Many American Jews now feel politically homeless. Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not one of them. A proud Jew, an unapologetic Zionist, and a lifelong Democrat, she says the party will elect a pro-Israel majority.
For generations, being Jewish, being liberal, and being a Zionist felt compatible, if not natural, for many Jews. Now they watch candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America win primaries, and candidates who accuse Israel of genocide or call to end US aid win Democratic nominations.
We recently spent hours in conversation together for an episode of the podcast Up To Us with David Zalik. I found her sincere and thoughtful. Days after the October 7 massacre, she sat with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and spoke to him not simply as a member of Congress, but as “a Jew,” “a Jewish woman,” “a Jewish mother,” and a Zionist.
She acknowledged the concerns that have unsettled many American Jews. She unequivocally rejects the accusation that Israel committed genocide.
And yet the unease many American Jews feel is not about her. It is about the party she belongs to. They see it in the votes: Democratic lawmakers are increasingly divided over military aid to Israel.
In a July 15 House vote on an amendment to remove $3.3 billion in Israeli security assistance from the FY2027 National Security-State appropriations bill, 103 Democrats voted in favor and 98 against, while 10 voted present and four did not vote. The amendment ultimately failed, 104-314. Among Democrats who voted yes or no, a narrow majority supported removing the aid.
To many American Jews, much of the Democratic establishment does not seem willing to call out the DSA, or the candidates who accuse Israel of genocide. What many do not see is consequence. The perception is fed by what they see in Michigan and elsewhere. Abdul El-Sayed, who has accused Israel of genocide, won the Democratic nomination for Senate.
Hasan Piker, a streamer, campaigned with him earlier this year. Kamala Harris has campaigned with El-Sayed, and Barack Obama campaigned with him in Detroit on October 24. A former president and a former vice president standing with a candidate who accuses Israel of genocide is deeply concerning. Both have endorsed him, and that lends credibility.
For some Jewish voters, the question is no longer whether Democratic leaders will criticize the radical Left. Some do. It is whether those criticisms establish a meaningful boundary once the primary is over. If El-Sayed’s accusation is as wrong as Wasserman Schultz says, what message is sent when Harris and Obama campaign for him?
She has spoken out against El-Sayed and noted that some in her party will campaign for him. In the primary, she would not have supported him. In the general election, the calculation changes: she would not want to give up on a Democratic majority over a position she strongly disagrees with and does not believe will drive the party’s legislative agenda.
She argued that not all democrats are socialists. Her message to the worried Jewish voters was to remain within the Democratic Party and help elect moderate, pro-Israel candidates.
The larger stakes, she said, are the cost of living, what she called Trump’s dismantling of democracy, and the need for a Democratic majority in Congress to restore a check on him.
Hers is a theory of coalition politics: reject the radical left’s ideas, fight them in primaries, keep moderates in control, and if one of their candidates wins the nomination, tolerate him rather than sacrifice a Democratic majority.
That tolerance is where many in the Jewish community are uncomfortable. They fear that tolerating such candidates gives cover to antisemites and to those who accuse Israel of genocide. Their concern is not that most Democrats share those views, but that ideas can move from unacceptable to tolerated to normalized long before they command a majority. A party does not have to embrace a fringe to be changed by it.
She said that being a Democrat is no more difficult for her today than it was two decades ago. Asked about pro-Israel colleagues who say the caucus feels lonely, she acknowledged that it can feel lonely, though she attributed much of it to reactions to the current Israeli government.
I respect Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and I admire her commitment. She is trying to defend her convictions while remaining inside a coalition under strain. It is not easy to be a pro-Israel Democrat right now, and she has not walked away from the party or the fight.
But I left our conversation unable to reconcile the line she draws with the compromise she accepts. She rejects the DSA and El-Sayed’s genocide accusation, and says she would never campaign for him. Yet when I raised Harris and Obama standing with him, her answer was about other priorities. Each position is defensible on its own. Together they expose the tension between the boundary she draws and what her party is increasingly willing to stand beside, or even endorse.
Democratic Party arguing over Israel, socialism
That tension is what many American Jews see: a party arguing with itself over Israel and socialism. Representative Josh Gottheimer, also a Democrat, warned in The Free Press this August that the “socialist fringe is trying to hijack the Democratic Party,” and that for “a growing number of my colleagues, being anti-Israel has now become a nonnegotiable moral litmus test.” Both love the party. They are describing different parties.
Staying in the tent and fighting from inside is a legitimate choice, and it may prove right. But goodwill is not a boundary. A boundary matters only if crossing it has consequences. The real test comes after candidates who hold ideas she rejects win.
Her answer is that moderates will retain control and the fringe will not set the party’s agenda. That is the wager at the heart of her faith in the Democratic Party: that the party can tolerate the fringe without being changed by it.
Many American Jews hope she is right. But they are watching some of the Democratic Party’s most prominent leaders campaign for El-Sayed, who accuses Israel of genocide and appeared with the streamer she calls a “stone-cold antisemite.”
At what point does supporting such a candidate stop being merely a strategy for preserving a Democratic majority and begin to change what the party is willing to accept – and ultimately what it stands for? And for American Jews, how long can it remain their political home?
The writer is the host of Up To Us with David Zalik, a podcast and Substack, and co-founder of the Zalik Foundation, which has invested more than $200 million in Jewish education, thriving Jewish communities, Israel, and families in need. Substack: https://substack.com/@ifnotuswithdavidzalik Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ifnotuspod