General

Thinking Outside the Cooler on Crime: Put down that Igloo!

Sergeant Erik Duran

There’s been some dissension recently about the three-to-nine-year prison sentence handed down by a New York judge to former police sergeant, Erik Duran, for throwing a plastic beverage cooler at a fleeing suspect in the Bronx. The cooler hit the perp in the arm, causing him to lose control of his motorcycle, crash and die. The harsh sentence was uncharacteristic for Supreme Court Justice Guy Mitchell, who a few years earlier gave only nine months to a guy who beat a homeless man to death.

But what the complainers don’t realize is that there is an epidemic of violent, cisgendered white male cops killing entirely innocent model citizens, out for a day’s drive on their moped, by attacking them with flung coolers — fast becoming the lethal weapon of choice for these diabolical killers. Finally, one judge said: “ENOUGH!”

That was the tone of The New York Times’ article on the officer’s sentence. In the Times’ telling, the case wasn’t about causation, intent or reasonableness, but a test of “how the legal system would respond when officers harmed or killed people.” To the Times’ satisfaction, this was “the first conviction of a New York Police Department officer for killing a civilian in a decade.”

Sergeant Duran has to be sent to the hoosegow to fill some imaginary quota in the Times’ head for how many cops should be sent to prison. If not actual justice, it was cosmic justice.

Times readers would be shocked to learn this, but cops kill civilians only about a thousand times a year. That’s out of 50 million interactions with the public, or 0.00002 percent of the time.

Between 2016 and 2020, the Times put more than 60 cop-bashing headlines on its front page, according to the must-read book, “Special Victim Status” by Gregory Mantell. For each anti-police story, there were four murdered officers in the same time period, whose deaths the Times ignored or buried.

Here are just a few of the anti-cop headlines from the Newspaper of Record:

“Excessive Force Is Rife in Chicago”

“Fort Worth Police Have More Violence to Answer For, Residents Say”

“Departments and Multiple Infractions for One New Jersey Police Officer”

“A Small Ohio Town Clamors to Curb Aggressive Policing”

“Georgia Killing Puts Spotlight on a Police Force’s Troubled History”

“Thousands of Complaints Do Little to Change Police Ways”

“‘Testilying’ by Police: A Stubborn Problem”

“Distrust of the Minneapolis Police, and Also the Effort to Defund Them”

“Another Nightmare Video and the Police on the Defensive in Tucson”

There’s also this amazing statistic: “One single civilian incident, the Breonna Taylor shooting, received more coverage from [the Times] than ALL 312 police officers of all races murdered in the past 5.3 years combined.”

The Times isn’t overly concerned with the fact that the cooler-throwing sergeant was defending himself and other officers from being run over by a 30-year-old drug-dealer coming directly at them on a gas-powered motorcycle. If they’d died or been injured, no big deal. Definitely not front-page material.

Apparently, the mistake the police made was trying to arrest repeat offender Eric Duprey after observing him sell a vial of cocaine to an undercover officer. When Duprey attempted to escape on his motorbike, the police should have simply leapt out of his way. As Justice Mitchell said, “He could have been captured another day.”

The judge’s logic, quoted by the Times with apparent approval, was that he, personally, “was not convinced that Mr. Duran’s life — or those of his fellow officers — was in danger.” (Certainly not as much danger as being a homeless guy in the vicinity of a murder defendant sentenced by Justice Mitchell.)

Most significantly, the judge said that sending Sergeant Duran to prison would be “a general deterrent.” I guess now police officers will think twice before trying to stop fleeing felons by throwing picnic items at them!

This gave me an idea for how we might disincentivize psychopaths who commit violent, completely unprovoked attacks on innocent people, slash pedestrians with machetesrape women on subway platforms, push commuters onto train tracks and other piquant behaviors that have become commonplace in New York.

Prison sentences might work as “general deterrent” on them, too.

Last month, a transgender illegal alien pleaded guilty to raping a 14-year-old boy in the bathroom of a Harlem bodega — and was promptly released by Judge Michele Rodney. (Named “Jurist of the Year,” by the Caribbean American Lawyers Association!)

