Breaking News from Pod Save America - Why Democrats Should Cut off Weapons Sales to Israel and Reject AIPAC Money

Episode Date: August 29, 2025

Tommy talks with Congressman Adam Smith about his call to leverage US weapons sales to pressure Israel, whether there’s hope for a two-state solution, and about whether Democrats should stop taking money from AIPAC. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Not loving your AT&T or T Mobile Bill? Yeah, we've been hearing that a lot. Good news. Bring your AT&T or T Mobile Bill to Verizon and we'll give you a better deal. So get away from that unfortunate phone bill and get to Verizon. Run, ride, canoe. Whatever it takes, we'll be here. Bring your AT&T or T Mobile Bill to a Verizon today and we'll give you a better deal on the best network on the best network on the best overall network. That's Verizon. Best Network based on Route Metrics, Best Overall Mobile Network, Performance, U.S. Second Half, 2025. All rights reserved. It must provide a recent consumer mobile bill in the name of the person who gave me the deal. Additional Terms, Conditions, and Restrictions apply. My guest today represents Washington's ninth congressional district and serves as the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman Adam Smith, welcome back to Pottae of America. Well, that's great. Great to be on. Good to see you again. Good to see you, too. Thank you for doing this. So I wanted to talk with you this week because on Tuesday, you released a statement calling on the Israeli government to implement a ceasefire in Gaza to massively increase the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza and to stop the expansion of settlements in the West Bank and settler violence in the West Bank. you said that if Israel does not take these steps, that it is, quote, time for the United States government to stop the sale of some offensive weapons systems to Israel as leverage. So my question is, what systems are you talking about and what made you change your mind about blocking

these weapons sales? Sure. I'm not at the moment specific about the weapon systems. I would have supported both of the resolutions of disapproval and the Senate. It's more about using the leverage. I think obviously the focus would be on offensive weapon systems, but we just want to use that leverage to force a change in Israeli policy, to force a change in their calculation. Because to date, Netanyahu has been resistant to any pressure. Of course, the Trump administration is putting no pressure, but it's just sort of done what they want. So we have to use that leverage. As I think you well know, we provide over 60% of the weapons that Israel uses. It is a legit leverage point.

And what has changed is the facts on the ground have changed. in a number of key areas. One, you can't legitimately say that you can accomplish something more militarily against Hamas. Hamas does need to be significantly weakened and taken out of the equation. I don't think we can eliminate them, but that's been done. And Israeli generals for a couple months now have said there is nothing more militarily to be accomplished in weakening Hamas. The only way to weaken Hamas, in my opinion, at this point, is to present a plausible alternative within the Palestinian people.

So there's nothing militarily that can be achieved. That has changed. Second, Israel is not as vulnerable as they were even a few months ago because of what has happened with the weakening, certainly of Hamas, but also of Hezbollah. I mean, it wasn't that long ago when Hezbollah was lobbying rockets into northern Israel, and you had, I think it was 70,000 Israelis who were evacuated. from those areas. Iran has been significantly weakened. Assad is gone, a key ally of Iran, Hezbo, and Hamas. I was concerned before that weakening our sales of weapons to Israel made them

vulnerable to all of those people and to their very existence. That no longer is plausibly the case, given how weakened those organizations have been. And then, of course, given Israel's decision in March to cut off all humanitarian assistance for I think it was almost two and a half months, the humanitarian crisis is vastly worse than it was. So the facts have changed. Yeah. So, you know, as you know, there are a lot of Democrats who agree with you now, but sort of wish that the party had gotten to this place sooner.

