Join our Community
Support ToI and remove all ads
Learn more
Ed Gaskin
The Blogs
Ed Gaskin
Apply for a Blog

There Is No Single Black Democratic Position on Israel

What Black political diversity reveals about Israel, Gaza and coalition politics

One sentence in this series deserves an essay of its own: there is no single “Jewish position,” and there is no single “Black position.” The point is easy to affirm in theory and easy to forget in politics, where public discussion often turns communities into blocs. Israel and Gaza provide a useful test because Black Democratic leaders have taken meaningfully different positions while drawing from overlapping commitments to civil rights, international law, Jewish security and Palestinian dignity.

Those differences should not be turned into a ranking of who is more authentically Black, more loyal to the Democratic Party or more morally serious. They are evidence that Black political thought contains competing traditions, constituencies and interpretations of foreign policy. Treating the most pro-Israel Black official or the most pro-Palestinian Black official as the voice of Black America reproduces the very essentialism Black politics has spent generations resisting.

Hakeem Jeffries: Security, Defeat of Hamas and a Two-State Future

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries has articulated a strongly pro-Israel position while also emphasizing Palestinian civilian protection and a two-state solution. In an April 2024 statement marking six months since October 7, he reaffirmed Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish democratic state and argued that Hamas should be decisively defeated. In the same statement, he said Israel must conduct the war in accordance with the rules of war, substantially mitigate civilian harm, permit humanitarian aid and ultimately pursue an enduring two-state solution with Palestinian dignity and self-determination.

That combination is important because it resists two common simplifications. Strong support for Israel does not necessarily mean rejection of Palestinian statehood, and concern for Palestinian civilians does not necessarily require adopting a ceasefire-first position. Jeffries’s framework places security and two-state diplomacy within the same argument.

Cory Booker: Defense, International Law and Settler Violence

Cory Booker offers another formulation. In November 2023, he joined Senate colleagues in affirming Israel’s right and obligation to defend itself against Hamas while also insisting that Israel had an obligation under international law to minimize civilian harm and allow humanitarian aid to reach people in Gaza. Less than two weeks later, Booker and Representative Dan Goldman urged the Biden administration to address rising Israeli settler violence in the West Bank, describing that violence as a threat to innocent civilians and to wider regional stability.

Booker’s position demonstrates why familiar political labels can be inadequate. A lawmaker can support Israel’s defense against Hamas and simultaneously criticize actions by Israeli settlers or policies that undermine Palestinian security. Neither position has to be interpreted as cancellation of the other.

Raphael Warnock: A Pastoral Vocabulary of Two Traumas

Senator Raphael Warnock has often framed the issue through his vocation as a pastor. In a February 2024 Senate speech calling for a negotiated ceasefire, immediate release of hostages and humanitarian access, he began with the “heinous and horrific” Hamas attack and the trauma carried by Israeli families and Jewish communities. He then placed Palestinian suffering inside the same theological frame, speaking of Israeli and Palestinian children alike as children of God. In March, Warnock joined senators urging the administration to establish a framework that could eventually lead to US recognition of a non-militarized Palestinian state alongside a secure, regionally integrated Israel.

Warnock’s language is not identical to Jeffries’s or Booker’s. It gives greater emphasis to ceasefire and theological moral witness while retaining Israel’s security and Palestinian statehood within the same horizon. That difference is substantive, but it is not evidence that one of them belongs outside Black political tradition.

Pressley, Bush, Lee and Bowman: The Ceasefire Bloc

 

A different group of Black Democratic lawmakers moved earlier toward an immediate ceasefire. In October 2023, Ayanna Pressley joined a resolution introduced by Cori Bush and supported by Summer Lee, Jamaal Bowman, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Jonathan Jackson and others calling for immediate de-escalation and ceasefire, humanitarian assistance and protection of civilian life. Their approach placed greater emphasis on stopping the fighting quickly and on the humanitarian consequences of Israel’s military campaign.