Wouldn’t punishing the rapist, instead of letting him go, operate as a general deterrent to other men thinking of raping 14-year-old boys?

Eighteen-year-old gang member, Steven Mendez, got probation for participating in a violent 2020 armed robbery and shooting — his second arrest for assault with a firearm. Not long thereafter, the extremely undeterred Mendez murdered a complete stranger, 19-year-old college student Saikou Koma, by shooting him in the head.

Had Mendez gotten something a little rougher than probation for his earlier violent crimes, we would have had both specific deterrence — Mendez would have been in prison, not on the street shooting a college student in the head — but also general deterrence, for any other psychos considering shooting passersby for absolutely no reason.

Speaking of deterrence, shouldn’t Sergeant Duran be commended for dissuading bikers like Duprey from ignoring the helmet law?

I think I’ll run my breakthrough idea up the flagpole with the new mayor, citing Justice Mitchell as my inspiration.

But until this “deterrence” thing catches on, at least New Yorkers can be secure in the knowledge that if they’re ever fleeing law enforcement, no police officer will throw Tupperware. And if they kill a cop, their Times-reading relatives will never know about it.

 

More of Trump’s empty threats. Iran must be laughing.

An Indefinite Ceasefire? What’s That?

Trump does realize that Iran is in the driver’s seat, but cannot do the deal he desperately needs because he’s desperately afraid of Jewish Nationalists. As well as the damage to his ego. Well, that damage will come. … Iran is in the driver’s sea. Trump needs a deal badly to avoid catastrophe, but his ego so far won’t allow him to do the only available deal—the one that Iran dictates.

Just yesterday, I speculated that Trump’s room for maneuver has been exhausted and that he’s attempting to set up some sort of TACO:

Trump Looking To TACO Finally?

Up till the last moment Trump tried to use threats to get Iran to return to fake negotiations in Islamabad—fake, because there was a total lack of seriousness on the Anglo-Zionist side. It was just cover while Trump tried to figure out some sort of off ramp. Unfortunately for Trump, Iran was fed up with his act and refused to participate. So, late this afternoon, desperate, Trump announced a unilateral and indefinite ceasefire:

Image

Let me offer a H/T to John Mearsheimer. I’m listening to him and Chris Hedges as I type [highly recommended]. Mearsheimer, speaking before Trump’s semi-fictional announcement—the claim of Iranian division is nonsense—stressed Trump’s desperate position and speculated that, in lieu of an insane escalation—insane in its impact on the world economy, which we discussed earlier—Trump might simply extend the ceasefire. Think about that in the context of what most are calling a massive buildup of US forces in the region. At this point, that looks like one very expensive bluff—with no regard for military personnel. Unless it’s all a prelude to another sneak attack.

Now, what’s the point of an indefinite ceasefire? Obviously, I can only speculate. However, it occurs to me that Trump may actually be hoping that the ceasefire can hold up to May 2—barely more than a week off—when Congress is likely to refuse War Powers against Iran. That’s a rough and ready off ramp for Trump. He can try to shift blame to Congress. Of course, a blockade is an act of war. Presumably Trump will comply with a Congressional refusal and stop the blockade. The big question will be whether Israel will attack Iran unilaterally. That seems doubtful, if Trump is serious, for the simple reason that Israeli attacks are almost totally dependent on US intel and refueling support.

If I understand this correctly, Iran doesn’t appear to be buying into this. Trump has declared a ceasefire, but Iran is stating that it sees no point in talking to the US side.

DD Geopolitics @DD_Geopolitics

1h

 BREAKING! Iran Pulls Out of Wednesday Islamabad Talks — Tasnim News

Iran has formally notified the United States through Pakistani mediators that it will not attend Wednesday’s scheduled negotiations in Islamabad, with no timeline set for future rounds, according to Tasnim News Agency.

The decision follows what Tehran describes as a pattern of American bad faith since the ceasefire framework was agreed upon.

