party's vital small-dollar donor base, according to reporting by POLITICO.

The fundraising emails have maintained their urgent tone weeks after election day. "Even a quick donation of $50 is enough to help us in this fight," said one email sent two weeks after election day. "With only hours left to hit our goal today, NOW is the best time to rush your support," read another.

Two sources familiar with the campaign said it ended with approximately $20 million in debt, and there are limited ways to return that money. Committees are subject to contribution limits even after the election, so they can't rely on large donors.

However, the Harris campaign denies having any outstanding debts on election day for the campaign or affiliated joint fundraising committees, stating they won't report debts in upcoming Federal Election Commission filings due in December.

"I understand that the Harris campaign is in a very difficult position with the debt that they have, and so sometimes you just have to make practical decisions," said Mike Nellis, founder of Democratic digital firm, Authentic. "But yeah, I think that stuff like that erodes trust."

The emails don't mention debt, but rather legal costs for recounting. A Harris campaign official emphasized that they aren't asking donors for more than pre-election amounts, noting some fundraising is necessary for campaign wind-down costs, including staff, office closures, and financial compliance.

The campaign's spending has drawn particular scrutiny from Democratic National Committee (DNC) members. According to data from AdImpact, the Harris operation spent $551 million on digital and TV advertising between mid-July and election day. By early October, media productions and purchases represented 77 percent of spending, while payroll accounted for just 2.5 percent.

James Zogby, a long-serving DNC member running for vice chair, expressed concern about the fundraising. "I want to make sure we have a conversation about, where does the money go, and why don't we know where it goes?" He also commented that the "begging" tone of the party's donation solicitations is not a "good look, I don't think it sends a good message."

The post-election fundraising emails have been directed to a joint fundraising committee, with proceeds going first to the DNC, then to the campaign's recount account, and finally to state parties, according to fundraising disclosures.

Donald Trump has also continued post-election fundraising through a joint committee, primarily promoting merchandise like Christmas MAGA hats and holiday ornaments. At the same time, independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has openly solicited donations to pay down campaign debt from his abbreviated run.

The post Dems say Harris' continued fundraising 'not a good look' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Joe Lieberman may not have appeared to be a rebel at first glance, but this mild-mannered politician possessed a backbone of steel. As the first Orthodox Jew elected to the US Senate, he often acted as a bridge between Democrats and Republicans during an era of bitter polarization.

Bridging political divides

Imagine a Democratic presidential candidate choosing a Republican as their running mate. In today's political climate, that sounds outrageous. Yet, this almost became a reality in 2008 when Republican candidate John McCain considered selecting Lieberman as his vice president. Why would McCain partner with a Democrat? It was likely due to Lieberman's unique ability to bridge political divides.

Lieberman frequently collaborated with Republicans on significant issues, such as environmental legislation and welfare reform. His commitment to working across party lines was a hallmark of his political career, demonstrating that achieving goals often requires collaboration, even among those with differing viewpoints.

The first Orthodox Jew in the Senate

Lieberman's journey to the Senate was not just about politics but also about faith. As the first observant Jew in the Senate, he faced unique challenges. Observing Shabbat meant disconnecting from work for 25 hours each week, and attending events during Jewish holidays was often complicated. Some of Lieberman's political advisors expressed concern that his religious observance would impede his campaign. Yet, he viewed his Judaism as a source of motivation.

Throughout his political career, Lieberman maintained a daily practice of morning prayers, reflecting his commitment to his faith. This practice provided him with a sense of calm amidst the chaos of political life. Raised in an Orthodox home, he was instilled with the importance of Shabbat, which remained a priority even during his time in the Senate.

Lieberman's dedication to Shabbat was evident when he would walk for hours to the Capitol to vote on Saturdays, demonstrating his commitment to both his faith and his duties as a senator. His colleagues respected this unique aspect of his character, and it became a defining trait of his political persona. The Jewish value of tikun olam, or repairing the world, inspired him to address social issues head-on, from civil rights to environmental advocacy.

