Talarico, Crockett, And The Democratic Base On Israel And Palestine
Why this debate is really about movement, not purity.
The online discourse over the last month regarding James Talarico, Jasmine Crockett, and Israel/Palestine has focused on who failed the left, when the more important question is who can still be moved.
While the moderates and Liberals want you to believe that this is not an issue that voters care about, we do have Pew Research Center data.
These polls from 4/2025 showed that “the war” was both personally important to the majority of Americans and important for national interests.
It also showed, across the board, that unfavorable opinions of Israel have grown, especially among Democrats, especially older Democrats.
71% of Democrats under the age of 50 have an unfavorable view of Israel.
Please read the full Pew poll if you want a more complete understanding of where opinions lie on this issue (it’s about 10 months old).
The purpose of this article is not to assign purity scores.
It is to clarify where the Democratic base actually is on Israel and Palestine, where ideological demands on the left diverge, and where both James Talarico and Jasmine Crockett currently stand within that reality.
This analysis also requires clarity about what it is not. I unequivocally condemn antisemitism and Islamophobia in all forms. There is no justice in excusing one form of dehumanization to confront another.
But before we get to where the candidates are, we need to look at what each side wants and where we are right now. And we’re going to start with the most extreme.
What do Conservatives want for Israel/Palestine?
You have to understand that Israel is very baked into the Christian Nationalist/MAGA agenda, which is why their positions seem so extreme. Israel is central to Christian Zionist theology, and supporting Israel is framed as defending “Western civilization.”
There are two camps of MAGA thinking right now as far as Israel. The first camp wants:
Unconditional US support for Israel
Continued military aid and diplomatic cover
No conditioning of weapons or accountability for civilian harm
Rejection of language like apartheid or genocide
The second camp wants:
End unconditional support for Israel
Reduce or question military aid
Pull back from foreign entanglements
Treat Israel as a foreign country, not a sacred cause
Prioritize US taxpayers and domestic spending
Both camps don’t agree on Israeli policy, but they do agree that:
They do not want Palestinian self-determination as a moral imperative
No international legal accountability for Israel
They do not want a rights-based framework centered on equality
Absolutely no one-state or rights-first solution
They’ll never give explicit solidarity with Palestinians as a people
So, essentially, MAGA is in agreement on what they don’t want for Palestine, but can’t agree on what they want for Israel, and they’re split between religious nationalism and anti-interventionist self-interest.
What do Democratic voters want for Israel/Palestine?
Only 8% of Democrats support Israel’s military action in Palestine. Democratic voters overwhelmingly believe Israel’s continued attacks on Gaza are unjustified.
According to the Brookings Institution:
Only 10% of Democrats believe the U.S. should take Israel’s side.
59% of Democrats now say their sympathies lie more with Palestinians, compared to just 21% with Israelis.
Democrats want US military support scaled back, conditioned, or ended, and Palestinian suffering treated as central, not incidental.
It should also be noted that Democratic voters are increasingly hostile to AIPAC and pro-Israel PAC influence. Many support candidates who refuse AIPAC money.
The base increasingly understands Gaza through international law, human rights, apartheid, and colonial frameworks. There is also growing openness, especially among younger Democrats, to question Zionism itself, whether a two-state solution is still viable, and whether equality in a single democratic state is a more realistic long-term goal.
I think it’s important to understand that far-left positions are becoming more mainstream among progressive voters, especially among younger voters.
What does the “far-left” want for Israel/Palestine?
The left wants an immediate ceasefire and an end to Israel’s military campaign. They want the US to stop arming, funding, and diplomatically shielding Israel. American military aid is seen as enabling mass civilian death. They view Israel as a pillar of US imperial power in the Middle East.
The left wants full recognition of Palestinian humanity and collective rights. This includes:
Opposition to blockade and siege
Opposition to ethnic cleansing or forced displacement
Support for Palestinian political agency (not just humanitarian aid)
Rejection of both Zionist nationalism and Islamist nationalism. This is crucial and often misunderstood. They don’t want Hamas to rule Palestine, and don’t want Zionist supremacy to continue. Because of this, they also feel that a two-state solution is no longer viable. The left would like to see a single, secular, democratic state with civil, political, and human rights. No ethno-religious supremacy. Jews and Palestinians living as equals.
I hope that gave you a good enough overview of what each side wants and where the Democratic base generally is. Now, let’s get to the candidates.
I’m just doing this in alphabetical order.
Jasmine Crockett’s history with Israel/Palestine.
Crockett does support Israel. She has voted for foreign aid packages that include military assistance to Israel, supported resolutions framing Israel’s actions as “self-defense,” and affirmed the U.S.–Israel alliance even after large-scale Palestinian civilian deaths. Crockett frequently frames her position as supporting Israel’s security while pushing for humanitarian protections and ceasefire language.
She has NOT taken any money from AIPAC. However, she has been widely criticized for saying that the relationship between the US and Israel has existed long before she was born, and it will exist long after she’s gone.
Crockett also took a 2023 trip to Israel with Party leadership to tour the Iron Dome.
Yesterday, Congress voted to send another $3.3 billion in “security assistance” to Israel, cut off humanitarian funding to UNRWA (The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East), and banned American funding to ICC, ICJ, and UN Commission of Inquiry related to Israel. This was the FY2026 State/Foreign Ops funding bill (folded into H.R. 7006).
Jasmine Crockett voted for this bill, along with the usual centrist Texas Democrats, including Henry Cuellar, Vicente Gonzalez, and Julie Johnson, to name a few. AIPAC later celebrated it.