So I just want to push you on some of those areas of criticism. So, you know, what would you say to a, to someone, a critic who read your statement and said, you know what? The United States should be cutting off these weapon sales to Israel because they're being used to slaughter innocent people in Gaza, especially kids. And we shouldn't need all this broader, you know, regional. security context and that even if we did have that broader context, like Hamas has been routed for a while, as you noted, as has Hezbollah. Iran, it sort of seemed clear that they were a bit of a

paper tiger even during the 12-day war. Doesn't this feel like, you know, a decision you could have come to a few months ago at least? Well, it hasn't been that long. A few months ago, arguably, two or three months. But there's two things about it. One, I have put out statements a couple of months ago, calling for these actions. So it's not the first time I've said that Israel should change these policies, particularly on the West Bank issues. That's been a long time. So several months ago, I reached this conclusion and stated so publicly, the change, the only change in the statement is the restrict weapons. And I consider that to be a pretty strong step, given again, Israel's threats and where they're at. And I had conversations with the Israeli ambassador

several times with the Trump administration urging this, because I wanted this to, to be done in cooperation, but it's clear now that that's not going to happen. Now, could it have come a month ago? Sure. I think that that's probably a fair criticism. Three, six, eight months ago, no. I do think that Israel was threatened at that point, and we saw that in the attack that Iran launched against them.

The other thing that's really different about where I'm coming from from a lot of the people who have been against supporting Israel for some time is I do believe, A, that Israel should have the right to continue to exist as a country, which is not really the position of a majority of people on the other side of this debate. I don't share that. And B, that Israel did face legitimate threats to that. There are some people that say, oh, don't give me that. Israel has a right to exist thing. Israel can take care of itself. They're not under threat. But if the U.S. pulled out, as has been argued that they should, a long time ago, heck, you know, let's remember that Cory Bush's ceasefire resolution came out within a week of October 7th and didn't say anything

about the hostages. So if you did that, then Israel would have been vulnerable going back to the 60 percent of weapons that come from the U.S., and they clearly face people who don't want them to exist as a country. I've always felt that this is part of the problem in getting to peace. I mean, if I go to Israel and say, you need to make these changes so there could be a legitimate Palestinian state, they can have sovereignty, self-determination. That's one thing. But if in fact, what that is, is, well, I want to put the people who don't think that you should exist as a country in a better position to accomplish that objective. That is a much more difficult conversation with Israel and their supporters. So there's a lot there. I just want to take on slices of this because it is

complicated. I mean, the other thing I think you hear from a lot of folks is, look, I hear you on all this context, but current U.S. law prohibits the selling or transfer of weapons to militaries that are in violation of international humanitarian law. Specifically, that would include laws that prohibit withholding or blocking of humanitarian aid, which Israel has been doing since the very beginning of this conflict, including a few months ago, which led to this acute famine. For that reason alone, aren't these weapons sales illegal? I think it is debatable because of the way Hamas is fighting. Okay. And it doesn't, and restricting humanitarian aid is one thing. Cutting it off is another. Certainly is a legit complaint from when, you know, Israel made that decision. And Israel claimed, well,

we're building up a different thing and all of that. But prior to that, it's not true that if you just say, you know, if you're trying to restrict humanitarian assistance from getting to enemy combatants, which is what Israel claimed they were doing, it's not as cut and dried as that. You are not obligated to provide assistance to the people who are fighting against you under our law. Number one, number two, Hamas very much does embed themselves within the civilian population and used that. I mean, they killed a number of top Hamas commanders, you know, underneath a parking lot in a hospital. I mean, that happened. So that's what Israel was dealing with, was a foe that was willing to violate those laws. And by the way, that too is a violation of the international laws of,

you know, conflict at war, you know, embedding yourself within a civilian population. Now, maybe people deny that Hamas was doing that. I mean, I've seen substantial evidence that they were, in fact, doing that. And that's what Israel had to deal with. And that is a very different conflict than fighting an inmate that tries to separate civilians from combatants. But if you would, doesn't under the Geneva Convention aren't occupying powers and parties to a conflict? Aren't they required to provide humanitarian relief, including food, if civilians are not being adequately supplied? Yeah, no, I said that.

