SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
military aid
Democrats: Say No to Endless Killing in Ukraine and Give Peace a Chance
While some hawks still pretend that Ukraine could "win" the war with enough missiles, bombs, ammunition, and other supplies from the U.S., realists scoff at such claims.
Aug 10, 2025
After three and a half years of carnage in Ukraine, the meeting expected soon between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin is an opportunity to finally find a peaceful solution to a terrible war. Genuine diplomacy to end the bloodshed is long overdue.
Up to 100,000 Ukrainians are estimated to have been killed, many of them civilians, along with more than twice that number of deaths among Russian troops. Hundreds of thousands more have been wounded on each side, and Russian bombardment has devastated many of Ukraine’s cities and towns.
Condemnations of the Trump-Putin summit are predictable from congressional Democrats more interested in scoring political points than opening a diplomatic door for peace. While most Republican leaders will praise Trump no matter what he does, pressure from the so-called national security establishment could damage prospects for a peaceful outcome in Ukraine.
Since early 2022, the U.S. government, on a largely bipartisan basis, has provided upwards of $67 billion in military aid to Ukraine. Supporters of continuing the massive arming of Ukraine claim the highest moral ground, while others do the killing and dying. Even after it became clear that the war could go on indefinitely without any winner, the message from Washington’s elite politicians and pundits to the Ukrainian people has amounted to “let’s you and them fight.”
Last week, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) introduced a bill to give Ukraine $54.6 billion in aid over the next two years, with many billions going directly to arm the Ukrainian military. If the Trump-Putin summit is unsuccessful, the currently dim prospects for such legislation could brighten. This dynamic gives war enthusiasts and advocates for the military-industrial complex a motive to throw cold water on the summit.
While Murkowski now represents a minority view on Ukraine among fellow Republicans, Shaheen is decidedly in the mainstream of her Senate Democratic colleagues. Even after all the suffering and destruction in Ukraine, few seem really interested in giving peace a chance.
As for Trump, he has sometimes talked about seeking peace in Ukraine, even while greenlighting large quantities of weapons to the Kiev government. Given his mercurial approach, there is no telling what his mindset will be after meeting with Putin.
Most Democrats in Congress seem content with continuation of a war that has no end in sight. Little is being accomplished in military terms other than more killing, maiming and destruction.
During recent months, Ukrainian forces have lost ground to Russian troops. While some hawks still pretend that Ukraine could “win” the war with enough missiles, bombs, ammunition and other supplies from the U.S., realists scoff at such claims.
Unfortunately, while the war drags on, Democrats in Congress are prone to treat diplomacy as a third rail. To a large extent, their partisan template was reinforced nearly three years ago, making “diplomacy” a dirty word for the Ukraine war.
The fiasco began in late October 2022 with the release of a letter to President Biden signed by 30 House Democrats, led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The letter was judicious in its tone and content, affirming support for Ukraine and appropriately condemning “Russia’s war of aggression.” But the signatories got in instant hot water because the letter balanced its support for arming Ukraine with sensibly urging steps that could stop a war without a foreseeable end.
“Given the destruction created by this war for Ukraine and the world, as well as the risk of catastrophic escalation, we also believe it is in the interests of Ukraine, the United States, and the world to avoid a prolonged conflict,” the letter stated. “For this reason, we urge you to pair the military and economic support the United States has provided to Ukraine with a proactive diplomatic push, redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a ceasefire.”
Just one day later, Jayapal issued a statement declaring that “the Congressional Progressive Caucus hereby withdraws its recent letter to the White House regarding Ukraine.” For some members of the caucus, the sudden withdrawal was a jarring and embarrassing retreat from a stance for diplomacy.
Ever since then, the war train has continued to roll, unimpeded by cooler heads. And, like elected officials in Washington, voters are looking at the war through partisan lenses.
A March Gallup poll found that 79 percent of Democrats said that the U.S. was not doing enough to help Ukraine — a steep jump from 48 percent since the end of last year. During the same period, the number of surveyed Republicans with that view remained under 15 percent.
It is time for Americans and their elected representatives to set aside partisan lenses and see what’s really at stake with the Ukraine war. Endless killing is no solution at all.
Rebuilding détente between Washington and Moscow is essential — not only for the sake of Ukrainians and Russians who keep dying, but also for the entire world. The two nuclear superpowers must engage in dialogue and real diplomacy if the next generations all over the globe are to survive.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Narrowing the Democratic Divide on Gaza
Why the historic vote on blocking weapons to Israel matters for progressive politics and the fight against Trump.