According to Tasnim’s sources, Iran accepted a ceasefire and subsequent negotiations based on a 10-point framework it submitted — which Washington formally accepted through Pakistani intermediaries.

However, the U.S. almost immediately began walking back its commitments.

First, Washington failed to pressure Israel into implementing the Lebanon ceasefire as agreed — stalling talks for several days. Then, during the first Islamabad round, the U.S. introduced demands that far exceeded the original framework, effectively torpedoing the negotiations. Tehran’s assessment: having failed on the battlefield, Washington was trying to compensate through maximalist demands at the table.

Iran subsequently issued a firm warning of missile strikes on Israel, which Tasnim says forced the U.S. to finally operationalize the Lebanon ceasefire. Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi then announced Tehran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping in line with the initial framework — only for the U.S. to continue its naval blockade regardless.

Recent message exchanges produced no meaningful progress, with Washington refusing to retreat from demands Tehran considers violations of Iran’s sovereign rights.

Iran has now concluded that returning to talks under these conditions would be a waste of time, as the U.S. is blocking any viable agreement. The decision has been communicated to Washington via Islamabad.

Reading between those lines, we conclude: Trump does realize that Iran is in the driver’s seat, but cannot do the deal he desperately needs because he’s desperately afraid of Jewish Nationalists. As well as the damage to his ego. Well, that damage will come.

In the meantime, all the questions remain. Will Trump use that force buildup to reoccupy regional bases and, if he does, how will Iran react? Since Trump claims to be maintaining the blockade—which, by all accounts, is quite porous—again, how will Iran react? How will the rest of the Gulf region react and how will the rest of the world react—not least, China and Russia? Will Iran pull the trigger on another Red Sea blockade, to shut off all Saudi oil flow? Did I mention sanctions? Yeah, sanctions. Again, Iran is in the driver’s sea. Trump needs a deal badly to avoid catastrophe, but his ego so far won’t allow him to do the only available deal—the one that Iran dictates.

And then there’s the domestic political consequences. It seems to me that Trump is in deep doo-doo and is moving into even deeper doo-doo. This looks to be all about damage control, and that op isn’t off to a good start.

What’s wrong with James Carville?

From Mark Wauck, “Things To Think About–War, Politics, Money 4/19/26.” Notice that he realizes his proposals are not at all popular. So Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it.” How does a southern White man  end up thinking this way?

Morse Report @MorseReport

Apr 18

Top Democrat political consultant and campaign strategist, James Carville, just stated on the Left-wing ‘Policon’ podcast that when the Democrats regain power, they plan to:

-Grant statehood to Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico, so that the Democrats can unlock 4 extra seats in the Senate.

Pack the U.S. Supreme Court from 9 Justices up to 13 Justices, adding another 4 Left-wing Justices to the court.

Reopen the U.S.-Mexico border and grant mass-amnesty to every single alien currently inside of the United States.

His advice to Democrat politicians: “Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it.”

Continues…

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard: Leftism, mental health, and visual presentation confirmed

Leftism, mental health, and visual presentation confirmed

Septum/genital piercings = leftist, mouth/arm tattoos = crazy

So we did another study of leftism, mental health and visual presentation:

Recent research has identified a recurring association between left-wing political ideology and poorer mental health. These findings show both reduced positive well-being (e.g., life satisfaction) and increased negative symptoms (e.g., depression, anxiety). We administered 76 mental health and 41 political ideology items to a sample of 978 fairly representative American adults recruited via the Prolific data platform. Overall, we found that every aspect of mental health correlated negatively with overall leftism (r’s for 18 diagnoses = -0.20, last 2 weeks symptoms = -0.14, MMPI-subset = -0.17, life satisfaction = -0.15, all p’s < .001). Diagnoses were the primary predictor of leftism in multivariate models. This relationship was not explained by measurement bias, as invariance testing revealed only minimal, counter-balancing item bias. Furthermore, we expanded this network by incorporating behavioral markers, finding that body modifications (e.g., unnatural hair color, tattoos) showed weak-to-modest associations with both left-wing ideology and mental health diagnoses.

