Pete Buttigieg searches for a new center on Israel policy

During a podcast interview on Sunday, the normally eloquent Pete Buttigieg became tongue-tied when the subject turned to Israel.

Asked on "Pod Save America" if he would have voted in favor of recent Senate measures to block the sale of bombs and guns to Israel, the former transportation secretary and potential 2028 White House hopeful declined to give a clear answer. And he offered up strikingly noncommittal responses for the next couple of questions on Israel policy as well.

But after catching flak for ducking the questions, he has now come out with some clearer statements that position him more progressively than his initial dodges seemed to suggest.

His initial refusal to speak clearly, followed by some careful clarifications days later, speaks to a few things as we prepare for the long lead-up to the 2028 election. Namely, how the politics surrounding Israel policy are shifting in the Democratic Party, and how moderates are feeling pressure to find the new center on the issue while venturing into finally questioning the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

In the "Pod Save America" interview, Buttigieg was vague on his stance on U.S. support for Israel. "I think we need to insist that if American taxpayer funding is going to weaponry that is going to Israel, but that is not going to things that shock the conscience," he said. Then, over the course of a windy response about how it's "unconscionable" to cause childhood starvation, Buttigieg declined to say how he'd "insist" that Israel doesn't carry on with its policies.

When asked if the U.S.-Israel relationship should change based on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's conduct, Buttigieg's response was similarly vague: "Netanyahu can't be the only voice, or kind of the only compass for what should happen in the U.S. Israel relationship." He added, "I think that we, as Israel's strongest ally and friend, you put your arm around your friend when there's something like this going on, and talk about what we're prepared to do together."

And when asked if he'd recognize Palestine as a state — as many of the U.S.'s allies, including the United Kingdom and France, are now doing in a bid to pressure Israel — Buttigieg again offered a nonresponse. "I think that's a profound question that arouses a lot of the biggest problems that have happened with Israel's survival, Israel's right to survival, in the diplomatic scene," he said, "and many of the people who have taken that step historically have done so for different reasons than what we see happening with European countries." You can see his full comments here.

Buttigieg was criticized online for his evasive answers by progressive pundits, as well as Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and former Obama deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes.

Buttigieg appeared to take note. On Thursday, Buttigieg told Politico's Playbook, "I get it," and provided some meatier responses to them, which Playbook summarized:

Days after talking about bear-hugging a man perpetrating genocide in Gaza, these positions hardly place him in the progressive wing of the party. And his position on recognizing Palestine as a state, at least as summarized by Politico, still seems ambiguous. But it's notable that Buttigieg decided to announce that he supported cutting off at least some aid to Israel.

Buttigieg's hesitation, followed by a willingness to draw some lines on aid to Israel, reflect the search for a new moderate position. He is a standard-bearer of the moderate wing of the party, and as a buzzy potential White House hopeful, likely has his eyes on how his positions on Israel now might age in the coming years. That search is surely affected by Democratic voters' souring on Israel and intensifying opposition to its military operation in Gaza. It's a sign that the long-held Democratic orthodoxy of backing Israel right-or-wrong may be beginning to erode.