Ending U.S. military aid to Israel is now the mainstream position among Democratic leaders.

In a historic Senate vote on Wednesday, all but seven members of the Democratic caucus voted for at least one of two resolutions to block the sale of bombs and bulldozers to Israel’s military. Other prominent Democrats and potential 2028 presidential candidates, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.; Ro Khanna, D-Calif.; and former Obama aide Rahm Emanuel have recently said the U.S. should halt all military aid to Israel for offensive and so-called defensive weapons. 

The idea of steering public funding to those responsible for the genocide in Gaza has plummeted in popularity, with polls consistently show a majority of Americans now oppose sending weapons to Israel. As Americans struggle with affordability amid the joint U.S.–Israel war on Iran, skepticism about military aid for Israel has only grown.

Yet amid this shift, a quieter debate is stirring in the American left over how far Democrats should go in blocking weapons to Israel. 

For anti-Zionist organizers, the goal has long been a total arms embargo. That wouldn’t just bring to an end U.S. public spending to support Israel’s military, but would also halt the commercial sale of weapons from U.S. companies to Israel’s government. Advocates for the embargo, which includes Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.; Summer Lee, D-Pa.; and Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., view the policy as the most effective means in halting Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and its human rights abuses in the West Bank, Lebanon, and Iran. Doing so, they say, would bring the U.S. into compliance with its own laws governing weapons transfers and human rights.

Meanwhile, pro-Israel Democrats are beginning to speak out about holding Israel accountable for its abuses, but seek narrower arms restrictions that would still allow commercial weapons sales as a means to maintain Israel’s friendly relationship with the U.S. 

On Monday, J Street, an influential liberal Zionist lobbying group, released a memo outlining a significant shift in policy. Echoing growing demands to end Israel’s “blank check support from the United States,” J Street is urging legislators to instead make the Israeli government pay for U.S. weapons using its own funds. 

It’s a major departure for the self-described “pro-Israel, pro-peace” group, which had previously opposed a ceasefire in Gaza and backed Israel’s aggression in Gaza in the early months of the genocide. Since November 2024, J Street has supported a series of Senate resolutions introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. meant to block weapons transfers, including Wednesday’s joint resolutions of disapproval. But those measures focused on halting only the transfer of offensive weapons to Israel, such as bombs and firearms. J Street’s new policy memo calls for an end to government spending on both offensive and so-called defensive weapons, or missile interceptor systems, which power Israel’s Iron Dome. It’s a position that until recent months even Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna had not embraced.

Citing existing U.S. law, J Street’s memo calls for an end to providing Israel $3.3 billion in State Department funds to purchase U.S. weapons, along with $500 million earmarked within the Department of Defense for anti-missile systems.

“What we want to be doing is laying the groundwork for the next president to have the political backing to do the right thing to implement the right policies when they come into office in 2029,” Hannah Morris, vice president of government affairs for J Street, told The Intercept.

J Street’s position runs short of a complete arms embargo in that it would still allow Israel to purchase interceptor weaponry from U.S. companies. The group said the exception for anti-missile systems is meant to protect civilians in Israel. Critics say Israel’s defense systems enable the country to carry out its expanding wars in the Middle East without consequence. In addition, the new J Street memo calls for the U.S. to maintain “a strong security partnership with Israel,” including the sharing of intelligence and collaborating on researching and developing new military equipment when mutually beneficial to American interests. “They cannot become a backdoor for continued US subsidies to Israeli defense,” J Street wrote in its memo. 

J Street acknowledged its new position is partly intended to address the growing antipathy toward Israel among Americans. A Pew Research Center poll from earlier this month showed that a record high 60 percent of American adults have an unfavorable view of Israel, including 80 percent of all Democrats aged 18 and older and more than half of all younger Republicans. 

“Part of having this policy is to remove some of the discomfort that some of the American population has with the exceptionality of the relationship” between the U.S. and Israel, Morris said. “And that can lower the temperature or lack of sympathy for the Israelis versus Palestinians.” 

Advocates for a total arms embargo view J Street’s evolution as a sign of mounting pressure amid the swing in American public opinion. “That did not just happen out of the blue,” said Beth Miller, policy director for Jewish Voice for Peace Action.“It’s the result of movement organizing for years and years.”

Some arms embargo supporters questioned the timing of J Street’s new position and whether it will hinder efforts to halt Israel’s expansionist wars. Yousef Munayyer, a longtime advocate of a total arms embargo on Israel, wondered whether the J Street memo could offer political cover for certain Democrats seeking to thread the needle by taking a stance against Israel’s abuses without suffering blowback from pro-Israel constituents.