Aug 01, 2025
Wednesday’s Senate votes on Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Joint Resolutions of Disapproval (JRDs) that would have blocked specific weapons transfers to Israel crystallized two critical realities within the Democratic Party as well as within the progressive movement more broadly. On one hand, 27 Senators, a majority of Democratic caucus, listened to their consciences and made a historic break with decades of unquestioned U.S. military aid to Israel. On the other hand, a substantial contingent of Democratic senators—some from states with progressive reputations and others who are self-styled progressive leaders—joined every single Republican senator in refusing to challenge the influential pro-Israel lobby.
The bipartisan consensus supporting unquestioned military aid to Israel had so far withheld a real reckoning as Gaza’s civilian population faces staggering devastation—bombed hospitals, restricted humanitarian access, and mounting numbers of civilians killed. Meanwhile, those realities in Gaza have caused a sea change with the Democratic Party’s increasingly justice-minded rank and file.
A Gallup poll from just this month found that a paltry 8% of Democratic voters approve of Israel’s military actions in Gaza, down sharply from 24% in late 2024, reflecting unprecedented disapproval amid mounting civilian casualties and humanitarian suffering. This collapse in support highlights a widening chasm between those Democratic leaders who continue to back unconditional military aid and the overwhelming majority of their base. This stark divide weakens the party as it tries to oppose U.S. President Donald Trump in D.C. and as it heads into upcoming elections.
How can Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) lead the Democratic Party against Trumpism if he sides with Bibi Netanyahu’s worst authoritarian instincts instead of with Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and the fight for human rights? How can someone like Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) give anti-authoritarian speeches about fighting “for the moral soul of the nation” while he votes to keep the U.S. complicit in starving a people and other war crimes? How can Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) claim to truly represent voters in progressive states like New York and California when they side with the Israel lobby over 90% of their base voters?
To present a robust counterweight to Trump’s authoritarianism, Democrats must articulate a fundamentally different vision—one that rejects complicity in violence abroad and centers human rights as a cornerstone of both its domestic and foreign policy.
As the atrocities in Gaza mount each day, the costs of listening to lobbying groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and aligned hardline organizations are growing. These groups leverage extraordinary financial and institutional clout, but they do so while representing a smaller and smaller subset of the electorate. At the same time, AIPAC has become a Republican dominated and Republican mega-donor funded organization. It is the largest conduit for Republican donors to meddle in Democratic primaries. It’s past time for the Democratic Party to divorce AIPAC and groups like it.
The electoral consequences of backing Israel’s war and oppression are already evident. A YouGov/IMEU survey reveals that nearly one-third of 2020 Biden voters who turned away from former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 cited the Gaza crisis and U.S. policy on Israel as the decisive issue—outranking traditional concerns such as healthcare and the economy.
Alignment with entrenched special interests, including a hardline Israeli government accused of genocide and other war crimes, undercuts the party’s credibility with key constituencies and diminishes the Democratic Party’s ability to offer a coherent alternative to Donald Trump. To present a robust counterweight to Trump’s authoritarianism, Democrats must articulate a fundamentally different vision—one that rejects complicity in violence abroad and centers human rights as a cornerstone of both its domestic and foreign policy. The longer party leaders cling to the status quo, the more it creates openings for authoritarian narratives to resonate with disaffected voters.
Meanwhile, left and progressive forces within and outside the party must use this opening wisely—mobilizing progressive coalitions for clear, principled anti-authoritarian shifts in U.S. foreign policy, including robust opposition to ongoing military aid that enables war crimes and ethnic cleansing. This week’s vote can provide a springboard for mobilization to thank senators who voted yes and cement their support for an end to the war—and Israel’s apartheid policies. Even more importantly, those who voted against holding Israel accountable for its war crimes must hear from their constituents in their offices, at town halls, and with overflowing phone lines and email inboxes.
The stakes could not be higher. Gaza is facing mass starvation, and 90% of Palestinians in Gaza are displaced. The decisions made in the coming months, especially around military aid appropriations and diplomatic strategy to end the war, will determine not only the future of Palestinians under siege but the credibility and political fortunes of the Democratic Party and any ability to push back Trump’s reactionary authoritarianism.
Those of us who care about the fate of the Palestinians have a role to play in shaping these outcomes. Power from below—organizing, mobilization, and moral witness—can push these elected officials to finally end U.S. complicity. Now is the time to push more senators to join the 27 who voted to block weapons this week. At the same time, we can also organize behind the Block the Bombs campaign in the House. Reps. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), along with 18 colleagues, have introduced historic legislation to block the U.S. weapons being sent to Israel and used in human rights violations. Supporters are campaigning this August to get as much support in Congress for this effort as possible. If all this mobilization can force more and more members of Congress to take a stand for human rights and justice, that will be good for Palestinians suffering in Gaza and good for American democracy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why the US Must End Its Unconditional Support for Israel
This policy has tarnished America’s image as a champion of human rights and democracy, while trapping the Middle East in a cycle of violence.
