America’s long-standing bipartisan support for Israel is facing its most serious challenge in decades as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s genocidal campaign in Gaza triggers a political revolt in Washington.
What was once an unshakable alliance is now fracturing under the weight of moral outrage, strategic disagreements, and shifting domestic politics. The images of starvation, mass civilian casualties, and the systematic destruction of Gaza have forced American lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, to reconsider their unconditional backing of Israel.
This shift is not confined to the progressive left; even traditional pro-Israel stalwarts and segments of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement are beginning to question the wisdom of offering unconditional support for Israel’s actions.
The result is a profound transformation in the discourse around US-Israeli relations and one that could redefine America’s relationship with Israel for years to come.
For decades, supporting Israel was a rare point of bipartisan consensus in Washington. Democrats and Republicans alike affirmed Israel’s right to self-defence, backed military aid packages without hesitation, and largely avoided public criticism of its Government’s policies.
But Netanyahu’s far-right coalition and his deliberate starvation tactics in Gaza have shattered that consensus.
The breaking point has been the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza, where famine, indiscriminate bombing, and blocked aid convoys have drawn comparisons to some of the worst crises of the 20th
century. It has even prompted comparisons between what is happening to defenceless civilians in Gaza and the Nazi concentration camps during World War II.
Israel’s deliberate restriction of aid into Gaza, doling out food drop by drop and spoon by spoon, is a grotesque spectacle of cruelty, a calculated act of sadism disguised as bureaucratic procedure. While thousands of trucks sit idle at the crossings, Israel enforces a policy of starvation, subjecting an entire population, including children, to the agony of slow death.
Yet, Netanyahu, with breathtaking audacity, insists that “there is no starvation in Gaza,” as if facts could be erased by sheer denial.
Thus, US lawmakers who once defended Israel without reservation are now speaking out, not just on the fringes of the Democratic Party, but also within its mainstream.
Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat eyeing a potential presidential run, warned that Democrats should not “operate from a position of fear” when criticising Israel’s policies.
Senator Brian Schatz, a Hawaii Democrat and one of the Senate’s most prominent Jewish voices, captured the growing frustration when he declared that “we can disagree about a lot of things in the foreign policy space, but there’s no room to tolerate mass starvation.”
His remarks were striking not just for their moral outrage, but also for their political implications. Schatz, long seen as a reliable pro-Israel vote, went further, dismissing the idea that criticising Netanyahu’s government is inherently antisemitic as “ridiculous”.
This framing — that one can support Israel’s existence while vehemently opposing its policies — has gained traction across the US political establishment.
It reflects a fundamental shift in how many American voters and politicians, particularly younger ones, view the US-Israel relationship. No longer is it seen as sacrosanct; instead, it is increasingly judged by the same standards of human rights and accountability that apply to other allies.
The humanitarian disaster in Gaza has made this shift unavoidable. Reports from the United Nations and aid organisations describe a man-made famine, with children dying from malnutrition and families reduced to eating animal feed.
Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, called Gaza “hell on earth” and demanded that Netanyahu’s government immediately restore UN-led aid distribution.
His language was not just rhetorical; it was a direct challenge to the Israeli government’s claim that it is doing everything possible to minimise civilian suffering. The reality on the ground, documented by aid workers and international observers, has made it impossible for many lawmakers to continue defending Israel’s actions without qualification.
This moral reckoning is now translating into legislative action. A Senate resolution led by Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders to block a $675 million arms sale to Israel ultimately failed, but it drew more Democratic support than any previous effort to condition military aid. The fact that such a measure was even introduced, let alone gained traction, signals a seismic shift in Washington’s political calculus.
Representative Mikie Sherrill, the Democratic nominee for New Jersey Governor, echoed the dismay over Israel’s policies. She emphasised that while 7 October 2023 was horrific and Israel has a right to defend itself, the killing of innocent civilians and children in Gaza must be condemned. She called for Netanyahu to be held accountable.
Meanwhile, in the House, more than a dozen Democrats signed a letter urging the Trump Administration to recognise Palestinian statehood in a move that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.
