U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) addresses reporters during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., July 29, 2022. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

More than 100 House Democrats voted Wednesday to eliminate U.S. funding for Israel—even after their party’s second-ranking House leader warned that the measure’s sweeping language could also block humanitarian assistance for Palestinian refugees and civilians in Gaza.

The amendment, introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), failed by a vote of 314–104. Massie supplied the only Republican vote in favor, while 103 Democrats supported the measure and 10 voted present. The proposal would have barred any funding appropriated under the State Department spending bill from being “obligated or expended for Israel” and separately reduced the foreign-military-financing account by $3.3 billion—the amount allocated for Israel’s annual security assistance.

House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) nevertheless described the amendment as “overly broad,” arguing that it was not designed to produce a serious debate over the provision of offensive weapons to Israel.

She also asserted that the measure “blocks all foreign aid to Israel, including humanitarian funding for Palestinian refugees and civilians in Gaza.”

Clark did not identify which Palestinian-assistance programs would be affected, and the amendment itself did not expressly mention Gaza, Palestinians, refugees or humanitarian relief. Its operative language applied to funds used “for Israel,” leaving unclear whether or how assistance provided directly to Palestinians or international humanitarian organizations would have fallen within the prohibition.

Nonetheless, Clark voted for the amendment, arguing that the existing relationship with Israel was no longer sustainable and accusing the Israeli government of failing to comply with American law, interests and values.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) raised a similar concern but reached the opposite conclusion. In a letter to Democratic lawmakers, Jeffries warned that the amendment could limit funding for “humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement, peace-building and U.S. Embassy operations.” He voted against it.

The statements by Clark and Jeffries created an unusual contradiction for Democrats supporting the proposal: according to their own leadership, a vote intended primarily to register opposition to military assistance for Israel could also jeopardize programs serving Palestinians.

Still, neither leader specified which appropriations would be captured by the amendment. The claim should therefore be understood as their interpretation of its broad wording—not as an independently established finding that the measure would have terminated all American humanitarian assistance to Palestinians.

The vote nevertheless marked a dramatic break from decades of overwhelmingly bipartisan congressional support for Israel’s annual security-assistance package. More than half of House Democrats voted for the amendment, including Clark and former House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). The measure’s 103 Democratic supporters substantially outnumbered the 98 Democrats who opposed it.

Several Democrats presented their votes as protests against the conduct of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government rather than endorsements of ending every aspect of the U.S.–Israel relationship. Others argued that American assistance should be conditioned on Israel’s conduct in Gaza.

The amendment’s opponents countered that eliminating assistance would weaken Israel’s ability to defend itself, reduce American influence in the region and embolden Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), a longtime supporter of Israel, said the proposal would undermine American national security and diminish Washington’s ability to confront terrorist organizations that target both Israelis and Americans.

“If adopted, it would—as Leader Jeffries rightly pointed out—limit our ability to confront terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah that expressly target American citizens and military personnel,” Hoyer said.

He also argued that weakening the U.S.–Israel relationship would make it more difficult for Washington to encourage negotiations toward a two-state solution.

Republicans almost unanimously rejected the amendment. They portrayed Israel as an indispensable strategic ally whose military strength helps contain Iran and its regional proxies.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee praised the amendment’s defeat but criticized Democrats who treated the vote as a symbolic protest.

“This so-called messaging vote on Israel’s security sends a dangerous signal to both our allies and our enemies around the world,” AIPAC said.

The organization noted that the underlying legislation preserved the full $3.3 billion security-assistance allocation provided under the memorandum of understanding negotiated during the Obama administration. According to AIPAC, nearly all of that money will be spent in the United States, supporting American defense production.

Massie, a libertarian Republican and longtime opponent of foreign assistance, has increasingly found himself aligned with progressive Democrats seeking to curtail aid to Israel, though the two camps arrive at that position from different ideological directions. Massie lost his Republican primary in May and will leave Congress at the conclusion of his term.

His amendment’s defeat was never seriously in doubt. Its political significance lay instead in the size of the Democratic vote.

Only one Republican supported the proposal, while a majority of the Democratic caucus backed it. That division suggests that opposition to unconditional assistance for Israel is no longer confined to a small group of progressive lawmakers.

At the same time, the disagreement between Clark and Jeffries illustrates the uncertainty surrounding what many Democrats intended their votes to accomplish. Clark supported a measure she herself described as excessively broad and potentially harmful to Palestinians. Jeffries agreed that its consequences could extend beyond military aid but opposed it for precisely that reason.

The result was a vote that allowed 103 Democrats to register dissatisfaction with Israel while leaving unresolved whether they were also prepared to accept the broader humanitarian and diplomatic consequences their own leaders said the amendment might produce.