May 31, 2025
Imagine a U.S. president embarking on a lavish trip to the Middle East, signing major deals with Arab leaders—while Israel, its long-time ally, isn’t even invited to the table. This hypothetical scenario, which could easily have occurred with Donald Trump’s return to power in 2025, is a warning bell for a decades-old policy that has held America’s credibility hostage: unconditional support for Israel.
This alliance has not only stripped the U.S. of its role as a credible peace broker but has also made it complicit in human rights violations and an obstacle to democracy in the region. The time has come for the U.S. to drastically curtail its massive aid to Israel and instead invest in democratic institutions and comprehensive peace across the Middle East.
Israel: A Saboteur of Peace
Every time a genuine hope for peace has emerged in the Middle East, Israel’s actions have worked to destroy it. In the 1990s, the Oslo Accords promised Palestinian autonomy, but Israel quickly doubled down on illegal settlements in the West Bank, turning hope into despair. Between 1993 and 2000, the number of settlers grew from 110,000 to over 200,000. In 2000, the Camp David negotiations collapsed due to Israel’s insistence on retaining control over parts of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
U.S. military aid to Israel—including $12.5 billion in direct support since October 2023—has become inseparable from accusations of human rights violations.
This pattern continued. In 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza, but instead of enabling peace, it imposed a suffocating blockade that turned the lives of 2 million Palestinians into a nightmare. Since October 2023, Israeli attacks on Gaza—backed by U.S. arms—have killed over 60,000 people, many of them civilians. These assaults, executed with 500-pound bombs supplied by the U.S., have obliterated any prospects for diplomacy. With unwavering American support, Israel has not only undermined peace but also fueled regional instability.
America’s Credibility at Risk
U.S. support for Israel—which has included $310 billion in financial aid since 1948 and 49 vetoes of United Nations resolutions critical of Israel—has disqualified Washington from being seen as a neutral mediator. When the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017, Palestinians withdrew from negotiations, plunging the peace process into a deadlock. This policy has strained America’s relations with Arab countries and opened doors for China and Russia to increase their influence in the region.
Public opinion in the U.S. is also shifting. According to a Gallup poll from March 2025, only 46% of Americans support Israel—the lowest in 25 years—while 33% sympathize with Palestinians. This shift, particularly among younger generations, reflects growing dissatisfaction with a policy that undermines the very values of human rights and democracy America claims to uphold.
Human Rights and Democratic Contradictions
U.S. military aid to Israel—including $12.5 billion in direct support since October 2023—has become inseparable from accusations of human rights violations. Amnesty International and other watchdogs have accused Israel of using American-supplied weapons in attacks on civilians, in violation of the Leahy Law. Yet the U.S. has ignored these concerns and continued arms transfers.
Domestically, Israel’s policies—such as expanding illegal settlements and curbing judicial independence—clash with the principles of liberal democracy. These contradictions have damaged America’s reputation as a defender of democracy and eroded public support. A Pew survey from March 2024 found that 51% of Americans held a negative view of the Israeli government.
A Path Toward Peace and Democracy
Scaling back support for Israel could free the U.S. from this political quagmire. Reducing the $3.8 billion in annual military aid would pressure Israel to commit to a two-state solution and recognize Palestinian statehood. This shift could deter destabilizing actions like military offensives and settlement expansion, and pave the way for comprehensive peace.
Rather than continuing military expenditures, the U.S. should invest in strengthening democratic institutions in the Middle East. Supporting civil society organizations in Palestine, Jordan, and Egypt—and enhancing regional diplomacy—could lay the groundwork for lasting peace. This approach would not only restore America’s credibility as a force for peace but also aid in resolving other crises, such as nuclear negotiations with Iran. The Abraham Accords proved that multilateral diplomacy can normalize relations, but this time, Palestinians must be included.
Challenges and the Urgency of Change
Reducing support for Israel won’t be easy. Lobbying groups like AIPAC and certain U.S. lawmakers will resist. But such resistance must not deter a necessary course correction. Without change, the U.S. will remain complicit in crimes that destroy prospects for peace. A gradual, coordinated shift—aligned with Arab allies and strengthened diplomacy—can prevent regional destabilization.
Ending a Dangerous Illusion
Unconditional U.S. support for Israel, which has repeatedly sabotaged peace, is no longer defensible. This policy has tarnished America’s image as a champion of human rights and democracy, while trapping the Middle East in a cycle of violence. The time has come for the U.S. to sharply reduce aid to Israel, recognize Palestine, and invest in regional peace and democracy. This is the only path to restoring America’s global standing and ending decades of instability.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular