FWIW, Franken recently had Peter Beinart on his podcast, who is way better than "my job is to keep the Democrats pro-Israel" Chuck Schumer.
It has become crystal clear to me that the issues some of the liberals here deride as "purity tests" are more like "litmus tests" that can be used to weed out the Sinemas, Fettermans, Machins, Cuellars, and Gallegoses of the world. Nobody in this coveted "Gen Z male who spends 12 hours a day listening to podcasts" demographic supports Israel's genocide and they certainly don't want their crypto wallets being taxed to provide universal healthcare in Israel while their elected officials are poised to kick millions off Medicare.
Electing a black man president was enough of a provocation that inmates took over the asylum which paved the way for the Tea Party and Birther movements, totally redefining the internal power dynamics of the GOP. You'd think that re-electing someone whose incompetence in the position led to millions of preventable deaths would have provided the same provocation among the Dems to burn down their internal power dynamics, but no. They still have the ingrained "it's her turn" seniority mechanism, and they still have the same fealty to AIPAC and other big money donors, which all but ensures that nobody who's able to meet the moment will ever have a realistic chance of getting elected.
They have been outmaneuvered for our entire adult lives. Does anyone remember Lindsay Graham's flip-flop from Merrick Garland to Amy Coney Barrett? That's the kind of top-down incompetency I'm talking about. Only a fossil and a fool like Chuck Schumer wouldn't have seen such hypocrisy coming a mile away.
Israel/Palestine from a domestic politics standpoint is really just a variation on the "call a spade a spade" exercise that the Iraq War was for politicians back in the George W Bush administration. You had mass media manufacturing consent based on a lie and you had 9/11 supplying an enhanced permission structure for appealing to Islamophobia, which meant only a handful of politicians, even the ones who were nominally anti-war, who felt like they could publicly oppose the invasion. And it was Obama's track record of having opposed the invasion that set him apart from the others in the 2008 primary. History was on his side.
That's how the Gaza genocide will be looked at. While I'm glad to see more democrats abandoning the "unwavering support" mantra, make no mistake that the people within the party who have any kind of power are on the wrong side of this important issue. (We all remember the Georgia legislator being denied a chance to give a pre-screened speech at the DNC so that some executive from Uber could blather on about god knows what). Young voters in the 00s were overwhelmingly anti-war which is what propelled Obama to the success he saw. Young voters today are overwhelmingly pro-Palestine, and even the ones who remain neutral are still self-interested enough to say hell no to all the tax dollars being diverted toward a foreign government.
Beyond being the morally righteous position, the alternative (being like John Fetterman or Chuck Schumer) requires the politician to say things that are simply untrue. They're failing the "call a spade a spade" test, so they lose credibility among voters who consider themselves to be "independent thinkers" (of which there are many in Gen Alpha and Gen Z). That's bad politics, any way you slice it.