American Gridlock Threatens Israeli Security
By a TIJ Contributor
Israel has largely escaped political partisanship in the United States for the better part of its history. However, increasingly, the far-left wing of the Democratic Party has balked at upholding the U.S.’s longstanding commitment to assisting the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. The more extreme section of the party, the so-called “Squad,” is attempting to pursue a policy of withholding support for countries that, in their eyes, commit human rights violations — in particular Saudi Arabia and Israel. Their policies have been given a moment in the sun over the last few weeks on the issue of funding for the Iron Dome. The Iron Dome is a defensive technology employed by the Israeli government that involves mobile firing stations that send rockets to intercept incoming missiles, primarily from the terrorist organization Hamas. The Iron Dome was used extensively during the conflict with Gaza earlier this year, and it has intercepted thousands of rockets over its decade-long use. In keeping with the longstanding American policy of supporting Israel, many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle support a continued partnership with the state of Israel to the tune of an additional $1B of funding to the vital technology. The results have been… mixed.
The extra billion dollars of funding originally appeared as if it would fly through the legislature without a hitch. To avoid a shutdown, the House was set to pass a $1.2T bill that would fund the federal government for another few months. Within the broad spending bill was a provision providing the billion dollars in Iron Dome funding. While many didn’t notice, the progressives in the House majority clearly did. With a narrow majority in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats could hardly afford to lose any party members in what was sure to be a close vote. Behind the scenes, the far-left of the party appears to have pressured the Democratic establishment to remove the Iron Dome funding from the bill. The loss of the progressive vote could have meant a crushing and embarrassing blow to the Democrats, so they caved to progressive pressure, releasing a final draft of the bill that omitted the Iron Dome funding. The move angered many centrist Democrats as well as many pro-Israel groups. But, despite their ire, the Iron Dome was left out of the budget. It appeared, at least in the short term, that the anti-Israel forces in Congress had won.
The Squad’s victory was short-lived. The day after the Iron Dome funding was removed from the budget reconciliation, Representative Rosa DeLauro introduced a stand-alone bill, separate from the larger issue of government funding, that provided the promised billion dollars for the Israeli defensive technology. H.R. 5323, better known as the Iron Dome Supplemental Appropriations Act, was a short bill — not even three pages — but it represented a significant moment for the Democratic party in the face of Progressive pressure.
On this vote, the Democrats did not need to court the far left. The bill flew through the House by a vote of 420–9, enjoying significant bipartisan support. Only eight Democrats and one Republican voted against the measure, with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), seen by many as the leader of Congressional progressives, voting “present.” Leadership on both sides of the aisle celebrated the victory, with triumphant statements from DeLauro and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (who took the opportunity to take a swipe at Democrats, calling some “antisemitic”). The pro-Israel crowd had won round 2.
After passing the House, the bill moved on to the Senate, a chamber narrowly controlled by the Democrats. Surely, a bill with such strong bipartisan support would find the same support in the Senate. Well, yes and no. The Senate, by design, slows down legislation that comes from the firebrand House of Representatives. To pass through the Senate, a bill must endure a gauntlet of committees and debates, sometimes killing even the most popular bills. Some bills are so widely supported, however, that they can be passed by “unanimous consent.” If no Senator dissents, a bill can skip the arduous process involved and simply pass through the Senate . If one Senator objects, the consent is no longer unanimous, and that is exactly what happened to the Iron Dome Supplemental Appropriations Act. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), a Libertarian from Kentucky who caucuses with the Republicans, opposed the passage of the act, preferring to rebudget money appropriated for Afghanistan towards the Iron Dome. Despite drawing the anger both of pro-Israel groups and a bi-partisan group of lawmakers, Paul has stuck to his guns. This is where we stand. The billion dollars, vital to Israel’s security, will go through the unpleasant and often unpredictable process of the Senate. It could become a standalone bill, it could get wrapped into a larger spending package or it could die altogether. Although I wouldn’t bet on it, the bill could very possibly fail, despite being supported of 519 lawmakers and being opposed by only 10. Such is the American political system.