Yeah, no, yeah, the civilians, absolutely. But Israel's argument always was they were restricting the aid getting into because Hamas was going to take over it. So they had different corridors. And it was only in March that they cut it all off. They had been letting aid in now. And I had long argued. I was in Rafa back in February of 2024 and met with the Red Crescent and a variety of

other organizations and said that Israel needs to do more. to let humanitarian assistance get in. I'm not disagreeing with that. But the idea that any efforts to restrict humanitarian assistance is an absolute 100% violation of the law is not 100% accurate. So I hear you on the broader point you were making earlier that Israel is in a tough neighborhood.

There are, without a doubt, organizations on their borders that part of their charter is they want Israel to no longer to exist. You know, Hamas, Hezbollah, et cetera. But, you know, look, Hamas recently accepted a temporary ceasefire deal that was basically the same as one that Netanyahu had agreed to, I think, last month. Currently, the Israeli government is just ghosting that proposal. They're refusing to respond to it.

And when you sort of look at Israeli public opinion, Israeli media, like the hostages, their families want to deal, there's hundreds of military and intelligence experts who say that Hamas has been decimated and there's no military value to continuing this conflict, as you said earlier. And to me, it's just, it's a fact that it's stated over and over again in the Israeli media that Netanyahu is prolonging this war for political purposes to keep his right wing governing coalition together. And isn't that sort of knowledge a reason enough to stop supporting this war and to stop providing missions? 100%. That's why I took the position I took. And that's why, like I said,

two months ago, I took the position I took completely. I don't disagree with anything you said there. Okay. So in your statement, you also mentioned the, you call on the Israeli government to stop the expansion of settlements in the West Bank. And I just wanted to dig into that issue for the audience who probably don't know why this is so important. So first question, do you support efforts to have the United States unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state? And if not, are you a support of a two-state solution? Like, how are you thinking about the broader sort of like peace process at this point? Yeah, first of all, to directly answer the question. I'm not in favor of the, I don't support the countries that have unilaterally recognized a Palestinian state, and it's not a step that I would

have the U.S. take. Ultimately, I am a supporter of a two-state solution, but I think talking about a two-state solution at this point is pointless, because that's a long way off in the future. What we should be talking about is greater autonomy and prosperity for the Palestinian people. Yeah, eventually we want them to have greater control of their own situation. But, you know, that's just kind of something to set. what we really need to do is we need to rush economic aid, we need to help them develop an economy, we need to help them develop their government. This is stuff that was going on back in 2005. The only time in my lifetime that I have been optimistic about what was going to happen there was when I visited Ramallah in the region back in 2005. And the U.S. was participating, and I think,

with Israel, whereby we were developing the security forces of the Palestinian. We were developing their government. And we were helping them develop and grow their economy. And you could see there were cranes in Ramallah. Things were being built. Things were going forward. And then, of course, Netanyahu got into power and torpedoed all of that. Those are the steps that we need to take. Now, the reason I'm not willing to do a unilateral recognition, and I know Rokana has introduced something I read is the outline of it today. And one thing he says in there is we need a Palestinian state with security guarantees for Israel and with Hamas out of the picture. And I agree all those things.

But if we unilaterally just say there's a Palestinian state without those things that it said in the letter we needed to get, well, that's contradictory. But we need to move in that direction without question. And again, whether or not it's a formal state, the key thing in the short term is greater autonomy. self-governance, the ability to run your economy, and frankly, hope in an economic future. And that is the way right now, in my opinion, for Israel to deal with Hamas. Support an alternative. Yeah. Work with the Arab states that have, and I've met with King Abdullah, I've met with MBS, I've met with

