House Erupts: 113 Dems Oppose GOP's Anti-Semitism Resolution

Paul Riverbank, 6/10/2025House divided over anti-Semitism resolution as Republicans link hate crime to immigration policy.

The Politics of Principle: When Anti-Semitism Meets Immigration Policy

What should have been a straightforward condemnation of anti-Semitic violence in Boulder, Colorado has instead exposed the raw nerves of American political division. I've watched countless congressional votes during my career, but few have illustrated our fractured political landscape quite like this one.

Last week's House vote became a study in competing narratives. The numbers tell part of the story: 280-113 in favor of a Republican-led resolution, with 75 Democrats crossing party lines. But beneath these figures lies a more complex tale of how even universal condemnation of hatred can become entangled in broader political battles.

The incident in question was straightforward enough - Mohammed Sabry Soliman, an Egyptian national, allegedly attempted to set fire to pro-Israel demonstrators while shouting "Free Palestine." Yet Rep. Gabe Evans, the Colorado Republican who introduced the resolution, chose to frame the attack within the context of immigration policy and sanctuary cities. It's a move that transformed what might have been a moment of unity into yet another partisan skirmish.

I couldn't help but notice the stark contrast with a parallel resolution. When Reps. Jeff Van Drew and Joe Neguse put forward a measure focused solely on condemning anti-Semitism, it sailed through with a unanimous 400-0 vote. The difference speaks volumes about how policy riders can fracture even the most fundamental moral consensus.

The debate turned particularly acidic when House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries labeled Evans "a joke" - an unusually personal attack that prompted Evans, a former Army Black Hawk pilot and police officer, to fire back about his service record. These exchanges reflect the deteriorating quality of our political discourse, even on issues where agreement should be possible.

Perhaps the most poignant moment came from Rep. Dan Goldman's floor speech. "We Jews are sick and tired of being used as pawns," he declared, cutting to the heart of how partisan maneuvering can overshadow genuine concerns about rising anti-Semitism.

Looking ahead, this episode suggests troubling implications for how Congress might handle future incidents of bias-motivated violence. When even clear-cut cases of hatred become vehicles for broader political arguments, it undermines our ability to present a united front against bigotry.

The Boulder case deserves serious attention - both as an instance of anti-Semitic violence and as a matter of immigration enforcement. But by forcing these issues into the same resolution, lawmakers missed an opportunity to address each with the focus it deserves. Sometimes, in politics as in journalism, the clearest message is one that isn't cluttered with competing narratives.

The Politics of Principle: When Anti-Semitism Meets Immigration PolicyWhat should have been a straightforward condemnation of anti-Semitic violence in Boulder, Colorado has instead exposed the raw nerves of American political division. I've watched countless congressional votes during my career, but few have illustrated our fractured political landscape quite like this one.Last week's House vote became a study in competing narratives. The numbers tell part of the story: 280-113 in favor of a Republican-led resolution, with 75 Democrats crossing party lines. But beneath these figures lies a more complex tale of how even universal condemnation of hatred can become entangled in broader political battles.The incident in question was straightforward enough - Mohammed Sabry Soliman, an Egyptian national, allegedly attempted to set fire to pro-Israel demonstrators while shouting "Free Palestine." Yet Rep. Gabe Evans, the Colorado Republican who introduced the resolution, chose to frame the attack within the context of immigration policy and sanctuary cities. It's a move that transformed what might have been a moment of unity into yet another partisan skirmish.I couldn't help but notice the stark contrast with a parallel resolution. When Reps. Jeff Van Drew and Joe Neguse put forward a measure focused solely on condemning anti-Semitism, it sailed through with a unanimous 400-0 vote. The difference speaks volumes about how policy riders can fracture even the most fundamental moral consensus.The debate turned particularly acidic when House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries labeled Evans "a joke" - an unusually personal attack that prompted Evans, a former Army Black Hawk pilot and police officer, to fire back about his service record. These exchanges reflect the deteriorating quality of our political discourse, even on issues where agreement should be possible.Perhaps the most poignant moment came from Rep. Dan Goldman's floor speech. "We Jews are sick and tired of being used as pawns," he declared, cutting to the heart of how partisan maneuvering can overshadow genuine concerns about rising anti-Semitism.Looking ahead, this episode suggests troubling implications for how Congress might handle future incidents of bias-motivated violence. When even clear-cut cases of hatred become vehicles for broader political arguments, it undermines our ability to present a united front against bigotry.The Boulder case deserves serious attention - both as an instance of anti-Semitic violence and as a matter of immigration enforcement. But by forcing these issues into the same resolution, lawmakers missed an opportunity to address each with the focus it deserves. Sometimes, in politics as in journalism, the clearest message is one that isn't cluttered with competing narratives.