The purpose of the study was mainly to check the measurement invariance of the relationship, since many people had doubted this. Perhaps leftists are just more likely to see therapy or maybe they fill out questionnaires differently. For this reason, we went a bit overboard with the mental health measurement having 76 questions, 18 concerning specific diagnoses and the remaining the more commonly used self-report questions about various aspects. Politics was measured using 41 questions concerning various current thing political questions for Americans, and scored just using the 1-factor model. (Yes, one can extract other dimensions but this one is dominant.) General results:

The various scales called “p” are mental health reversed (worse) based on different approaches. Symptoms is all the self-report scales items combined, diag = diagnoses count, MMPI = items from MMPI (yes/no format), last2weeks (typical format used in surveys), satisfaction (positively phrased questions about life satisfaction). The rightmost column shows that leftism correlates positively with every variable except for age. Given these demographic associations (age, female), one may want to try a regression model to see if leftism correlates with mental problems merely because it is correlated with age and femaleness:

The answer is no, not only, but maybe in part. Diagnoses correlates 0.20 with leftism but 0.16 controlled for age, sex, US-born, and race (though the CI overlaps with 0.20). More interesting is that the models that include both self-report measures and diagnoses counts, the diagnoses have the signal and the others turn non-significant (but stay positive). With ~1000 people, we can’t say whether diagnoses count mediates the entire effect but possibly. One could even try controlling for self-reported mental problems and see if leftism still predicts diagnoses:

Scott Ritter: The Consequences of Incompetence

The Consequences of Incompetence

The US lost the first round of the war with Iran decisively. If Trump decides to go a second round, the results will be disastrous for American and its allies.

For nearly 40 days, Israel and the United States carried out an extensive aerial campaign against Iran designed to topple the government and suppress Iran’s ability to defend itself. This campaign failed to achieve any of its stated objectives. Instead, it devolved into a numbers game where inflated outcomes were sold to an unquestioning public by military professionals and politicians alike. The Iranian government not only withstood the efforts at decapitation-induced regime change, but actually strengthened its hold on power when the people of Iran, instead of turning on the Islamic Republic, rallied to its cause. Moreover, rather than suppressing Iran’s ability to launch ballistic missiles and drones against US military bases, critical infrastructure in the Gulf Arab States, and Israel, Iran not only sustained its ability to strike, but deployed new generations of weapons that readily defeated all missile defense systems while, using intelligence information that permitted accurate targeting, destroyed critical military infrastructure worth tens of billions of dollars.

Regional experts had long warned about the consequences of entering an existential conflict with Iran, noting that Iran would not simply allow itself to be erased as a viable nation state without ensuring that the other nations of the region were subjected to similar existential threats to their survival, and that global energy security would be disrupted in such a manner as to trigger a world economic crisis. These assessments were backed up by a belied that Iran would not only be able to shut down shipping transiting the Strait of Hormuz, but also effectively target and destroy the major energy production potential of the Gulf Arab States.

It wasn’t that the politicians and military planners in the US and Israel doubted Iran’s ability to impact global energy markets or strike targets in Israel and the Gulf region.

They knew Iran had the potential. They just believed that they would be able to achieve regime change in Tehran in relatively short order, thereby mooting any threat Iran might pose to energy supplies and infrastructure.

They were wrong, which is why the US was looking for an offramp from the war soon after it started.

The end result was this current ceasefire, which was ostensibly entered into to buy time for US and Iranian negotiators to hammer out a lasting peace plan.

There is a fundamental problem, however.

While Iran has approached the current negotiations from a practical, reality-based posture predicated on resolving the actual major points of difference between the US and Iran, the US is being held hostage by the politicized whim of an American President who needs to shape domestic public opinion in a way which transforms the reality of a humiliating defeat into the perception of a bold victory.