UAE, I've met with the Egyptian leadership. They don't exactly have their stuff together as much as the others do. But they are all anxious to work with, and they have a variety of different Palestinians. inside and outside of the Palestinian Authority, by the way, who they think are reasonable partners to work with, who they've been trying to get the Israeli government to let them work with for quite some time. That is how you stop Hamas at this point, not with more bombs, but with an alternative. And so that's what I support. Now, the West Bank stuff is even more problematic, because that makes it more difficult to create a legitimate Palestinian state, as Israel both gobbles up more of that

territory and then creates a violent environment for the Palestinians living in that neighborhood just in general. You know, you're getting at the point that I wanted to talk about, which is, you know, you're starting to see more and more experts on the Middle East peace process. You know, there's a great piece by Rob Malley in the New Yorker this week where they're sort of sounding the alarm and they're saying basically they think that either the hope of a two-state solution is either dead or nearly dead. And that's in part because, as you said, the West Bank has already been carved up by all these settlements and what's left for Pelham. Palestinians is by no means a contiguous land mass or, or, you know, an area that you would consider

a state in any in any respect. But then last week, the Israeli government approved the settlement project in an area in the West Bank called E1. And for listeners, like the E1 settlements, if built, would sever the West Bank from East Jerusalem, the Northern West Bank from the Southern West Bank. And to be clear, like, this is by design. Basil O Smotrich, the Finance Minister of Israel, called E1 settlement, quote, a nail in the coffin for the creation of a Palestinian state. So my question is, like, I worry that when we, people, you hear people default to saying, well, I'm for a two-state solution, that when you understand the facts on the grounds, on the ground, and you understand the sort of reality of the makeup of the Netanyahu government

and their support for the settler movement, it almost seems like a way of being for something that we all know is just completely unrealistic, unrealistic, if not foreclosed at this point. Well, that's why I emphasize that I'm not talking primarily about a two-state solution at this point. I am talking about greater economy, greater hope, greater economic opportunity for the Palestinian people, and that needs to be the focus. I mean, look, the whole situation is backed us into a corner. Now, something that your listeners should understand that I don't think they often hear. I've met with the Israeli ambassador several times, had many conversations with him. So the history, so, and gosh, go all the way back to the history of the 1930s when they were both the Jews and the Palestinians were trying to

drive the British out. And then the decision was made on the Palestinian side. Okay, Jews, you can stay, but you're not going to run anything. There's no state. And that's set off a civil war in 1936 that really hasn't stopped going forward. And then Oslo, of course, in 93, really put us on the path to a two-state solution. But then when the negotiations in 2000, the Camp David negotiations under Clinton fell apart, when the second Intifada started, and targeted civilian infrastructure, you know, school buses, shopping malls, and so aggressively, that pushed a lot of Israelis to saying, screw this, it's us with them. All right.

And then October 7th ramped that up even further. Yeah. Now, you know, and look, I understand if you're a very strong pro-Israel person. I have many of those in my district. I have an interesting district. It's both solidly democratic, so it has a lot of pro-Palestinian people and also has the most synagogues. The synagogues in this area are all in my district, either in southeast Seattle or in Mercer Island. And there's very passionate feelings about that. And I can certainly understand an Israeli person saying,

don't tell me that we have to do all the stuff for the Palestinians. Eventually, they're coming for us. I get that. I don't support it. I know that in doing what I'm proposing here, there is risk for the Israeli people. I understand that. But that risk, to my mind, is well worth taking if it gives some type of of future for the Palestinian people. And I'm just not going to support a policy that says, nope, we're just fighting it out. And whoever wins, the other side gets kicked out. That's not something that I'm going to support.

But I can tell you that's a huge battle with the Israeli people. And when, as I said, the majority of people who have been in the cutoff Israel camp for a long time, even before October 7th, are of the camp that no, should be a one-state solution and that state should not be Israel. makes peace tougher because Israel they're not going to agree to that. Yeah, I hear you. And look, I mean, I think this is this is just so challenging, right? Because, you know, everyone is so used to defaulting to, well, we need a two-state solution.