A commitment to social activism

Joe Lieberman's activism began in the 1960s, during a time of significant social upheaval in the United States. He was deeply affected by the injustices of Jim Crow laws and felt compelled to take action. In 1963, he marched on Washington, witnessing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s iconic "I Have a Dream" speech.

Moved by the struggle for civil rights, Lieberman organized voter registration campaigns and publicized mock elections to demonstrate that Black Americans were indeed interested in politics. His efforts were not just about political activism; they were personal, stemming from a belief in justice and equality.

The value of debate

Another key aspect of Lieberman's approach to politics was his appreciation for debate. He grew up in a household that studied the Talmud, which encourages lively discussions, values diverse opinions, and is unafraid to engage in disagreements. This tradition is integral to Jewish culture, where debate and discourse are necessary to understand and interpret religious texts. Lieberman's ability to embrace disagreements allowed him to work collaboratively across party lines. He believed that productive disagreements were essential to democracy as long as they were rooted in good faith and mutual respect.

Staying true to his convictions

Lieberman's political journey was not without challenges. He often found himself at odds with his party, especially regarding the Iraq War. While many Democrats opposed the war, Lieberman remained a staunch supporter, believing that withdrawing would damage American credibility and security in the Middle East. He was willing to face backlash for his convictions, showcasing a rare form of political integrity in an era marked by partisanship.

Endorsing McCain

In 2008, as Barack Obama campaigned for president, Lieberman publicly endorsed John McCain, a decision that sparked outrage among some Democrats. He felt that the Democratic Party had shifted away from the principles he once valued. His endorsement was not just a political move; it was a reflection of his deep-seated beliefs about the country's direction. This decision led to calls for Lieberman to be punished by his party, but he remained steadfast. His willingness to prioritize principle over party loyalty was a hallmark of his character, earning him respect from colleagues across the aisle.

Legacy of Jewish observance

Most people remember Lieberman as a politician who came close to being vice president. However, his legacy extends beyond political titles. He demonstrated that devout Jewish observance could coexist with a successful political career.

Lieberman's journey teaches us valuable lessons about the importance of conviction, collaboration, and the ability to engage with differing perspectives. In a time when political divisions seem deeper than ever, his example serves as a reminder that it is possible to bridge gaps and work together for the common good.

The post Who was the first Orthodox Jew in the US Senate? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Four more Democratic members of Congress have joined the growing chorus calling for President Joe Biden to step aside in the 2024 presidential race, according to multiple sources who spoke with NBC News, familiar with a Sunday phone call among House Democrats.

Representatives Adam Smith of Washington, Jerry Nadler of New York, Mark Takano of California, and Joe Morelle of New York, all holding top positions on key congressional committees, expressed their belief that Biden should drop out of the race. This brings the total number of Democratic lawmakers publicly questioning Biden's candidacy to nearly a dozen.

The conversation took place during a call convened by House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York. Sources report that Biden's future as the party's leader was heavily scrutinized during the hour-long discussion.

While some lawmakers stopped short of explicitly calling for Biden's withdrawal, they voiced significant concerns about the Democrats' chances in November with the 81-year-old president at the top of the ticket, saying that Vice President Kamala Harris would be a better nominee.

The surge in Democratic unease follows Biden's widely criticized debate performance on June 27, which has prompted discussions among lawmakers and donors about the president's electoral viability. Polls have consistently shown that Biden's age is a top concern for voters.

Despite the growing pressure, Biden has remained defiant about calls for him to leave the race. In an interview with ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos on Friday, the president dismissed the idea of stepping aside, saying only the "Lord Almighty" could get him to reconsider.

"Look, I mean, if the Lord Almighty came down and said, 'Joe, get out of the race,' I'll get out of the race," Biden said. "The Lord Almighty's not coming down."

