In times of crisis, the limitations of the two-party system are in full view. The recent vote on Israel aid in the US House of Representatives provides no better example. Democrats who in their political careers have been supportive of Israel voted “no” on something that a year ago would have been a quick “yes.”
One factor is the Iran war and frustration or disillusion with how the US and Israel have run the war. My view on Iran hasn’t changed: the regime needs to go. But I get the frustration. The war doesn’t seem to have been well planned; the US keeps going back and forth; ceasefires aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on (no surprise); and the Iranian people are still being ruled by a theological dictatorship. Much of Iran’s military power has been wiped out — but, ironically, that made it more dangerous. It has nothing to lose, so will sacrifice anything. President Trump and his advisors don’t seem to understand that.
But the Iran war is only a part of this shift. The main reason for the no votes last week from all of Colorado’s House Democrats was politics, pure and simple.
Being a pro-Israel Democrat in Mamdani’s America is becoming a harder proposition. Tilting against Israel can be political self-preservation. It’s hard to make a choice that might cost a person his or her job. (The irony is that at least two of Colorado’s Democrats are regularly harassed by anti-Israel progressives, called disgusting names and constantly disrupted.) Catering to the extremist wing becomes acceptable.
The horseshoe theory, which posits that the far right and left evenutally meet, means that Jews cannot afford to be strictly partisan. The one topic where the far right and far left consistently find common ground is Jews and Israel.
The horseshoe theory explains how Jews are often blamed for opposite trends — such as in the 1930s for capitalism (by Marxist-Leninists) and socialism (by fascists). Jews being either capitalist or socialist can’t simply be about preference, it’s about Jewish control.
For anti-Semites, when Jews act in their self-interest it is nefarious, which is why AIPAC is evil but accepting funds from like-minded PACs is not a problem for DSA candidates like Kiros.
Consensus and compromise are hard and not glamorous — but name me one example in history where an extremist wing took power and things worked out for the better in the long term for most of the population.
I’ll wait.
Shana Goldberg may be reached at shana@ijn.com.
© IJN 2026