We need a negotiated agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And that feels like the hopeful thing to talk about. But I do worry, I wonder if sometimes just letting Netanyahu enter into peace talks that he knows will go nowhere allows him to just buy time and continue. You sell the construction and consider this de facto annexation that we're seeing happening in the West Bank that is just going to foreclose any hope of a Palestinian state. Yeah. No, and I don't disagree with that. And that's where we got leverage. Now, it was complicated. It was complicated when Hamas did what they did. And said, you know, we'll keep doing it. And openly asked for Hezbollah and Iran and the Houthis and everybody else to join in that conflict. You know, that gave Israel a plausible, hey, we're just. fighting for our survival thing. Now, long before that, you know, I had called for a stop in the

West Bank settlements and, you know, for sanctions against all of that. Yeah, no, look, there's no easy solution to this. It is an ugly, ugly problem. And, you know, I'm not going to presume that there is. And certainly, and we've talked about this in some of the broader context of what it does to the Democratic Party coalition. Yeah. Because it gets after some of the deeper divides that are in there, and picks it those wounds and makes it very difficult for us to deal with the very existential threat. You've noticed the fascist takeover of the country that's going on right now, I assume. I know you've talked about it. Yes. And that's what it is. I mean, you, you, I mean, it is as bad as anyone thinks it is, it's worse. I mean, Trump is shredding the constitution as we speak.

And I agree with Gavin Newsom, if he can figure out a way not to have an election in 2028, he'll do it. So, yeah, we can walk down that road, but, look, We got to figure out how to make this coalition work better. I'm with you. I'm with you. And I'm talking to you from once military occupied Los Angeles. So we feel the anxiety acutely here. But I really did appreciate the chance to talk to you about, you know, the statement you put out about Gaza,

because I, like you, worry that it is tearing apart the Democratic Party. I see elected officials, you know, having been working on this stuff for a long time, I see elected officials moving to a more progressive place on policy. faster than I ever could have imagined possible, but also I feel like there's a recognition that that is still behind where a lot of the Democratic Party base is. And so I think, you know, the only thing we can do here is kind of thrash these things out in public, as, you know, we all just read about the DNC doing and you and I are trying to do here. So that's sort of where I'm getting out on these questions. And one of, one thing that we've talked about on the show is APAC and whether

the Democratic Party should accept money or support from APAC. And I'm wondering what you think about that. Yeah. No, I think that we should, but, you know, I mean, it depends. They may not give it if you take a certain position. Look, I've always, and I realize I'm about to say something that very few people listening on the show are going to agree with at all. But I never liked the idea of saying that if you accept a legal contribution, that makes you corrupt. We've seen that all over the place. Oh, you can't take money of these people off. And my argument is this just paves the way for Donald Trump. Donald Trump comes along. He's ripping off, forget campaign contributions. The dude's putting billions of dollars in his own pocket. And I guess some people say, well, you know, they're all

corrupt. You know, if you take a legal campaign contribution from an entity to attack somebody for doing that is absurd to my mind because it basically undermines representative democracy. That's how it works. Second, I have always been of the opinion under no circumstances. Am I going to take an action or a vote based on the money that's coming to me. So if I run around and say, oh, I'm not going to take money from them, what I basically say to you is, oh, I'm so weak, I'm so credit. This person gives me $5,000. I just know I'll do the wrong thing. And I've never felt that way. I've had a lot of donors walk away from me. I strongly suspect that I will not be getting as much money from APAC this cycle as I have in the past. And I don't care. All right. You know, it's come and gone with APAC. I supported

the JCPOA, adamantly opposed Trump shredding it. You know, I supported UNRWA, continuing being funded in 2018. And so it's gone up and down. The irony, the main reason I got money from APAC last cycle is because six weeks after October 7th, when I didn't support Cory Bush's ceasefire, my home was vandalized. And I've had protesters show up a couple of times since then. And it became a thing. The Israeli ambassador called me.

All bunch of people called me and said, oh, this is terrible. this is the same time that people were vandalizing synagogues and doing all manner of different other things. And so it bought me. It didn't change my position on anything. So I don't think Democrats should advertise and say, oh, we're not going to take money from this group or that group. Vote.