As the debate over Biden's candidacy continues, the Democratic Party faces a critical moment of introspection, weighing the president's experience and achievements against concerns about his age and electability in what promises to be a highly contentious 2024 election.

The post Top Democrats call for Biden to step aside in 2024 race appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The fomenting of divisions between Israel and the US is not new; this atmosphere has been around for many years in both countries, and it is this very trend that threatens the special relationship more than anything else. The Israeli Left has long tried to set the narrative that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Democratic Party are estranged. 

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Likewise, the Republicans keep trying to paint a worrying picture that the Democrats have left Israel to its own devices and therefore Jerusalem should no longer have anything to do with the Donkey Party. But it turns out facts are a stubborn thing, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken's small gestures are a great example. Just before he arrived in Israel from Egypt, America's chief diplomat announced that Israel reached a critical milestone on the path toward joining the Visa Waiver Program.  

The timing was hardly coincidental. He had held the information for many weeks, presumably so that he could make the announcement during his visit and thus contribute to the positive atmosphere. A no-less important gesture was his refusal to directly criticize the judicial reforms the government is currently pushing. Opposition Leader Yair Lapid has tried to make Blinken part of his team and Jewish leaders have tried to enlist the US secretary to torpedo the reforms. But, lo and behold, when he met Netanyahu on Monday he took pains not to take on the role the left-wing media and the Left (in both countries) have tried to cast him in. 

The ongoing protests in Israel are just a manifestation of Israel's vibrant democracy, he said. He also noted that reforms should be passed through dialogue. That's all he said on the matter, to the dismay of the government's detractors, and of course, the cherry on top was the progress on the Visa Waiver Program. Had Netanyahu really "lost" America, as some pundits and Lapid have insisted, the administration would have suspended the efforts to have Israel join the program. But not only has the US not taken any steps in that direction, but the Biden administration has also actually gone all-in to see this process completed, as demonstrated by the conduct of US Ambassador to Israel Tom NIdes and Homeland Security Minister Alejandro Mayorkas, and many others. 

No less important is the instinctive decision by President Joe Biden to call Netanyahu on Shabbat shortly after the massacre in Jerusalem. This is how a friend acts; that is not what happens if relations are in a crisis. For the US, there is only one thing that matters: that things remain calm. US officials are preoccupied with the war in Ukraine and the tension with China. They need the Middle East to be under control. They conveyed this request to Netanyahu, and he has definitely delivered. As Opposition leader, Netanyahu would continually attack the US posture toward Iran and the previous government for not being vocal enough on this matter, but as prime minister, he has made a U-turn and stressed the cooperation between the countries.

Of course, behind closed doors gaps remain and Blinken has even made note of that publicly. But the decision on both sides not to put the divisions front and center is a signal that both wish to avoid a redux of the confrontation between Jerusalem and Washington during the Obama years. For some, the bipartisan support from Washington does not fit their narrative, but it is very much alive and kicking. Everyone must do their utmost to keep it that way.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post It turns out Netanyahu never 'lost' the Democrats appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

To cancel – in other words, to erase, to exclude, to make illegitimate. This is one of the heaviest tools that the radical Left in the US uses on anyone who, in its opinion, has acted immorally. 

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Israel, for example, was cancelled long ago. In the eyes of the New York Times readers and those to the left of them, there is no justification for the existence of a state for the Jewish people, certainly not when it supposedly "occupies and oppresses" another people. Much like in Israel, anyone who diverges from a small and vocal group that tries to dictate norms is shunned. That's how it works. 

But Americans are starting to get sick of the campaign of purity. Both in the Democratic Party and outside it, there are plenty of indications that the radicals' strength is starting to wane. If the trend gains traction, and there are good reasons to believe it will, the anti-Israel group in Congress could lose some of its power. At least, this what some Israeli officials who are active in the American arena think. 