Continues…

Trump’s Desperation

Mark Wauck: Trump About To Double Down On Failure

That’s the betting—more bigger war tomorrow. The WSJ has an article out that highlights the truth that Trump largely winged his war, with no real plan, against advice, and under the direction of Netanyahu. He recognized he had failed early on, but now—as predicated by Professor Pape’s doctrine of the “escalation trap”—sees no other option that to … double down. Think about that. Netanyahu somehow—we hardly dare ask how—got Trump to destroy his own presidency, yet how do you figure that he’ll do it again, as seems likely? As Patty Marins asked: What is the weird hold that Jewish Nationalists have over him?

DD Geopolitics @DD_Geopolitics

1h

 Behind Trump’s confident public posture on the Iran war, the Wall Street Journal reports a president gripped by fear, distraction and no clear exit strategy.

No “clear” exit strategy? Is there even a fuzzy, unclear one?

When a U.S. jet was shot down over Iran on Good Friday, Trump screamed at aides for hours. Images of Jimmy Carter’s failed 1979 hostage rescue were haunting him. Aides kept him out of the Situation Room during the rescue operation because, a senior official said, his impatience wouldn’t be helpful.

Trump had told his team before the war that Iran would capitulate before closing the Strait of Hormuz, and that even if they tried, the U.S. military could handle it. He was wrong on both counts. He has since marveled at how easily it was shut down, telling aides: “A guy with a drone can shut it down.”

Notably, as early as late March, before the plane was even shot down, Trump had already ordered his negotiating team to find a way to start talks, according to the WSJ. The public threats and the private reality were moving in opposite directions.

In other words, trust the Iranian reports, not Trump. That’s exactly what Iran has said—that within 10 days Trump was begging to negotiate.

Iran as a second Venezuela? Anyone with half a brain new there was no valid comparison—at all. That points to an ego driven, impulsive gamble.

The war itself was partly Netanyahu’s sell. After a persuasive February briefing from the Israeli Prime Minister in the Situation Room, Trump said he trusted the military to pull it off, pointing to the swift U.S. operation in Venezuela as proof it could work. In Iran, he was shown clips every morning of explosions across Iranian terrain and remarked to advisers how impressive the military was, seemingly in awe of the scale of the bombs. But he had done little to sell the American public on the war, and soon grew frustrated that his administration wasn’t getting enough external praise.

Videos of big explosions? How naive is that? And no preparation of the public? This war was baked in from the outset of Trump 2.0. How can you not prepare the public? What was going on in the White House?

He resisted ordering the capture of Kharg Island, the launch point for 90% of Iran’s oil exports, telling aides the troops would be “sitting ducks.” His threat to destroy Iranian civilization was improvised, with no input from his national security team. His Easter morning post telling Iran to “Open the F***in’ Strait,” which included “Praise be to Allah,” was also unilateral. Afterwards he asked aides: “How’s it playing?”

My guess: Driven by utter frustration. He could see no way out and couldn’t get Iran to play along with his emotional needs. These were people who were serious about their country, their nation, their civilization. Trump was only serious about his brand.

The two-week ceasefire was announced less than 90 minutes before his own 12-hour ultimatum expired.

As the war dragged on and poll numbers dropped, top aides repeatedly urged Trump to stop giving impromptu media interviews, telling him his contradictory statements were only convincing the public he had no coherent strategy. Trump agreed briefly, then resumed. His chief of staff Susie Wiles pushed him to address the nation to reassure the public he had a plan. Trump resisted, asking what he would even say, admitting he couldn’t declare victory and didn’t know where the war was going. He was eventually persuaded, delivering the April 1st address. It didn’t move public opinion.

Which shows that he wasn’t actually delusional, in the true sense. And yet he did continually declare victory.

Meanwhile Trump held meetings about the White House ballroom he is building, attended midterm fundraisers hours after the war began, and at a donor reception mused aloud about awarding himself the Medal of Honor, citing as justification a scary landing in Iraq during his first term. His press secretary said he was joking.

“We are witnessing astonishing military successes?” So says a McCain goofball. Such as? Killing a handful of top officials, who are quickly replaced while the Iranian war effort doesn’t skip a beat?