Take your positions. And if this group thinks that's something they like, it's a democracy. They can donate. They cannot donate. I don't buy the idea that you are corrupt if you take a campaign contribution from somebody. If you can show me where I haven't taken a position. or done something that's completely wrong. Okay, fine, but I'm not buying the idea that you're corrupt based on the money you raise.

So look, a few things. First of all, no one should have their home vandalized for any reason, for any vote for anything. And I'm sorry that happened to you. I didn't know that. That's fucked up and terrible. Second, I don't think accepting money from a group makes people corrupt. But I do think we get judged by our associations that we should be clear-eyed about kind of the goals of the groups that we associate with. And my argument for why Democrats should not take money from APEC would be,

that, you know, APAC essentially demands boundless support for Net Yahoo's policies, including the arms sales that you oppose. It seems clear to me that they want Trump to be president. They want Republicans to be in charge. The APAC endorsed, I think, like a hundred some odd election deniers and insurrectionist. So it doesn't seem like they give two shits about our democracy. And then in recent elections, you know, APAC keeps messing around in Democratic primary campaigns through DMFI and other groups and running all these attack ads against progressive of Democrats based on issues that have nothing to do with Israel. So it just seems like APEC is working in opposition to a lot of the things we care about as a party.

Yeah, what I would say, that's a reason not to vote with them. That's not a reason not to take their money. Okay. I mean, you know, yeah, like I said, if I'm if I'm going on the radio and saying, oh, this is Apex position, therefore it must be my position. Absolutely. That's wrong. That's terrible.

You know, but I will tell you also AAC is not a monolithic entity. I have spoken to APAC groups in my own state, in New York, in a variety of other places. I've got a lot of Jewish supporters, APAC supporters, who are completely against Netanyahu, or deeply troubled by everything that's going on. And by the way, when they count APAC contributions, they're talking about anyone who has ever given $200 to APAC. That then becomes an APAC contribution. Well, I've got some longtime supporters who I've worked with on a dozen different issues. you know, who are pro-Israel. Like I said, a lot of jury supporters in my area. So I should not take

money from these people who have been supporting me for 25 years and weren't that because they, they've also given money to APAC at some point. I mean, look, I'm with you. If APAC is pushing something that's wrong, and also I'm with you that APAC has become a much more partisan organization, just in the last seven or eight years. And I, you know, I stopped going to the APAC conference in Washington, D.C. four or five years ago, because the last couple of times I went, it was so obviously a partisan exercise. It used to be more of a debate. I mean, one of the things I liked about APAC is they take their position, but then they're willing to argue about it. And I've been arguing with them for a long time, and it was a robust, helpful discussion. They took a turn during the

first Trump administration and made them vastly more partisan. And I think that's a reason to be highly critical of APAC, but to dismiss a Democratic candidate because they got money from someone who has supported APAC, if the Democratic Party is going to exclude all of those people, that's not going to be helpful for our coalition building exercise either. Yeah, no, I don't think we should exclude people from the party who accept donations. I just think, I feel like there's been the conversation about APAC has been really stilted because you often get accused of anti-Semitism or, you know, fill up, figure out whatever pejorative thing, people lob at each other.

on the internet. So I'm glad we're just able to have a rational conversation about it. Bigger picture. I'm glad, look, I'm grateful to you for having this conversation with me and letting me be kind of annoying about it because I worry that the conversation about how US support for Israel here in America doesn't really reflect the reality for how extreme this government is. You're right? Like, it drove me insane when Joe Biden would be like, I was talking the gold of my year in 1973 and she said this shit to me. And I'm like, buddy, that Israel is gone. And the current government is made up of violent, radical extremists and people who support extremist policies in the settlement project. And like, you hear a lot of people kind of say, well, when Netanyahu is

gone, you know, then we'll have a chance to fix it. Like, I don't know where, it doesn't seem like he's going anywhere. And I'm not sure what comes after Netanyahu is a lot better. Yeah, we won't have a chance to fix it if we don't speak out against it. That's for damn sure. And yes, but that is part of the pain and the difficulty for a lot of people. I mean, Israel is, I think, an important country and that's something else that we get into with our so-called base and not accept the the base comment with folks on the left side of our coalition a base to me is something that's with you no matter what and that very much does not describe the left side of our political coalition whatever you may think of their positions on issues is i think what joe biden was

