Which specific votes did Jasmine Crockett cast on Israel-only funding bills versus omnibus foreign-aid packages?

1. The November 2, 2023 Israel‑only vote: a clear NO

Crockett publicly recorded and explained a vote against the November 2, 2023 Israel aid bill, calling the proposal “partisan, inadequate, and fiscally irresponsible” and explicitly saying “I vote NO on this bill,” a position set out in her congressional press release about that vote ^[1].

2. Other standalone Israel bills she is reported to have opposed

Several sources assert Crockett rejected additional bills that were narrowly focused on Israel; reporting and advocacy summaries list her as having nayed measures described as Israel‑only proposals (the record compiled by a watchdog piece and other local reporting identifies H.R. 7217 and H.R. 8369 as examples of such single‑country security bills she opposed) — those accounts characterize Crockett as opposing funding vehicles that lacked broader humanitarian or multilateral provisions ^[4].

3. The April 2024 supplemental/omnibus vote: a YES on the “Christmas tree” package

Crockett has acknowledged she voted for a large April 2024 supplemental foreign‑aid package — which she and multiple reporters described as a “Christmas tree” omnibus that bundled U.S. assistance for Israel along with aid for Ukraine, Taiwan, Haiti and humanitarian funding for Gaza — and defended that vote by noting Democrats negotiated inclusion of aid beyond Israel before supporting the package ^{[2] [3] [5]}.

4. How advocates and critics interpret the split votes

Progressive critics and advocacy outlets interpret the mix of votes as culpability for funding Israel’s military campaign because the omnibus included Israeli military assistance — critics have therefore counted the April 2024 yes as a substantive vote “for” Israel funding even as Crockett framed her no votes on Israel‑only bills as principled opposition to standalone measures ^{[6] [4] [2]}. Crockett and sympathetic outlets push the counter‑narrative that the omnibus vote reflects a negotiation choice to secure humanitarian aid for Gaza and assistance for other partners that Republicans would not have supported if Democrats simply blocked the package ^{[2] [5] [3]}.

5. Motives, messaging and implicit agendas visible in the record

Crockett’s office framed the November 2023 no as opposition to a Republican “Trojan Horse” that tied spending cuts to emergency aid, signaling a fiscal and procedural objection as well as a substantive one ^[1]. Opponents’ messaging treats any vote that increases Israel’s military assistance as moral endorsement, which serves their political aim of pressuring Democrats perceived as insufficiently critical of Israel; conversely, Crockett’s own post‑vote explanations emphasize caucus leverage and the political reality of divided government — an explanation amplified in interviews and local coverage ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

6. Limits of available reporting and open questions

The assembled sources document the broad pattern — NO on isolated Israel bills, YES on the April 2024 omnibus supplemental — and name some bill numbers in secondary reporting, yet the provided material does not contain a single authoritative roll‑call list tying every cited bill number to each recorded vote in one place; therefore, while Crockett’s press release and her later interviews confirm the split in principle and point to specific examples, full verification of every cited bill number and the exact House roll‑call IDs would require consulting the official congressional roll calls or VoteSmart’s detailed vote listings ^{[1] [7] [2]}.