“We are witnessing astonishing military successes that do not add up to victory,” said Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute, who served on George W. Bush’s National Security Council. “That is squarely on the president and how

Patty Marins sees Trump doubling down.

Patricia Marins @pati_marins64

7h

President Trump Returns to the Offensive

He posted a video on his Truth Social platform a few hours ago in which he once again appears to be betting on a popular uprising inside Iran.

In other words, he’s doubling down on Jewish Nationalist fantasies of regime change. Wait, didn’t that just fail for the umpteenth time? How does the definition of insanity run? Exactly what is the hold that Jewish Nationalists have over Trump—and America?

Here’s a good question:

But if this uprising did not happen at the beginning of the war, why would it occur now, after more than 2,000 deaths, including more than 200 children?

There are already more than 10,000 people hospitalized in Iran due to the attacks.

There are already more than 3 million displaced people in Iran.

Who in their right mind, regardless of any local disagreements they might have, would support an enemy that is bombing their cities and killing their own people?

This is yet another misguided calculation, induced by Netanyahu, who erroneously promoted this idea.

That’s the question: Is this “misguided calculation” simply “induced by Netanayahu”, or is there more to this? Surely, after getting on to two months of recognized failure, Trump got some alternative views? What’s going on?

Continues…

Jewish Insider: Jewish Democratic disillusionment deepens over party’s direction

Jewish Insider

[The votes] served as a proxy for the war in Iran that nearly all Democrats oppose, but also were a signal of opposition to Israel’s operations in Lebanon, settler attacks and settlement expansion in the West Bank, the war in Gaza and — to a substantial degree — the Democratic enmity that has been growing for years toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his government and his alignment with President Donald Trump and Republicans.Former ADL chief Abe Foxman: ‘This is a calamity for the Democratic Party, if it will not be contained and stopped’

The Democratic shift on Israel policy was on full, dramatic display on the Senate floor on Wednesday night as 40 of 47 Senate Democrats voted for at least one of two resolutions to block U.S. shipments of bulldozers and bombs to Israel.
The votes left many pro-Israel Democrats shocked and disillusioned — exemplified in the muted statements, if any, on the vote from key pro-Israel groups — and is being seen by some as the marker of a new era of Democratic policy on Israel, in which critics of Israel are firmly in the party mainstream.

“It’s yet another data point that the bipartisan consensus [in support of Israel] is, at least at the moment, no longer,” a former Biden administration official told Jewish Insider on Thursday. “Democrats think it’s politically advantageous to take these votes that would have been completely out-of-bounds just two-and-a-half years ago. … It’s deeply concerning if you care about the relationship, if you care about the security of [Israel]. But that’s the state of play at the moment, I think until or unless there’s an event that changes the trajectory.”

Abe Foxman, the former head of the Anti-Defamation League, said the vote highlights the “progressive socialist wing” of the Democratic Party’s increasing takeover. “This is a calamity for the Democratic Party, if it will not be contained and stopped,” Foxman told JI. “What’s also disturbing to me is that this litmus test is being first administered to every Jewish candidate.”

He added that the votes send a terrible message to U.S. allies beyond Israel that the U.S. can’t be relied upon.

Pro-Israel Democrats who spoke to JI said the votes came about as a combination of several factors: They served as a proxy for the war in Iran that nearly all Democrats oppose, but also were a signal of opposition to Israel’s operations in Lebanon, settler attacks and settlement expansion in the West Bank, the war in Gaza and — to a substantial degree — the Democratic enmity that has been growing for years toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his government and his alignment with President Donald Trump and Republicans.

And lawmakers are also responding to the growing progressive pressure, fueled by two years of imagery from the war in Gaza, amplified by social media platforms that boosted antisemitic content, that has changed the politics around Israel in a “really dramatic way” in the Democratic Party, the former Biden administration official said.

“Those [resolutions], at this moment in time, were just a proxy for real discomfort with the direction of the Trump-Netanyahu relationship in this war, which is not the right reason to vote for these,” another former Biden administration official told JI. “I understand the [vote to block] bulldozers at this moment in time. [Withholding] the munitions — I think it’s really, really troubling.”