harkening back and you and i have talked about the joe biden problem no need to get into that at the moment but you know is there was a time when israel was reflective of you know where jews had a place to go after the Holocaust to feel like they could defend themselves. When the Holocaust had proven to them that there was no place that was safe, if they had, didn't have their own place. And that idea of Israel is still there and still part of where a lot of Democrats are out. Now, that contrasts with a significant element of the anti-Israel group. And you are no doubt familiar at the settler colonialism argument that somehow Israel is an illegal settler colonial estate that never should have been created in the first place.

And there is all kinds of problems with that worldview that tends to, in fact, the left side of our political coalition. It has impacts on the U.S., by the way. They don't think that the United States of America is a legitimate state because it's an illegal settler colonialist state as well, which gets into the broader problem of what is the narrative that the Democratic coalition is presenting to the American people. What is our vision of what America has been and is and should be that can counter what Trump is doing? And if that vision is, there were an awful evil, terrible, horrible, white Western capitalist society that shouldn't have existed in the first place, I have problems with that. So once you get into that, and then Israel is stuck into that camp as well. But yes, that was from a long time ago.

We have to take Israel as it is, see what Netanyahu is doing to it. And I've had many A-PAC people say to me, oh, well, you know, we don't abandon America because Trump's president. we shouldn't abandon Israel because Netanyahu's president. Well, Netanyahu's been there for 15 years now, and he's doing very troubling things. I'm not saying abandon Israel, but absolutely be critical of the Israeli government. That's something I really disagree with APAC on, is they will always say, well, it's not our job to be critical of Israel's government. You're the foremost advocate for them. You can't say you're neutral because you're clearly not, so you ought to be able to criticize Israel and still be a support.

of the right of Israel to exist. And I've never agreed with them on that. Yeah, I mean, I, this sort of the notion that the United States and Israel can't disagree in public and they have to take those those disagreements private. Like that's such a stupid conventional wisdom that you would hear from folks in the last administration. Right. And it's like, who does that benefit, Bibi Netanyahu, obviously? And like, I personally, like, I don't really have affinities for countries, right?

They're made up of leaders and people and policies and I criticize those or don't. I just, the one thing I want to push back to you on is the idea that criticism for Israel is kind of like a fringe leftist base thing. I mean, there was recently a, I don't, I didn't say that. I don't, I don't agree with that. Well, you, I was, I was talking about a particular component. Okay. Okay. Got it. If I, if I gave that impression, thank you for correct. Okay. I don't agree with that. Just only because there was a Quinnipiac poll that found 60% of voters disapprove of the U.S. sending military aid to Israel, 32% support it. That includes 75% of Democrats. So I do think like cutting off weapons shipments, as you've talked about in your statement, is like a overwhelmingly

supported position at this point. Absolutely. On the, on the progressive side. But the question, if you had asked in the poll, do you think Israel has a right to exist as a country? That, I think, that was the part that I was getting at and whether or not there's the component part that we have to deal with, like the guys who showed up and vandalized my house and a whole lot of other places, the University of Washington, much of other things as well, that's a component part. But no, totally with you. No, it is it is absolutely a majority opinion within the broad Democratic coalition. The blind support for Israel should not be our position. That's good. That is in something that has that has come a long way in recent months. Well, listen, I think we solved it.

Every time I talk to you, we solved the world's problem. Last time our conversation was about the Democratic Party being a disaster. So, you know, we're doing it. Well, listen, I do I genuinely think that part of that work is conversations like this, which could be uncomfortable and difficult, but I appreciate you having them. Yeah, no, thank you. It was really very thoughtful, and I appreciate that, and we got to keep talking and keep working because it's really important, as you have said many, many times. Amen. All right. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you.