Instead, Munayyer, who heads the Palestine/Israel Program at Arab Center Washington D.C., said now is not the moment to give up ground. “There has never been a more defensible moment for Democrats to take such a position on an arms embargo, and it seems completely unnecessary for this hyper-calibrated messaging,” he said, referring to J Street’s policy position. “Maybe in a couple of districts and a couple of states, it may be useful, but in the broader sense the public has moved on, especially in the Democratic base.”

Disagreement between J Street and Palestinian rights organizers is not new in Washington. Some advocates for Palestine continue to condemn the group for opposing a ceasefire resolution in 2023, which opponents say helped pave the way for Israel’s genocide. Even before Israel’s war on Gaza, the group has been criticized for not taking strong enough positions on blocking weapons to Israel, including a bill in 2021 that sought to prohibit Israel from using U.S. aid to demolish Palestinian homes and annex Palestinian land in the West Bank. While J Street endorsed the bill, the group drew criticism from Palestinian rights groups who claim it didn’t do enough to drum up support with rank-and-file Democratic members. 

Morris said arms embargo advocates who are critical of J Street’s new policy memo “want to go from zero to one hundred in a way that I think is not only unrealistic but untenable.” She also questioned whether most Americans knew the definition of an arms embargo and suggested that, if given the full picture, fewer would support the premise.

Under the Foreign Assistance Act, the U.S. government is barred from sending weapons to any country that engages in “a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights” or a country that blocks or restricts humanitarian aid. Another provision of the Foreign Assistance Act known as the Leahy law, along with provisions within the separate Arms Export Control Act, prevents military aid to specific units of any foreign security force that is found to violate human rights law. The U.S is also a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, international law meant to prohibit war crimes, crimes against humanity, including genocide. The conventions also have legal bearing on the transfer of weapons. 

Such laws make no distinction between weapons sales made with U.S. government support or sales through the commercial market. If Israel were to buy weapons directly from U.S. companies, Congress would still receive a notification and could vote to disapprove a sale.

“If they’re forced to buy their own arms, then they’re going to have problems sustaining what they’re doing.”

When introducing his series of resolutions to block some arms sales to Israel, Sanders evoked both the Foreign Assistance and the Arms Export Control acts. The laws are also the legal basis for the Block the Bombs Act in the House, which has drawn support from a range of elected members — including ones backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — and has become a litmus test for candidates taking a position on Israel and Palestine in the midterm elections. 

At any point, either the president, through an executive order, or Congress, via legislation, can use these laws to enact some form of conditions on Israeli aid, whether halting all military support or a total arms embargo. 

Both a total arms embargo and the J Street model would bring to an end State Department spending ($3.3 billion annually), known as Foreign Military Financing, as well as the phasing out of Pentagon spending for Israel. Funds earmarked for Israel in the Pentagon’s budget are not classified under the Foreign Assistance and Arms Export Control laws. Instead, Congress must draft and pass a defense budget that excludes carveouts for Israel, or draft legislation that specifically targets Pentagon spending on Israel, most of which currently funds things like Israel’s Iron Dome.

Then-Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green, R-Ga., attempted to pass an amendment to a Pentagon spending bill in July 2025 that would have nixed the $500 million set aside for Israel defense spending, but it drew only six votes. Ocasio-Cortez was absent from the vote, which she said was to maintain Iron Dome funding.

While such cuts would be a blow to Israel’s ability to wage war, Israel still boasts its own major annual military budget of more than $45 billion. Israel also is home to a domestic weapons industry that sells to the Israeli government. Earlier this year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he would want to “taper off the military” from the U.S. within the next decade. “We’ve come of age and we’ve developed incredible capacities,” he said. But both J Street and advocates for an arms embargo agree that banning subsidized weapons deals with Israel would still have a tremendous impact.

Stephen Semler, who worked on Brown University’s Cost of War project that tracked U.S. military spending on Israel during its genocide, said halting access to American munitions stockpiles and U.S. weaponry would greatly diminish Israel’s ability to wage war at the rate it has in recent months in Iran and southern Lebanon. “If they’re forced to buy their own arms, then they’re going to have problems sustaining what they’re doing,” Semler said. 

In the first month of the U.S.–Israel war on Iran, the Israeli military said it carried out more than 10,000 separate strikes. Before the recent ceasefire, joint U.S. and Israeli strikes killed more than 2,000 people in Iran. Since early March, Israel has killed at least 2,100 people in Lebanon, including women, children, paramedics and journalists. The military has also leveled entire villages in the country’s south, similar to destruction seen in Gaza. Evidence of Israel’s human rights abuses are continuing to pile in both wars. 

“If you can make perpetual war and not have to pay for it, that becomes a much more attractive option,” Munayyer said. “But suddenly when you have to directly carry the costs, now you have to start thinking, ‘Do I want to be at war with all of my neighbors all the time, forever?’”