Abdul El-Sayed, a leading contender in the Senate Democratic primary in Michigan, opposes all arms sales to Israel.
This article first appeared in the Jewish Currents news desk newsletter. Subscribe here.
For progressive Democrats, the de facto position on US military ties to Israel in recent years has been to oppose US military aid, except in the case of notionally defensive missile interceptor systems like Iron Dome. This spring, that’s started to break down: One of the two leading contenders in the Senate Democratic primary in Michigan, the physician Abdul El-Sayed, says that he opposes not just military aid, but all US arms sales to Israel, including Iron Dome. He’s one of a large crop of left-wing candidates who are serious contenders in ongoing Democratic primaries and are pushing for the US to stop selling any weapons to Israel.
The US government sells weapons to Israel, and other allies, that it procures from US weapons manufacturers. Today, Israel pays for much of that weaponry with the billions in military aid it receives from US taxpayers. Opposition to using US aid to pay for notionally defensive weapons like Iron Dome has been fringe in the Democratic Party. But Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez publicly adopted that position two weeks ago, sending a jolt through progressive politics and reorienting the broader US foreign policy debate around Israel. Now, progressives are increasingly saying they oppose US military aid, but want to allow Israel to continue to buy defensive weapons like Iron Dome from the US government with its own money.
Democratic Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar have long gone a step further, pushing to end not just US military aid to Israel, but all US arms sales to the Israeli military. But their lonely position may soon have more backing in Congress.
A spokesperson for Abdul El-Sayed told Jewish Currents that “he does not believe the United States should sell weapons to Israel.” New York Assemblymember Claire Valdez, who has out-fundraised all other candidates running for the open seat in New York’s 7th Congressional district, published a foreign policy platform last week urging an end to all weapons sales and military aid. Saikat Chakrabarti, the former Ocasio-Cortez aide who is running for Congress in San Francisco and polling a close second to his main opponent, has repeatedly called for a total arms embargo, and in the wake of Israel’s deadly April 8th attacks in Lebanon, which killed over 300 people, said the US should impose sanctions on the country. And Adam Hamawy, a US Army veteran who volunteered as a doctor during Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the top fundraiser in a congressional race for in New Jersey’s 12th district, opposes US government sales of anti-missile systems to Israel. Chakrabarti’s and El-Sayed’s major primary opponents both say the US should continue funding Iron Dome.
Yousef Munayyer, head of the Palestine/Israel program at the Arab Center Washington DC, argued that US financing of Iron Dome has allowed Israel to act belligerently, without fear of significant blowback. “It’s not like the Israelis are simply knocking down missiles and then staying put. It has created a cover for Israeli expansionism,” he said. “It’s important as a matter of American policy to send a clear message to the Israeli government and public that if you want to choose this path of constant war, that should be on your dime.” That argument that Iron Dome cannot be considered “defensive” has been adopted by Hamawy, the New Jersey congressional candidate. In an interview with Jewish Currents, he said the US should not pay for or sell anti-missile systems to Israel, and that Iron Dome has reduced Israel’s incentive to negotiate with Palestinians. “It insulates Israel from the consequences of its genocidal policies,” said Hamawy. “I just don’t believe it’s truly defensive in that matter because there’s no reason for them to negotiate.”
The debate over US funding of Israel’s anti-missile systems has real bearing on policy. Every year, Congress votes on whether the US should continue to give Israel its annual $500 million to spend on anti-missile systems, which were jointly developed by Israel and the US. In 2021 and 2025, Congress voted overwhelmingly to replenish Israel’s depleted anti-missile systems; only a handful of progressives, including Tlaib and Omar, opposed the funding at the time.
Ocasio-Cortez, a potential 2028 presidential candidate and a leader of the left flank of the Democratic Party, is a bellwether of just how much the debate over Iron Dome has moved. In 2024, Ocasio-Cortez and 18 of her progressive colleagues issued a joint statement explaining that they were “against supplying more offensive weapons that could result in more killings of civilians,” while in favor of “strengthening the Iron Dome and other defense systems.” This month, amid the US-Israeli war on Iran, and as she approached the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America for an endorsement, she reversed her position. “The Israeli government is well able to fund the Iron Dome system,” she said in a statement. “I will not support Congress sending more taxpayer dollars and military aid to a government that consistently ignores international law and US law.”
A host of other Democrats, such as Reps. Ro Khanna and former City Comptroller and Congressional candidate Brad Lander—both of whom previously said they supported Iron Dome—followed suit, saying Israel should buy the arms themselves. J Street, the liberal Zionist lobby group that has long pushed for US financing of Iron Dome, said last week that they no longer held that position. “Israel is capable of paying for its own military equipment, including supplies for its missile defense systems,” J Street head Jeremy Ben-Ami said in a statement sent to Jewish Currents.
“It used to be completely taboo to even think about touching Iron Dome funding,” said Amira Hassan, political director of the pro-Palestinian, anti-AIPAC electoral group Peace, Accountability, and Leadership PAC. “It’s significant that that taboo is being lifted.” But Hassan says it’s not enough to stop at subsidizing Israel while allowing them to buy weapons. “There should be no weapons going to a nation committing a genocide,” she said.
At the same time, some progressives are questioning whether it’s smart politics to push politicians for an end to Iron Dome sales. “Convincing lawmakers to oppose the transfer of every weapon and gadget that Israel is using in its illegal assaults around the region is a challenging enough project as it is,” said Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the progressive foreign policy think tank Center for International Policy. “Muddying the waters by centering the debate around sales of Iron Dome interceptors is exactly what our opponents want to do. Why would we do that work for them?”
For now, ending US subsidies for, let alone sales of, Israel’s anti-missile systems remains a minority position in the party. Support for an end to the transfer of offensive weapons continues to grow. “Those with political ambitions are trying to calibrate the sweet spot to be seen as progressive but not radical, and in line with the base but not totally out of touch with the party establishment,” said Munayyer.
But Munayyer predicted that Ocasio-Cortez’s position would become more commonplace. “The entire American relationship with Israel is up for discussion now in a way that it never was before. It wouldn’t surprise me if her position becomes the norm,” he said.
I’m Arielle Angel, editor-at-large of Jewish Currents. Before you go, there’s something I need to ask.
We’ve seen over and over how the mainstream media falters in telling stories on our beats—whether it’s antisemitism, Israel/Palestine in American politics, Jewish identity, or the American left. At Jewish Currents we’re committed to uncompromising analysis and longform reporting on these issues and more—stories you won’t find anywhere else. In a media landscape that obscures injustice and flattens discussion, we’re changing the conversation. But we need you.
If you believe in this work, please consider making a donation—or even better, a recurring one—to ensure that we are able to keep publishing stories like this one. We can’t do it without you.