These lawmakers were not politically identical, and their later rhetoric and votes differed. Their participation in the resolution nevertheless establishes that an identifiable bloc of Black progressive lawmakers understood ceasefire as an urgent humanitarian demand at a time when other Democratic leaders preferred humanitarian pauses, continued Israeli military operations against Hamas or a later negotiated cessation of hostilities.

The Congressional Black Caucus as an Institutional Middle Language

The Congressional Black Caucus tried to speak across those differences. Its October and November 2023 statements defended Israel’s right to self-defense, insisted that Palestinian civilians were not responsible for Hamas, called for humanitarian assistance and de-escalation, demanded the release of hostages and condemned both antisemitism and Islamophobia. That did not erase disagreements among members, but it shows an institution searching for language broad enough to hold several moral obligations simultaneously.

Why the Differences Matter for Black–Jewish Relations

 

Jewish audiences sometimes encounter Black political criticism of Israel through the most confrontational statement circulating online and conclude that Black America has turned against Israel or Jews. Black audiences can make the reverse mistake, treating strongly pro-Israel Black officials as though they are merely repeating a white or Jewish political script. Both conclusions erase Black political agency. Booker, Warnock, Jeffries, Pressley, Bush, Lee and Bowman arrived at different emphases through their own political, religious, ideological and constituent contexts.

The differences also matter because political money has intensified the stakes. AIPAC-affiliated spending played major roles in the 2024 primaries that defeated Bowman and Bush, and earlier in contests involving Donna Edwards and Summer Lee. Those interventions deserve scrutiny as campaign-finance and representation questions, but they do not prove that there is a single Jewish position any more than the targeted candidates prove there is a single Black one. American Jews disagree sharply over AIPAC, Netanyahu, settlements, Gaza, BDS and Palestinian statehood; Black Democrats disagree over ceasefire, military aid, diplomatic recognition and how much weight to place on Israeli security or Palestinian liberation.

A Coalition Is Not a Chorus

 

The Democratic coalition has historically contained Blacks and Jews in large numbers, which can encourage an expectation of political harmony that neither community can actually sustain. A coalition is not a chorus. Its members may vote together on domestic civil rights, voting rights, labor or reproductive policy while disagreeing profoundly about Israel and Palestine. The existence of disagreement does not itself demonstrate betrayal; it demonstrates that the coalition contains people with independent histories and political judgments.

That is a healthier starting point for Black–Jewish reconciliation than asking which Black leader speaks for Black America. No one does. The better task is to understand the range of positions accurately, identify the principles behind them, distinguish legitimate policy disagreement from antisemitism or anti-Black racism, and refuse to turn political diversity into evidence of communal disloyalty. If we want a relationship capable of surviving the room, we also need politics capable of surviving plurality.

Selected Sources and Research Notes

 

About the Author
Ed Gaskin attends Temple Beth Elohim in Wellesley, Massachusetts and Roxbury Presbyterian Church in Roxbury, Mass. He has co-taught a course with professor Dean Borman called, “Christianity and the Problem of Racism” to Evangelicals (think Trump followers) for over 25 years. Ed has an M. Div. degree from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and graduated as a Martin Trust Fellow from MIT’s Sloan School of Management. He has published several books on a range of topics and was a co-organizer of the first faith-based initiative on reducing gang violence at the National Press Club in Washington DC. In addition to leading a non-profit in one of the poorest communities in Boston, and serving on several non-profit advisory boards, Ed’s current focus is reducing the incidence of diet-related disease by developing food with little salt, fat or sugar and none of the top eight allergens. He does this as the founder of Sunday Celebrations, a consumer-packaged goods business that makes “Good for You” gourmet food.
Related Topics
Related Posts
Sign in or Register
Please use the following structure: example@domain.com
Or Continue with
By registering you agree to the terms and conditions
Register to continue
Or Continue with
Log in to continue
Sign in or Register
I forgot my password / Send me a sign in link
Or Continue with
check your email
Check your email
We sent an email to you at .
It has a link that will sign you in.