Israel is following the U.S. midterm elections with a concern that goes beyond congressional seat calculations; it sees them as a test for the future of its relationship with Washington and an indicator of shifts in how American voters view it. While Israel is mentioned in the speeches of several candidates, Israeli circles fear that the issue may be more important to politicians than to voters.
As the economy, jobs, and abortion dominate the priorities of large sectors of Americans, the debate over the cost of foreign commitments, including military support for Israel, is escalating. This raises concerns in Tel Aviv about the potential transfer of political criticisms into legislative pressures on aid and the relationship between the two countries.
This anxiety feeds on the widening criticisms within the Democratic Party and the emergence of similar voices within the Republican Party, particularly among supporters of the "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement, which promotes the slogan "America First." While progressives focus on Palestinian rights and the war in Gaza, some supporters of the movement reject costly foreign commitments.
The Israeli gamble does not only relate to the results of the U.S. midterm elections but also to what changes in the balance of power within Congress and the directions of the two parties might open up for the 2028 elections. Amid fears of declining sympathy for Israel and the debate surrounding the cost of supporting it, the question of the future of the American-Israeli alliance emerges.
Who supports the alliance and who wants to restrict it?
Luke Tress, a correspondent for "Times of Israel" in Washington, noted in a report on the midterm elections the visits of several American candidates to Israel, which received extensive media coverage. This coincided with the increasing presence of relations with Tel Aviv and the war in Gaza in the speeches of candidates for the House and Senate.
However, this presence does not mean that Israel is at the forefront of voters' concerns; it is not among the main priorities when Americans are asked about the issues that will determine their votes. This gap between candidates' rhetoric and public interests reveals a source of Israeli anxiety, with the likelihood of positions on Israel becoming a tool for political polarization.
Surveys cited in the report show an increase in criticism of Israel, especially among youth and Democrats, and the impact of the war on Gaza on some voters' choices. Nevertheless, domestic issues remained more significant, with the war in Ukraine receiving more attention than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in some foreign policy surveys.
According to the report, there are no known surveys that prove Israel is a top concern for American voters, nor is it necessarily a priority for American Jews. Among the candidates who made criticism of Israel a core part of their campaigns is Abdulrahman Al-Sayed, the Democratic Senate candidate from Michigan.
In contrast, the war in Gaza was one of the top priorities for 35% of American Muslim voters, following the economy and jobs only. This reflects the significance of the Palestinian issue for a segment of voters, though it does not mean it ranks higher than domestic issues in the general priorities of Americans.
In a joint article published by Channel 12, Avichai Ben Sasson-Gordis, a lecturer at Tel Aviv University, and Ted Sasson, a sociology professor at Middlebury College, categorized the candidates into three groups based on their positions on Israel, military aid, and bilateral relations.
The first group includes candidates who support the American-Israeli alliance, endorse Israel's right to defend itself, and advocate for continued aid and military cooperation.
The second group includes moderate progressives who criticize Benjamin Netanyahu's government's policies in Gaza, support imposing new restrictions on arms sales, and advocate for a Palestinian state, but avoid labeling Israel's actions as genocide or calling for a complete arms ban.
The third group includes candidates like Abdulrahman Al-Sayed, Zahra Mammadani, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar, who call for halting military aid and American arms sales to Israel.
They accuse Israel of committing genocide in Gaza and practicing apartheid, focusing on human rights, international law, Palestinian rights, and the necessity of keeping American taxpayers' money within the United States.
The Gaza War and Israel's Declining Status
Israel has featured prominently in the discourse of progressive forces within the United States, especially during the Democratic primary elections. After left-leaning candidates won in New York, their supporters chanted slogans such as "Free Palestine" and "Damn AIPAC," referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, one of the prominent pro-Tel Aviv lobbying groups.
Some voters link Netanyahu's government to the Republican Party and believe that Israeli policies could lead the United States towards military confrontation with Iran. Thus, support for Israel is no longer discussed solely as a fixed strategic commitment but is now assessed in relation to American interests and the costs of involvement in regional wars.
In a report published by "Israel Hayom," U.S. affairs expert Or Shaked stated that the scenario appears to lean towards a potential Democratic control of the House, while Republicans may maintain a slight edge in the Senate. He noted that losing control of both chambers would be a major political blow for Donald Trump and could restrict his movement during the last two years of his term.
These possibilities are significant for Tel Aviv; losing the Republican majority, coinciding with the continued rise of the progressive wing within the Democratic Party, could shift criticisms regarding military aid from rhetorical levels to legislative pressures. Israel may find itself in a political environment less prepared for unconditional support.
The Israeli human rights website "Conversation" linked electoral transformations to the decline in sympathy for Israel. Data from the "Gallup" organization, in its survey, indicated that sympathy for Palestinians surpassed sympathy for Israel for the first time in modern American history.
This coincided with statements from Trump expressing his astonishment that pro-Israel lobbying groups in Washington have, in his view, become "weaker than ever." The report connects the decline in the influence of these groups with increased American pressures on Israel to cease the war in Gaza and comply with the "Peace Council" decisions established by Trump.
Roni Tsur, a writer for i24NEWS, listed reasons for Israel's declining status, including the Gaza war and images illustrating its humanitarian impacts, alongside Netanyahu's policies over the past 17 years, and his opposition to ending occupation and reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians.
Tsur also referred to Netanyahu’s confrontation with former President Barack Obama, whom he described as the most popular Democratic leader of his generation. Netanyahu openly opposed Obama’s policies and worked to assist his Republican rival Mitt Romney during the 2012 presidential elections, which, according to this analysis, deepened partisan divisions over Israel.