The latest victim of the progressives' campaign of purity was supposed to have been Congressman Jamaal Bowman. Bowman, a Black and socialist politician, was elected only a year ago in a strong push by the radical fringes of the Democratic Party. A successful campaign, and the background of the George Floyd rioting, as well as the hatred for Donald Trump, saw Bowman defeat Eliot Engel in a primary race. The moment he did, it was clear he would be elected to Congress, because his district, Riverdale, automatically votes Democratic. 

The loss for the long-serving, Jewish, and pro-Israel Engel hit supporters of Israel hard. Many saw the change of guard as more proof that the party was distancing itself from Israel, with opponents of Israel gaining power. Bowman was supported by, among others, Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Socialists of America. Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an ally of his. 

But a year after defeating his pro-Israel opponent, Bowman found himself shunned by the organization. Why? Bowman continues to condemn Israel day and night, but he dared to visit the country, met with Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, suggested additional funding for the Iron Dome missile defense system, and does not support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. In the eyes of the radical, this is an inexcusable series of crimes. Eventually, realizing it would be a mistake to lose one of their "own" congressional representatives, Bowman was "only" condemned by his partners. 

"There is no excuse for Rep. Bowman's decision to increase funding for the Israeli military when he previously committed to cut US military aid and arms sales to countries carrying out systematic human rights violations, nor for his participation in a propaganda trip to Israel, which aims to legitimize an apartheid state. Everyone committed to Palestinian liberation has a responsibility to resist the Israel propaganda machine, whose purpose is sanitizing the oppression of Palestinians. Instead Rep. Bowman met with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, an unapologetic racist and war criminal who has infamously said, "I have killed lots of Arabs in my life – and there is no problem with that," the DSA said in a formal statement.  

Signals from Ohio

It's no coincidence that Bowman and others are moving away from the radical circles in the Democratic Party. His district is home to many Jewish voters who support Israel. They might have fallen asleep at the wheel in last year's election, but Bowman needs their votes in the mid-term elections. So he hasn't become a supporter of Israel, but he is careful not to cross red lines, like supporting BDS. 

Apparently, he is also aware of the big political picture. In the past few months, the radical Left of the Democratic party – which usually expresses stances that are antisemitic and anti-Israel – has racked up failure after failure, both in intra-party contests and against the conservatives. 

Eric Adams, a Black, centrist, and pro-Israel Democrat was elected mayor of New York. In the primaries, he beat a progressive candidate who had the support of AOC. The victory for Adams, 61, who spent 25 years as a cop, is seen as a desire by New Yorkers to restore law and order and clear the homeless off the streets. In his campaign, Adams emphasized his opposition to the progressive purists' demand that he defund the police, and even stood up to threats from the Black Lives Matter movement. He drew a clear line in the sand against the radicals, and won. 

In Ohio, Black and pro-Israel candidate Shontel Brown beat a progressive, anti-Israel candidate in the Democratic primaries. Massive funding from the Democratic Majority for Israel helped Brown win. Observant Jews stood by her and her Black supporters at her victory party in August, and she called them her "Jewish brothers and sisters," stressing the importance of ties with Israel. 

In a Democratic primary race in Buffalo a few months ago, long-serving mayor Byron Brown lost to socialist candidate India Walton. The Democratic apparatus, from Chuck Schumer to AOC, aligned with Walton, assuming that the party's automatic majority in the city would ensure that she would win the mayoral race. But Brown surprised everyone by running as an Independent and winning a fifth term by a sweeping majority. Another case of a line being drawn against the radicals. 

Even in Minneapolis, where George Floyd was murdered two years ago, igniting riots that spread across the country, the voices calling to defund the police lost. Common sense won out over piousness. 

The Democrats also racked up losses in local elections in early fall. In Virginia, after the state had been under Democratic control for a decade, a Republican candidate won the gubernatorial race. The assumption is that next year, the Republicans will re-take the House of Representatives, which is seen as more comfortable for Israel. 