You can read the full bill here. Crockett supporters have argued that the benefits of this bill outweigh the measures listed above.
Jasmine Crockett has not called what’s happening in Gaza a genocide or apartheid.
James Talarico’s history with Israel/Palestine.
When James Talarico launched his Senate campaign, it wasn’t long before Politico ran a hit piece on him, linking him to PAC money from Israeli-American Conservative with Trump and AIPAC ties, Miriam Adelson during his 2024 Texas House run.
It was somewhat a distortion of the truth. We (you and I) talked about this a few months ago, whether or not we wanted to legalize gambling in Texas.
Talarico took money from the Texas Sands PAC, a casino-specific PAC funded by Miriam Adelson. This PAC was 100% about legalizing gambling in Texas and had nothing to do with Israel or AIPAC. Moreover, other Democrats took money from this PAC that same year, including:
Christian Manuel
Harold Dutton
Ron Reynolds
Alma Allen
Liz Campos
Erin Zwiener
Ray Lopez
Suleman Lalani
Venton Jones
….and many others
During his 2026 Senate run, Talarico has vowed not to take any corporate PAC money, including AIPAC, and he has not. He described the situation in Gaza as deeply disturbing. He said that, as a Christian, a teacher, and a human being, he feels morally sickened by the violence and by the United States’ role in it, which he said makes Americans complicit. He framed the crisis in Gaza as a moral and spiritual emergency, arguing that it demands action rather than indifference.
He stated that if elected, he would use every available diplomatic and financial tool to end what he described as atrocities in Gaza. He reiterated his support for banning offensive weapons to Israel and said the United States has a unique moral responsibility and unique leverage to stop the death and destruction.
In an email to Jewish supporters in Texas recently, Talarico laid out his plan, which has drawn the ire of progressive Democrats and leftists.
The criticism of this letter was that it re-centers Israel’s legitimacy, justifying occupation. Even if he later criticizes Netanyahu or supports limiting offensive weapons, that “self-defense” framing was painted as a rhetorical cover for asymmetrical state violence.
The letter also centers Hamas as the main obstacle, treating Palestinian political reality as a security problem first, rather than treating occupation/settlements/ blockade as the primary drivers.
You also have to remember, as we discussed earlier, a growing chunk of the left believes two-state is no longer viable. So endorsing them reads as an endorsement of the architecture that’s helped freeze Palestinian rights out of the equation.
James Talarico has not called what’s happening in Gaza a genocide or apartheid.
Do you know what Ken Paxton and John Cornyn’s policy ideas on Israel/Palestine are?
An Israeli-militarized state, no self-determination for the Palestinian people, no legal accountability for the government of Israel or Netanyahu, and no end to the free flow of weapons.
Jasmine Crockett was among the first to sign the Medicare-For-All bill, and James Talarico has a robust anti-corruption platform. Texas would be lucky to have either one. While both hold relatively progressive views on many domestic issues, they seem more toward the center/center-right on this one issue. And this is an issue where the Democratic base has moved faster than its candidates, and the real political question is not who is pure but who is still willing to move.
Does each candidate understand how far their own voters have already moved, and how that movement is continuing, especially as Israel continues to expand territorial control?
Will the candidate follow where the establishment is headed? Or where the base is headed?
And what does “movement on this issue” actually look like? Changing their positions? Willingness to name realities (apartheid, collective punishment) even if they stop short of genocide language?
Did you see that moment in CA11 (Pelosi’s district)?
Did the video work? I just discovered I can embed Instagram videos. 😁
The guy in the middle, Scott Weiner, later made a video and clarified his position.
Okay, it’s California, but if you believe in the pendulum theory, you’ll understand why we’re seeing more progressive and leftist views make it to the mainstream in the age of Trump authoritarianism.
Regardless, if the candidate’s goal is to appeal to the Democratic base, in Texas, which generally leans further left than the rest of America, they will have to decide if they are willing to move on this issue.
Crockett is anchored to institutional loyalty. Her votes prioritize continuity, stability, and alliance maintenance, even as public opinion fractures. Talarico, by contrast, is rhetorically closer to the base, but still operating inside a moral framework that treats Israel’s legitimacy and security as the immovable center of gravity. One is constrained by votes already cast. The other is constrained by the limits he has not yet crossed.
Democratic voters have already done the moral and political work of reevaluating American policy toward Israel.
What remains unresolved is whether Democratic leadership will catch up or will continue to treat that shift as a messaging problem rather than a governing one.
Texas voters are choosing between candidates operating inside a collapsing foreign policy consensus and asking whether either is prepared to break with it.
On Israel and Palestine, the base has already moved.
History suggests the party will eventually follow. The only open question is whether our candidates will lead that shift or be dragged into it afterward.
February 2, 2026: Last Day to Register to Vote
February 17, 2026: First Day to Early Vote
March 3, 2026: Primary Election
Click here to find out what Legislative districts you’re in.
LoneStarLeft is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Follow me on Facebook, TikTok, Threads, YouTube, and Instagram.
Well this is a must win senate race, and frankly both Crockett and Talarico are better 1,000% than Paxton or Cornyn. So it doesn’t really matter. For me, I am not endorsing either, they are both great but whoever actually works the precincts and talks to the voters and will help all the ready 254 counties with $$$$. And if neither of them do that then I don’t care cause we will never win the state wide senate race without massive GOTV in all 254 counties but a whole lot in DFW and all collar counties. You know how I feel. We can’t win state wide with just a candidate. We have to work every precincts. And right now neither has offered to help. And I have said for months the two things that matter the absolute most for my city is: No AIPAC and No Casino $ especially from the #1 Trump donor.