Why Israel is No Longer a Voter Priority?
Israeli circles link the declining sympathy for Israel to what they describe as "generational change." Traditional support for it was associated with the baby boomer generation, who viewed its establishment as one of the results of victory over fascism after World War II, and as a Western partner during the Cold War. The American Jewish community has also played a significant role in bolstering its position within American society, particularly after the 1967 war.
However, this background no longer guarantees the same degree of sympathy among younger generations. According to the report, a segment of American youth views Israel as a state that oppresses Palestinians, with some describing what is happening in Gaza as genocide.
These individuals perceive ongoing U.S. military and diplomatic support as reflecting a gap between the stances of political elites and the values and economic interests of certain segments of society.
In a follow-up published by "Yedioth Ahronoth," Tzvi Shmilovitz addressed the impact of Netanyahu’s interventions in American politics and the growing debate surrounding the influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups. Anti-Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) laws have also faced objections in the United States.
These laws prevent civil service employees in 38 states from advocating for a boycott of Israel, which opponents view as a violation of the First Amendment regarding freedom of expression. Additionally, the suppression of anti-war protests on college campuses in 2024 elicited reactions that damaged Israel's image among certain segments of the American public.
The Palestinian issue has transcended foreign policy boundaries to become a criterion for some progressive voters in assessing issues of human rights, racial justice, and police roles.
The slogan "From Ferguson to Gaza, the struggle is one" embodies this connection between domestic protests and solidarity with Palestinians, as discussed by the Atlas Institute in its analysis of American foreign policy and the relationship between Ferguson and Gaza.
Conversely, some supporters of the MAGA movement resonate with critics of Israel from a different standpoint, which focuses on rejecting costly foreign commitments and questioning the utility of regional wars. While progressives emphasize Palestinian rights and international law, these individuals start from the slogan "America First," making criticism of support for Israel present across divergent political trends.
The Palestinian Issue at the Heart of Election Discourse
With the growing criticism of the war in Gaza, some candidates are calling for a change in the relationship with Israel, while others face pressure to clarify their positions on military aid and Palestinian rights. The discussion has extended beyond managing the war to include lobbying influence, protecting Israel from international actions, and the alignment of American support with the values that Washington claims to uphold.
Here, the results of "Gallup," which showed changing balances of sympathy, converge with the debates tracked by the "Conversation" website regarding the primaries and the criticisms addressed by "Yedioth Ahronoth" concerning anti-boycott laws and campus protests.
These indicators gain significance as they coincide with elections that could redistribute power within Congress and provide more space for candidates advocating for restrictions on military support or a review of its conditions.
In an article published by "Maariv," candidates adopted sharp stances against Israel during the primary elections and refused to retract descriptions of its actions in Gaza as genocide or to accuse it of practicing apartheid. They also called for comprehensive changes in relations with it and linked the continuation of occupation to what they deemed violations of Palestinian rights in Gaza and the West Bank.
These positions indicate that the shift in American discourse is not limited to calls for ending the war but extends to questions about the nature of the alliance itself, the conditions for continued support, and its alignment with the values and interests that American politicians claim to defend.
However, the actual implications for policies will remain tied to election results, the balance of Congress, and candidates' ability to translate their demands into legislative actions.
Military Aid and the Future of the Alliance
A paper issued by the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, prepared by Ted Sasson, Ari Blumenthal, and Avichai Ben Sasson-Gordis, examined the impact of the midterm elections on the future of American-Israeli relations. The paper sees the presence of candidates critical of Israel as reflecting ideological shifts within the two parties, which may reveal repercussions leading up to the 2028 presidential elections.
In a poll by the "PP" research center, the report noted that 84% of Democratic voters under the age of 50 have a negative view of Israel, and that 76% of them do not trust, or trust only very little, that Netanyahu "will do the right thing in the Middle East."
The Atlas Institute's analysis also points to the impact of positions on Israel in political competition, coinciding with some American Jews feeling politically isolated and others feeling estranged from the statements of the Israeli government and its ministers.
One of the issues causing direct Israeli concern is the future of American aid. Dean Shmuel Almas mentioned in a report published by the economic magazine "Globes" that Trump wants to postpone dealing with the aid memorandum submitted to Israel until after the midterm elections, despite his close relationship with it.
The memorandum stipulates annual American purchases worth $3.3 billion, in addition to $500 million for air defense cooperation. The delay raises Israeli concerns about linking the future of support to political balances after the elections, particularly if Republicans lose their majority in one or both chambers, but it does not imply that halting aid has become a settled decision.
In an analysis concerning the future of the Democratic Party, General Eran Leerman from the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security suggested that the elections could lead to Democrats winning a majority in the House and possibly the Senate, amid public dissatisfaction with Trump's performance. He argued that the outcomes will reveal the depth of the American divide over Israel and the extent of the challenge facing its supporters in Washington.
Shmuel Rosenberg, an expert on American affairs at "Maariv," considered that the importance of the elections for Israel also relates to what happens afterward, when Trump is freed from some political commitments related to the campaign.
He advised Israel not to assume that there is a Republican majority that always supports it, to monitor the actions of the new Congress, and to seek constructive dialogue with the Democratic Party, despite the difficulty of communicating with some of its factions.
These assessments converge around the question of whether Israel will remain a "strategic asset" for the United States, or gradually turn into an electoral burden on American politicians. While American forces still defend the alliance and aid, there is an expanding circle calling for a review of its cost and terms, whether due to the war in Gaza or arising from the "America First" slogan.