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), an early supporter of efforts to block weapons sales to Israel, said that the growing opposition can’t be blamed solely on Netanyahu. “I also think it’s watching how the weapons are used,” Kaine told reporters. “I think the observation of how the weapons are used is probably a little bit more the reason that the vote total is going up than a feeling about the domestic politics of Israel.”

Some pro-Israel Democrats say that the impact and meaning of the votes shouldn’t be overstated, and that there remains a sizable pro-Israel Democratic contingent, even including some of the lawmakers who voted for the resolutions on Wednesday.

“There were pro-Israel senators, and senators who are close partners and allies of the Jewish community, on both sides of this vote last night,” Halie Soifer, the CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, said. “This didn’t occur in a vacuum, and it’s not necessarily driven by anti-Israel, and certainly not antisemitic, views. It also doesn’t necessarily represent a wholesale shift in the Democratic Party. It’s a snapshot of where we are in this moment as it relates to these particular arms sales and this particular Israeli government and its policies. But I have no doubt that there’s the chance that that will change in the future.”

Soifer said that she and JDCA didn’t support the resolutions, but emphasized that some of the Democrats who voted for the resolutions said in their statements that they remain strong supporters of Israel. And she said JDCA doesn’t view the votes as “inherently anti-Israel” or necessarily an expression of alignment with the far left.

She called the vote on the bulldozers, which received 40 supporters, a particularly potent “symbolic message” — many Democrats associate the machines with the destruction of Palestinian homes and expansion of settlements in the West Bank. But she said it was something of an “anomaly” as compared to previous efforts to block systems such as bomb guidance kits.

“It’s a challenging time where both things are true at once: You do have an increased number of Democrats who are supporting these [resolutions], and you also still continue to have a majority of Democrats who support the U.S.-Israel security relationship,” Soifer said.

A common refrain in conversations with those in the Democratic pro-Israel world after the votes — and even before then — was that the end of Netanyahu’s premiership would provide a critical opening and opportunity to start rebuilding support for Israel among Democrats.

Kaine said that a change in the Israeli government would lead lawmakers to step back and analyze the potential implications, but said it wouldn’t necessarily bring sweeping changes. “I don’t think the 40 [Democrats voting for the resolutions] is baked in, I also don’t think it will immediately change.”

But a Netanyahu defeat in this year’s Israeli elections is far from a sure thing. So what happens if Netanyahu wins again? “I think it will be very difficult for Democrats to hold any center on support for Israel,” one former Biden administration official said.

The other former Biden administration official said that the intense anti-Israel pressure on Democrats would likely fade if Middle East policy issues are out of the headlines on a day-to-day basis. They further argued that the 2028 primaries will be an “inflection point,” on both sides of the aisle.

And they said that the Jewish community, particularly the non-Orthodox community, needs to be more organized and active locally and on a grassroots level in advocating for their representatives to be supportive of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Foxman said he hopes to see more Democratic lawmakers — naming Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) specifically — standing up directly to the anti-Israel wing of the party, just as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has spoken out against antisemitism on the right.

With opposition to weapons systems for Israel apparently firmly within the mainstream, we wrote earlier this week about the emerging progressive push to cut off U.S. support for Israel’s missile-defense systems as well.

Asked whether he takes a similar view, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the lead driver of the Senate votes, did not directly respond. “Let’s take one thing at a time. Right now, I think we made progress yesterday,” he told JI.

Kaine took a firmer stance in support of missile-defense aid, calling those who want to cut it off “a tiny minority,” especially in the Senate. He noted that no Democrats have offered similar resolutions to block defensive systems, and that other weapons sales to Israel have gone entirely unchallenged — though he acknowledged that the distinction between offensive and defensive weapons can be fuzzy at times.

One of the former Biden administration officials warned that opposing missile-defense support is a “totally unproductive, terrible” policy — not just for Israel, but also sending a message to allies around the world that the U.S. can’t be relied upon to follow through for its partners.