It would be appropriate to mention that the Democratic leadership enlisted to ensure that the budget to fund Iron Dome passed with a large majority. Only eight of the 221 Democratic congresspeople voted nay, which in itself is a clear pro-Israel message. Notably, Republican Sen. Rand Paul is the one holding up the Iron Dome funding, not the Democrats. 

'A new political atmosphere'

Another milestone is the boycott of Ben & Jerry's, which has turned into a double-edged sword. Many US states are divesting from Ben & Jerry's parent company, Unilever, which has already seen its stock value drop by 13%. The US Securities and Exchange Commission is expected to launch a probe of the matter soon after four congressional representatives, including two Democrats, asked it to. 

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The embarrassing interview that the company's founders, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, gave to a young journalist who tried to understand their motives has become a joke. When they were asked why they did not boycott other countries over human rights violations, or US states that ban or restrict abortion access, they were left speechless. 

All of these occurrences have led Israeli officials in the US to believe that public opinion in general and among Democrats in particular is starting to shift. No one is deluding themselves that the battle is over. Indeed, Israel's new consul in New York, former minister Assaf Zamir, and the consulate staff are devoting considerable efforts to bolstering progressives who support Israel. Their goal is to separate the link that has been created between progressivism and anti-Israel stances. 

But the instances mentioned here have also sparked optimism. "We have a lot of work ahead of us. After two years of COVID, a political crisis in Israel, and tensions between Jewish Democrats and the Netanyahu governments, there is a lot of work to do. But it looks like we've made it past the nadir when it comes to anti-Israel trends in the Democratic Party. There are widespread changes happening in the US that could be characterized as a rejection of purist progressive positions. These processes aren't taking place because of Israel and have nothing to do with it, but do affect it positively," Israeli sources active in the US say. 

Like any other political process, and certainly when we're talking about a country as huge as America, the picture always contains other shades, as well. Congresswoman Betty McCollum from Minnesota managed to get 30 of her colleagues to sign a bill that would effectively cancel defense aid to Israel. It's clear the bill won't have the majority to pass, but the initiative itself is problematic. 

Rep. Andy Levin from Detroit, a close colleague of Rep. Rashida Tlaib, signed 40 of his colleagues on a bill that would condition aid to Israel on progress toward a two-state solution and held Israel solely responsible for the lack of peace with the Palestinians. 

In general, three years ago the anti-Israel group in Congress numbered four. Last year, they trebled to 12. This trend, in addition to a deep familiarity with American politics, leads pro-Israel elements in the Democratic party to disagree with the Israeli opinion that the worst is behind us. 

"True, in the new political atmosphere it's less popular to talk about defunding the police, and today you won't find 40 congresspeople who would sign a bill like that. But you will find that level of support for a bill against Israel, so I wouldn't say the 'worst is behind us," said a senior political consultant who is well-versed in what is taking place and who supports Israel. 

"But what we can say is that in almost every place where supporters of Israel got in and fought, they got the upper hand. Last year there weren't a lot of rates, so the Democratic lobby for Israel was able to divert effort and funding to the few places where primaries were being held, like in the case of Shontel Brown. It could be said that supporters of Israel in the Democratic Party have won a few battles, but haven't yet won the war. Next year there will be mid-term elections, where a lot of races are expected. The trend is positive, but they still don't have the resources or the ability to be everywhere. So supporters of Israel in the Democratic Party have a big mission ahead of them," he said. 

The post Is the tide of US progressivism turning?  appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Foreign Minister and Alternate Prime Minister Yair Lapid met on Monday with a visiting congressional delegation of Democrats on Monday organized by J Street, drawing backlash from right-wing politicians.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The delegation was comprised of Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Ct.) Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Melania Stansbury (D-N.M.) and Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.). J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami was also in attendance.

On the Israeli side, Lapid was joined by Transportation Minister Merav Michaeli (Labor), Public Security Minister Omer Bar-Lev (Labor), Regional Cooperation Minister Issawi Frej (Meretz), and Environmental Protection Minister Tamar Zandberg (Meretz).

