Far-left House Democrats chafe at Biden Israel support after Hamas terror attacks

A long-simmering feud among Democrats about how deeply, if at all, to support Israel is widening into a wrenching rift amid the nation’s defensive war against Hamas terrorists in Gaza and foes elsewhere.

Even before Hamas’s Oct. 7 terrorist attacks on targets in southern Israel, which have claimed more than 1,400 lives and captured about 200 hostages, most still in captivity, a rump of House Democrats were outspoken critics of the Jewish state and, in the cases of Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Cori Bush (D-MO), and arguably a couple of others, are outright opponents of the Middle East’s only democracy’s very existence in their calls for Palestinian sovereignty over land that’s been part of Israel since its 1948 founding.

BIDEN AND TRUMP COURT INDEPENDENT VOTERS AMID THIRD-PARTY THREAT

Their hostility to Israel hasn’t softened since the mass terror attacks from the Gaza Strip, which Israel pulled out of unilaterally in 2005. It stands in stark contrast with President Joe Biden, who flew to Israel in a show of support after the attacks, which produced the highest casualty level of Jews on a single day since the Holocaust. As did Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), leading a bipartisan mission of senators. House Democratic leaders have also made clear their backing of Israel ahead of an expected ground invasion into Gaza aimed at eliminating the Hamas terror infrastructure in tunnels and rocket-launching sites.

Biden, who has dealt with Israeli officials as vice president for eight years and over his 36-year Senate career as a Delaware Democrat, finds himself fending attacks from the likes of Tlaib, Omar, and Bush, who have called Israel’s airstrikes on Gaza “genocide.” He’s now working with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government war planners on ways to defuse the hostage situation and allow food and medical supplies into Gaza for Palestinian civilians.

Biden is “stuck” between his broader international and strategic imperatives and complaints about his approach to Israel by the most liberal House Democrats, according to the Alexander Hamilton Society’s executive director, Gabriel Scheinmann.

“[Biden] actually thinks he is restraining Israel from mounting a more vigorous response and offensive, whether that be Gaza, Lebanon, or Iran, but the far Left of his party thinks that he’s actually enabling Israel to do these various things,” Scheinmann told the Washington Examiner. “Whenever Israel does actually launch some sort of ground offensive into Gaza, as well as what happens on the northern border, he’s going to get pulled in two different directions very quickly.”

Evan Vucci/AP

Scheinmann dismissed “the Hamas Caucus,” contending that Biden’s Middle East policy was based on a misunderstanding of U.S. interests in the region. Instead, he recommended that Biden establish better communication channels with Israel and stop pushing Netanyahu to explain his “endgame” while dealing “a very serious blow to the Iranian regime and the proxies.”

“[Biden’s] going to have to decide and get a sense of, especially as the election season starts to approach, what do the more center-left or independent voters really feel and where do those congressmen and congresswomen line up in different ways,” Scheinmann, who was previously a top official at the Jewish Policy Center, said.

Richard Goldberg, a senior adviser for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, asserted it is “incumbent” upon Biden to do the “right thing,” regardless of “ideological extremes.” Goldberg argued that “it’s hard to imagine” the American public “getting tired” of backing Israel “in its defense and going after terrorism,” bristling at the president lecturing Israel about the rule of law and rules of war when Hamas “uses human shields.” The White House National Security Council aide during the Trump administration attributed Biden’s talk to an attempt to “placate” far-left Democrats.

“His rhetoric so far is certainly trying to have some sort of evenhandedness displayed at a time that does not call for evenhandedness, and some of that is unsettling,” he said. “But when the pedal hits the metal and there’s actually a larger operation kicked off, if one occurs, and there’s a need for U.S. military resupply, that will be the ultimate test.”

Retired Army Col. Rich Outzen, an Atlantic Council senior fellow, credited Biden for heeding military advice regarding potential escalations by Lebanese militant organization Hezbollah and Iran, specifically sending aircraft carrier groups to the region, in addition to intelligence and advisory assistance to the Israel Defense Forces.

“This must be viewed against the massive deterrence failure woven into the Iranian nuclear negotiations, especially the relaxation of oil sanctions that provided significant new revenues for Iranian adventurism,” the Vandenberg Coalition advisory board member and former State Department adviser said.

Outzen also welcomed Biden encouraging Israel to delay its ground offensive “long enough” to negotiate the release of hostages, some of whom are American citizens, and facilitate humanitarian aid into Gaza.

“These protect American interests and values without removing Israeli options,” he said. “Ultimately, Israel has to go into the [Gaza] Strip to prevent a future reprisal of the Oct. 7 attacks, but haste in such matters will increase casualties on both sides.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Bruce Jones, a Brookings Institution senior fellow, similarly acknowledged an ill-conceived ground offensive would have “profound consequences across the globe, conceding Israel has “made some very important mistakes” in how they referred to Palestinians “in the first days” after the attacks.

“My worry for the administration is that although Biden appears to be trying to delay a large-scale ground offensive into Gaza, I sincerely doubt he’s succeeded in stopping it,” the former United Nations adviser said. “The close embrace of Netanyahu, whatever is said in private or public, the close embrace, the official embrace, we’re already seeing — and I think we’re going to see more — that the administration is treated as if it owns whatever happens next. And I think what’s going to happen next is going to be a very large scale, very long lasting, and very bloody.”