In an attempt to set a new standard of opposition to American security assistance to Israel, the leaders of the Progressive Party in the Democratic Party have recently suffered a decisive defeat in the vote to approve the additional funding for the "Iron Dome" as a separate section of the law.
The actual result was that instead of tattooing support for Israel, they actually created a dramatic illustration of the depth of bipartisan support for security assistance, and the chances of the "Iron Dome Law" now pass in the Senate are better than as part of the follow-up budget package.
But the resistance is a warning sign to come.
Therefore, proper conduct of Israel - both vis-à-vis the administration and vis-à-vis the democratic leadership in both houses - can help deepen the political isolation of the radical group in President Biden's party.
Israel must warn those members of Congress from the Democratic Party, who are considered moderate, from the destructive damage that those extremists are doing to the party.
All this, with initiatives in the background that are more difficult but necessary to repel, with an emphasis on attempts to disrupt the sale of offensive weapons.
What led to the omission of this item from the budget package known as the "follow-up decision" in the September 21 vote?
Commentators in the United States as well as in Israel were quick to interpret this omission as evidence of the growing power of the progressive camp, in an age of radical left-wing political awareness, support for all oppressed, and the alleged pursuit of "hegemony" discourse;
Trends on the American left, all of which converge in sympathy for the anti-Zionist struggle.
But in practice, the chain of events suggests that these assessments were now an over-interpretation of a tactical event for two main reasons: One, the presence in the media and consciousness discourse does not necessarily translate into political power. Although the members of the squad ("squad") are far more present and vocal than the hostile forces in Congress in the past - and their affiliation with Jewish Senator Bernie Sanders gives them legitimacy - their little power is illustrated by this vote. The second reason is that those in power in the Democratic Party, such as Stanny Weir, an old friend of Israel, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who expressed her support after the vote, are an example of the pro-Israel power standing in the Democratic Party. Judging by the vote, the distinctly anti-Israel element is less than 5%, and most of the party has condemned extremist statements that nullify Israel's right to self-defense.
What conclusions can be drawn from this provision for the future?
The rapid mobilization of the democratic leadership and its result are a political achievement that should be seen as a starting point for other Israeli moves.
One is to deepen the ongoing dialogue with the democratic leadership in both houses, in parallel with the dialogue with the government, while emphasizing the main message: the positions of the radical anti-Israel left undermine the democratic party's position, and its chances of maintaining a narrow majority in both houses. Such "side-loads" ahead of time, and deepen the political isolation of the "squad" leaders.
Another aspect is coordinated moves with the leading Jewish organizations to assimilate these messages "at the field levels" of the Democrats, as well as in the media and public discourse and within the framework of the struggle on campuses.
At the same time, the benefit of deepening ties with the American security establishment was illustrated as an element of continuity in the midst of political upheavals.
The collaboration has been going on for almost four decades, and the technological developments that have been achieved since then, serve both sides.
This element of the relationship can contribute to Israel's legitimacy if it is required to seek American backing when needed.
These efforts are needed for the next challenges, which will include dealing with legislation that will advance the "two-state solution" and oblige the administration to support Israel's withdrawal to the 1967 lines and distinguish between the "occupation" and "Israel itself."
To this end, it is important to clarify to the democratic leadership that even if the J Street organization sees itself as working for the Israeli interest, the results of the move can be devastating.
Political stability in Israel will be harmed along with the chances of reaching a political settlement as long as the American and European left cultivate idle expectations on the Palestinian side.
The second challenge is of course the Iranian nuclear threat.
If it turns out that only forceful actions will prevent Iran from reaching the status of a nuclear threshold state - and overthrowing what is left of the Convention on the Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - it is important to establish support for Israel and its discretion.
In this campaign, too, it is crucial to mobilize the support of American Jewry, to change the trend in public and media discourse, and for the political support of the mainstream in both parties.