But What Can You Do? tracks where 2026 candidates stand on U.S. weapons and funding for the government of Israel. How we check
Joel Anabilah-Azumah
Republican · U.S. House, New York District 9
?Mixed
How this mark works
We track key votes on sending U.S. weapons and money to the government of Israel. A check means every tracked vote they cast came down against sending more, on the side of peace and de-escalation. A question mark means a mixed record: they sided with sending up to half of the time. An X means they voted to send more weapons and money in over half of their tracked votes, even as the way those weapons and dollars were being used became more and more obvious. At exactly half, money this election cycle from a lobbying group we track, or an endorsement from a group that backs sending weapons, makes it an X. Only votes actually cast are counted. Where a candidate has no recorded votes on these bills, the mark comes instead from a reviewed reading of their public record (money from the lobbying groups we track, endorsements, and their own words since January 26, 2024). There an X also covers fully backing the conduct of the war by the government of Israel without significant reservations, and a question mark also covers speaking about Israel without saying clearly where they stand on U.S. weapons and funding. A dash means No Position Found: we found nothing in their own words about Israel, Gaza or the war.
Two reviewers, reading the public record as a whole, agree: Answering a 2026 voter-guide question on whether "The United States should help defend Israel from attack by its enemies", he answered "Neutral", without saying where he stands on U.S. weapons and funding for the government of Israel. Reviewed by hand on 2026-10-09. This candidate has no recorded tracked floor votes.
Asked in a candidate questionnaire whether "The United States should help defend Israel from attack by its enemies", Anabilah-Azumah answered "Neutral". He answered the same on boycott and divestment. No position located on U.S. weapons or funding.
The email has replies@butwhatcanyoudo.org in cc, so we can post their answer on their page in their own words; remove it if you prefer. Keep the subject line as it is, add your name, and send.
Anabilah-Azumah is the Republican and Conservative Party candidate in New York’s 9th District in central Brooklyn. He owns a transit company and coaches men’s volleyball at Brooklyn College, and he has run for this seat before, including in 2018 and 2020.
He was asked directly, and the answer is on the record. A candidate questionnaire for this race puts the statement "The United States should help defend Israel from attack by its enemies" to him, and his answer is "Neutral". A second form asks about boycott and divestment measures and his answer there is "Neutral" as well. He is not a candidate who skipped the questions: on the first form he gave six "Strongly Agree" and seven "Strongly Disagree" answers, so declining to take a side on Israel is a choice he made among answers he was willing to give.
What that answer is not is a position on money or weapons. Neither form asks about aid packages, arms transfers or humanitarian funding, and nothing else located takes a view on them.
Beyond the questionnaire he has a general non-interventionist framing rather than a position on this conflict. His 2026 platform puts it as a spending choice: "We want investment in American infrastructure such as the Utica Avenue Subway instead of war." In a 2026 Ballotpedia survey he wrote that "Current foreign policy benefits everyone else but normal Americans", and in a 2018 interview he said he wanted to "reel in the foreign policy expansion that’s been going on for the last 20 years", adding that "Our troops are in way too many places doing way too many things that do not benefit the American population."
That is a blanket position. It would include Israel without being aimed at Israel, and reading it as a position on U.S. military aid to the Israeli government would overstate him.
The money
Checked the five lobbying groups we track; no direct 2026 support found
2026 support from the five lobbying groups we track
Nothing recorded (as of 2026-07-23) from the five lobbying groups we track; earlier cycles and earmarked donations not yet tracked.
Support-only OpenFEC data. Opposition independent expenditures are excluded.
Research log
The notes behind this card: what we looked at, what we found, and where each item came from.
U.S. military aid and weapons to Israel
2026 [Current position; VERIFIED]: The iVoterGuide questionnaire for this race carries the statement "The United States should help defend Israel from attack by its enemies." **His answer is "Neutral"**, which is also what an initial search reported.
⚠ **A READING FAILURE OF OURS, CORRECTED 2026-08-11.** This card previously said the answer could not be aligned to the question and refused to state it. That was our extraction, not the page. iVoterGuide closes each question and each answer in its own block element; collapsing the HTML to a single line, as the first two probes did, destroyed the pairing and left the adjacent token looking like "Agree" from the preceding item. Converting `</p>`, `</div>`, `</td>`, `</tr>`, `</li>` and `</h1>`-`</h6>` to newlines before extracting restores it, and the answer sits directly after the question. A volunteer read the page in a browser and reported the answer as a one-word "Neutral"; re-extracted here, it is.
Undated [Current position; blanket, not aimed at Israel]: His campaign platform and candidate comparison profiles frame foreign military spending as a domestic trade-off: "We want investment in American infrastructure such as the Utica Avenue Subway instead of war." A candidate profile published 2026-05-21 is among the sources.
An initial search’s own verdict: beyond that framework and the questionnaire answer, he has made no detailed public statement on U.S. military aid packages or weapons transfers to Israel. Nothing located on funding amounts, arms sales or conditions.
U.S. aid to Palestinians
Nothing located. No statement on UNRWA, Gaza humanitarian funding or the aid pipeline. Neither questionnaire asks about it.
Characterization of the conflict
2026 [Current position; VERIFIED; named out of scope for cards]: A second questionnaire carries the statement "I support BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanction) against Israel if they refuse to allow the creation of a Palestinian state." **His answer is "Neutral".** Boycott and divestment measures are named out of scope by the content rule, so this is recorded rather than built on; it is noted on the card only because it is the same answer to a second Israel question. That form carries three "Neutral" answers and no agree or disagree responses at all.
2026 [Current position]: In Ballotpedia survey responses he wrote that "Current foreign policy benefits everyone else but normal Americans" (his Ballotpedia page).
2018-03-02 [Earlier record]: In an interview during an earlier run he said he wanted to "reel in the foreign policy expansion that's been going on for the last 20 years" and that "Our troops are in way too many places doing way too many things that do not benefit the American population." Predates 2023-10-07 and is about troop deployments rather than aid.
An initial search’s own verdict: beyond these, no detailed characterization of the conflict itself.
Rhetoric and lobbying
An initial search’s own verdict: no public records or reported statements addressing Israel-related lobbying organisations.
Safety and antisemitism
Undated [Context only]: His platform's "Safe Communities" section reads: "We want our communities to be safe and full of people who are invested in the health of our neighborhoods." Domestic and general; nothing located on antisemitism specifically.
How to read a "Neutral"
He answered the form and used the full range elsewhere on it: six "Strongly Agree" and seven "Strongly Disagree" on the first questionnaire. So "Neutral" on defending Israel is a position he selected, not a question he skipped. What it is not is a view on money or weapons, which neither form asks about.
Two localcandidates.org pages, including a head-to-head comparison with the incumbent. That host returns 200 and renders its body client-side, so a browser can read it and our open cannot; the comparison page is worth a human look.
Not found
No position located on U.S. weapons, arms sales or military funding for the government of Israel.
No position located on U.S. aid to Palestinians.
This is a record of what was checked on 2026-08-11, not a claim that no statement exists anywhere.
But What Can You Do? tracks where 2026 candidates stand on U.S. weapons and
funding for the government of Israel. Every claim on this page goes through at least two verification steps.
Open Find Your Candidates for votes, funding and contact details.