The liberal Israel lobby group had been shunned for years by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu because it works to undermine official Israeli policy on a broad range of issues.

An Israeli government official told Israel Hayom that "J Street is the only lobby that defines itself as 'pro-Israel,' but actively opposes the policies of the [various] governments – whether this means actively supporting a return to the nuclear deal with Iran, or promoting members of Congress who oppose Iron Dome funding. When other lobbies don't agree with Israel on a certain issue, they simply keep quiet and don't take a position. [J Street] are the only ones who come out against [Israel]. Therefore the meetings with them, until [Monday], were at the lower levels."

In a tweet, Lapid thanked the delegation "for supporting the replenishment of the Iron Dome missile-defense system, and we discussed the importance of continuing to strengthen the US-Israel relationship."

This evening at the Knesset, I met with a delegation of Democratic members of Congress. I thanked them for supporting the replenishment of the Iron Dome missile defense system, and we discussed the importance of continuing to strengthen the US-Israel relationship. pic.twitter.com/DBiJI8gDcL

— יאיר לפיד - Yair Lapid (@yairlapid) November 8, 2021

According to J Street, the trip emphasizes "balance and providing equal time to Israeli and Palestinian voices, the delegation will meet with ministers in the Israeli government, Members of Knesset, and representatives of the IDF, as well as with leaders of the Palestinian Authority, and with a wide range of Israeli and Palestinian civil society leaders, issue experts and activists."

DeLauro, who heads the House Appropriations Committee, helped spearhead the $1 billion resolution on Israel's Iron Dome missile-defense system in September after funding had been removed from a larger government spending bill over the objections of several progressive Democratic lawmakers. This incident touched off criticism among Republicans and even some moderate Democrats over the Democratic party's commitment to Israel.

Among others in the delegation is Pocan, who has been an outspoken critic of Israel in recent months. In May, during Israel's 11-day conflict with Hamas in Gaza, he led a group of nearly a dozen progressive Democrats in censuring Israel's policies towards the Palestinians on the House floor, accusing Israel of "disproportionate discrimination and treatment" of the Palestinians.

Bowman, who has been included as a member of the far-left "Squad," has been critical of Israel and called for restricting aid to the Jewish state, though recently voted for funding for the Iron Dome. Last year, Bowman ousted prominent pro-Israel Democrat Eliot Engel in a heated primary.

Likud MK Dr. Shlomo Karai said in response to the meeting that the "radical left-wing government continues to strengthen our enemies at the expense of those who love us. J Street has proven time and again that it doesn't care one iota about Israel's best interests. Just the opposite, every time it has been able to choose whether to stands alongside Israel or our enemies, it has chosen the worst of our enemies. This too, as with the dangerous diplomatic process, is on the hands of [Prime Minister Naftali] Bennett and [Interior Minister Ayelet] Shaked, [Justice Minister Gideon] Sa'ar and [Housing and Construction Minister Ze'ev] Elkin, and with their full backing. This is the same Bennett who in the past praised [former President Reuven] Rivlin for refusing to meet with them. The man knows no bounds. In the next election, the public will make sure they pay the price of this negligence and neglect."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

It should be noted that Bennett did meet Monday with the Democratic delegation but refused to meet with J Street representatives.

Likud faction chairman MK Yariv Levin in response to Lapid's meeting with J Street: "Alternate Prime Minister Yair Lapid's meeting with representatives of the radical left-wing organization J Street, which actively works to impair American support for Israeli positions, and whose members supported the dangerous nuclear deal with Iran, proves yet again … this government is not 10 degrees to the right. It is 180 degrees to the left."

Lapid's bureau said in a statement: "The foreign minister met with a delegation of important congressmen. The minister's policy is to meet and speak with whoever has influence and to try convincing them that Israel's positions are just."

Parts of this article were reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post FM Lapid meets members of left-wing group J Street, draws backlash appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.