The letter, spearheaded by Representative Ro Khanna of California, cited the famine in Gaza and the need for a political solution, framing Palestinian statehood not as a radical demand but as a necessary step toward long-lasting peace in the Middle East.
The letter’s signatories span from progressive Democrats to prominent figures like Representatives Chellie Pingree, Nydia Velázquez, and Jim McGovern, along with André Carson, one of Congress’s few Muslim members.
The Democratic Party’s evolution on Israel is being driven by both principle and politics, especially ahead of the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential race.
Public sentiment is evolving. According to a July CNN poll, just 23 per cent of Americans now see Israel’s military actions in Gaza as completely justified, a sharp decline since 7 October. The shift is even more pronounced among younger Democrats: 72 per cent of those under 35 believe the US provides excessive military aid to Israel, a trend that has party strategists taking notice.
This generational divide is reshaping the party’s priorities, forcing even moderate Democrats to adjust their rhetoric. Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat known for her centrist foreign-policy views, publicly condemned Israel’s restrictions on humanitarian aid and its failure to rein in settler violence in the West Bank.
Her comments were notable because Michigan is home to a significant Arab American population that has become increasingly vocal in its opposition to US support for Israel’s war on Gaza.
Thus, the Democratic Party is in the midst of a shifting stance on Israel, shaped by the brutal imagery coming out of Gaza and mounting demands from progressives and younger constituents.
But the backlash against Israel is not limited to Democrats, as a surprising rift is deepening within the Republican Party, particularly among the Trump-aligned “America First” movement.
Traditionally, the GOP has been Israel’s most unflinching defender, often outdoing Democrats in its pro-Israel fervour. Yet a growing number of MAGA figures are questioning relationships with Israel.
This sentiment is amplified in right-wing media spaces, where some commentators have begun framing aid to Israel as part of the “neocon” foreign policy that Trump once rejected.
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a hardline conservative who rarely breaks with Republican orthodoxy, has openly criticised additional military aid to Israel, framing it as fiscally irresponsible. She even went further by labeling the situation in Gaza as genocide, a term many lawmakers have avoided so far.
“It’s the most truthful and easiest thing to say that 7 October in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza,” Greene wrote on the social media platform X.
This change reflects an ideological rift within the MAGA movement. A growing faction, driven by “America First” nationalism, questions why US taxpayer money funds overseas conflicts and humanitarian disasters while domestic crises go unaddressed.
As a result, GOP leaders find themselves navigating a complex political landscape. While party elites and traditional conservatives continue to strongly support Israel, the base is increasingly fragmented. Figures aligned with the MAGA movement, including right-wing media personalities such as Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, elected officials, and online influencers, are challenging the party’s orthodoxy.
This internal pressure is forcing Republicans to reconsider how they approach foreign policy, national identity, and moral responsibility, making the Gaza crisis not only a humanitarian issue but a flashpoint in America’s shifting political identity.
While party leaders like House Speaker Mike Johnson continue to staunchly support Israel, even visiting a West Bank settlement in a highly controversial move, the grassroots energy is shifting.
Even former American political leaders such as former president Barack Obama, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, and former national security advisor Jake Sullivan have recently called for unimpeded and immediate access for humanitarian aid, warning that Israel’s isolation is growing and its military strategy is failing to achieve long-term security.
Senator Angus King of Maine, an independent, made a striking declaration: he would no longer back US aid to Israel, not while children in Gaza starve, a crisis he attributes directly to the Israeli government’s “action or inaction.”
His words cut to the core: “I cannot defend the indefensible,” he said.
The consequences of this shift are only beginning to unfold. The question now is whether this marks a temporary rupture or a permanent realignment in US-Israel relations.
For decades, American politicians treated support for Israel as an unquestioned imperative. But the horrors of Gaza have shattered that consensus. Lawmakers are no longer willing to defend the indefensible, whether it’s the bombing of civilian areas, the blocking of aid convoys, or the deliberate creation of famine conditions.
The political costs of unconditional support have become too high, both morally and electorally.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 7 August, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: