Introduction
The social and political legitimacy of the Democratic Party’s unconditional support for Israel has eroded significantly in recent years. This shift has become much more tangible in American political life, particularly among young voters and the progressive wing, as the Palestinian cause has gained greater visibility in a positive light. While this situation may not lead to a radical break in US policy toward Israel in the short term, it is quite noteworthy in that it has the potential to reshape the internal balances of Democratic politics and the ideological alignments of politicians.
Although Democratic support for Israel has occasionally shown a downward trend due to the violent policies pursued in the occupied Palestinian territories, historically it has always remained at a certain level. Indeed, objections from Democratic voters regarding US support for Israel which has tangible outcomes such as annual military aid packages worth billions of dollars, diplomatic protection provided on international platforms and the structuring of the Middle East’s security architecture in Israel’s favor have been on the rise for some time. The issue of support for Israel, which has been a consistent pillar of the Democratic elite’s political approach, is undergoing a significant transformation, particularly following Operation Al-Aqsa Flood launched by Hamas in Gaza on October 7, 2023. However, criticism of support for Israel is no longer limited to the voter base but is increasingly resonating among Democratic politicians as well. In this regard, October 7 has gone down in history as a significant turning point that accelerated the shift in how Israel is perceived by the American public.
Recent public opinion polls, which provide data on the erosion of perceptions toward Israel in American society, also offer compelling insights into the details of this observation. Indeed, during this period, anti-Israel and anti-Zionist rhetoric has become increasingly visible across a broad spectrum, ranging from university campuses to campaign rallies. For example, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February 2026, approximately two-thirds of American adults support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Although this percentage has remained at similar levels since the 2020s, recent poll results have revealed for the first time in history that middle-aged Americans aged 35–54 harbor more sympathy for Palestinians than for Israel. A closer examination of age groups reveals that young voters, in particular, constitute the group with the most negative attitude toward Israel. Indeed, support for Israel is higher only among Americans aged 55 and older.
When the poll results are re-evaluated based on political party preferences, the picture becomes even starker. Among Democratic voters—particularly young Democrats and urban liberals—critical attitudes toward Israel have intensified, especially since October 7, to the point where Israel’s policies in Gaza are being characterized as genocide. Among Republican voters, however, criticism of Israel remains at a very low level.
As such a wave of criticism rises in the American public, the US’s strategic approach which prioritizes Israel’s interests both regarding the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the shaping of the security architecture in the Middle East is raising questions in people’s minds. However, expecting a radical break in US policy toward Israel in the short term does not appear realistic. However, it is foreseeable that the erosion of Israel’s legitimacy in the American public sphere will lead to significant changes in the form and scope of various forms of support provided to Israel, primarily military in the medium and long term. Indeed, various poll results indicate low levels of support for Donald Trump’s performance, which has followed a proactive and assertive foreign policy strategy prioritizing American interests. This context, which lends even greater critical importance to the 2028 midterm elections, is transforming the issue of support for Israel into a key element not only of US Middle East policy but also of domestic politics. Therefore, it is necessary to examine more closely how the growing wave of change within the Democratic base is reflected in the party’s internal political coalition dynamics, voting patterns in Congress and the Senate and relationships with donor groups.
Conceptual Framework
The anti-Israel sentiment that has been spreading increasingly widely among the Democratic voter base in recent years is a process shaped by various political and social dynamics. Consequently, it necessitates an evaluation of the different layers of US-Israel relations in tandem.
The first layer consists of the institutional-strategic relationship between the US and the State of Israel. From the very beginning, Democratic politicians’ approach to Israel has developed within the framework of an alliance relationship grounded in strategic and ideological foundations. Indeed, during the Cold War, Israel was viewed as a key partner in limiting the Soviet Union’s expansionist influence in the Middle East. Similarly, in the post-Cold War era, Israel was presented as one of the model countries in promoting the democratization process in the Middle East.
On the other hand, partly due to the “War on Terror” propaganda launched by the Republican administration of George W. Bush in the aftermath of September 11, the perception of Israel among Democrats has followed a downward trend at various points since the early 2000s. One of the significant turning points in this shift among Democrats occurred during the Barack Obama administration. During the Obama administration’s nuclear negotiations with Iran, differences in perspective between the Israeli government and Washington became pronounced. Indeed, then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly stated in a speech to Congress that President Obama had struck a bad deal and that it would lead to a regional arms race rather than bringing peace. This speech, met with astonishment by many Democrats, caused serious unease and played a major role in turning bilateral relations into a partisan issue. Consequently, the negative perception of Israel that emerged early on among Democratic voters and politicians developed primarily toward the Netanyahu government in Israel rather than toward institutional relations with the State of Israel.
At a second level, there is an ideological affinity between the governments in power in Israel and the political elites in the U.S. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the growing tension between Democrats and the far-right-leaning governments in Israel has been balanced by Republican politicians. The growing support for Republicans is rooted not only in strategic considerations but also in theological ones. The growing strength of the Evangelical Christian movement within the Republican voter base has played a significant role in Israel gaining a more central position in US foreign policy, particularly following the September 11 attacks. This increasing interaction has also paved the way for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to establish closer ties with Republican members of Congress.
Indeed, the personal and political closeness between the current Trump administration and the Netanyahu government represents one of the striking examples of this. During his first presidential term (2016–2020), Donald Trump introduced the framework of the Abraham Accords and laid the groundwork for separating Arab-Israeli normalization from the peace-building process regarding the Palestinian issue. At the same time, by withdrawing from nuclear negotiations with Iran, the administration took steps to pressure Iran into abandoning its nuclear program through a policy of maximum pressure. Perhaps the most notable move, however, was the decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. More recently, the air support provided by the US during Israel’s attacks on Iran in 2025 is interpreted as a reflection of diplomatic engagement on the ground. These examples also indicate that political-ideological alignment has taken on an aggressive character aimed not only at defense but also at establishing a new order in the region (see Israel’s “New Middle East Order” rhetoric).
The third layer concerns the dynamics of the normative relationship between Democrats and the Zionist movement. In US politics, Zionism has long been accepted as a reference framework that largely represents the security of the State of Israel. This situation has been reinforced, particularly since the 1960s, by the fact that a significant portion of the American Jewish electorate has gravitated toward the Democratic Party, and, in parallel, political donations have largely been directed toward Democratic politicians.
However in recent years, the rise of far-right-leaning governments in Israel and the increasingly controversial implementation of settlement policies which have drawn growing criticism from the perspectives of international law and human rights have made it difficult to accept the concept of Zionism as an unquestioned norm within the Democratic voter base. In this context, the redefinition of the relationship between the State of Israel, its government and Zionism has become a major area of debate in American political life.
At the heart of these debates lies the question of how to draw the line between antisemitism and criticism of Israeli policies. This is because criticism directed at Israel or Zionist ideology is often framed as antisemitism, thereby undermining the legitimacy of such criticism. First and foremost, antisemitism can be simply defined as verbal and physical actions involving stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination or hostility toward Jews. Zionism, on the other hand, is a modern political ideology that advocates for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland.
In this context, for example, criticism leveled by politicians known as the progressive wing within the Democratic Party against the Israeli government’s military operations and settlement policies on the grounds of human rights is characterized by Republicans as antisemitism. Similarly, describing Israel’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank using terms such as “apartheid” or “genocide” is framed as hostility toward the Jewish people. With the exception of the progressive wing within the party, the majority of the political elite are highly sensitive to accusations of antisemitism. Indeed, as will be discussed below, the steps taken to combat antisemitism during the Biden administration serve as a significant example of this.
However, the conceptual boundaries that are often deliberately blurred in the context of these criticisms have increasingly come under scrutiny alongside the transformation occurring within the Democratic voter base. It is foreseeable that the bond between the political elite and the grassroots will weaken if this distinction is not given sufficient consideration. Consequently, these developments are also of vital importance in terms of the dynamics of a new political coalition taking shape among Democrats.
Radicalization? Or Reorganization?
In the 2020s, the Biden administration’s support for Israel’s military operations in Palestinian territories and its silence regarding settlement policies drew sharp criticism from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. This group of progressive members of Congress views the Palestinian issue not merely as a foreign policy matter but as an issue linked to broader social justice agendas such as climate change, immigrant rights, feminism and racial justice. This approach demonstrates that, from the perspective of the party’s liberal and progressive wing, opposition to Israel and Zionism has now moved beyond the traditional framework of foreign policy.
At this point, some Democratic politicians argue that the wave of criticism within the Democratic voter base stems from the military policies pursued by the Israeli government. For example, according to Ned Price, who served as State Department Spokesperson and Deputy US Ambassador to the United Nations during the Biden administration, the political incentives for Democrats are shifting. Unconditional support for Israel conflicts with US national interests.
However, it is evident that this approach, which for a long time sought to limit criticism of Israel within the Democratic political elite to the policies of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, is gradually weakening, and is being replaced by harsher assessments that characterize Israel as an “apartheid state” or an “actor committing war crimes.” One striking example of this shift is the 2025 mayoral election in New York.
In New York, one of the cities with the highest concentration of Jewish residents worldwide, the electoral success of Zohran Mamdani who openly identifies as anti-Zionist is particularly noteworthy. Mamdani, who stands out for his Democratic Socialist identity, openly articulated his pro-Palestinian stance and achieved a significant electoral victory with a political discourse that might previously have been considered marginal. Furthermore, the fact that Mamdani received support from influential politicians such as New York Governor Kathy Hochul and New York State Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie indicates that critical discourse regarding Israeli policy has gained a certain degree of legitimacy in areas with a high Jewish population.
These developments are also creating a new arena for debate among Democratic politicians who have historically been strong supporters of Zionism. The idea of unconditional support for Israel is increasingly being questioned. However, the decline in support for Zionism should not be interpreted as a radicalization leading directly to anti-Zionism or antisemitism. Rather, this process can be viewed as a restructuring of the political framework within the Democratic Party. As the number of actors questioning unconditional support for Israel grows, Zionism is moving away from being an unquestioned reference point within the Democratic Party.
This trend is also creating a new political opportunity for the progressive wing within the Democratic Party. The growing visibility of opposition to Israel and Zionism among the Democratic voter base is contributing to the strengthening of the progressive movement, which has long had limited influence within the party. The shift in public sentiment observed in the US following October 7, 2023, has further accelerated this transformation.
In this context, these developments go beyond a mere policy debate and point to the formation of a new political coalition within the Democratic Party. In the coming years, this coalition has the potential to reshape the Democratic Party’s foreign policy orientation. Indeed, California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is considered a potential candidate in the 2028 presidential election, has stated that while he loves Israel, he does not approve of Netanyahu’s policies noting that they have turned it into an apartheid state.
Consequently, it can be argued that the stance toward Israel within the Democratic Party has recently coalesced around three main trends. Democrats who could be termed traditionalists continue to provide unconditional support to Israel. Politicians known as the progressive wing are calling for sanctions against Israel and occasionally adopting an anti-Zionist position. Politicians in the center, however, advocate for a two-state solution in Palestine and emphasize that while military support for Israel should continue, it must be limited by certain conditions. Thus, the fundamental issue is which direction politicians, particularly those in the second group, will take following October 7.
Signs of this shift, that is, the transformation among Democrats can be clearly observed in congressional votes and in the relationships established with lobbying groups. First, despite the growing negative perception of Israel among the Democratic voter base, until recently, support for Israel was not a major topic of debate among Democratic senators and members of Congress. This was due to the fact that Democrats in Congress tend to be older and rely on the votes of American Jews.
This internal tension has become quite visible during the 2024 election campaign. Presidential candidate Kamala Harris has openly declared her support for Israel despite backlash from voters. This group, which traditionally advocates for unconditional support, views the preservation of Israel’s security in the region and its position within the balance of power as indispensable to US strategic interests. Consequently, while advocating for the unconditional continuation of military aid, they have directed verbal criticism at Israel’s far-right policies in the face of accusations from within the party and the grassroots of complicity in genocide. As a result, the grassroots wave rooted in anti-Zionism has not yet managed to overcome institutional resistance within the Democratic Party. In other words, the influence of Democratic voters has not yet made itself felt within the party.
In contrast, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party which includes figures such as Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley is vocally calling for an end to unconditional military aid to Israel or for it to be strictly conditioned. This group approaches the Palestinian issue as an ethical problem grounded in human rights and racial justice. In line with this approach, they blocked a bill drafted by Democrats and Republicans in the Senate in January 2025 that would have imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court by voting against it.
In this regard, Zohran Mamdani’s recent rise in New York politics is striking. Mamdani, who has characterized Israel’s operations in Gaza as resulting in consequences amounting to genocide, has stated that he would initiate legal proceedings should Netanyahu visit New York. However, in the New York elections, contrary to traditional expectations a pro-Palestinian rhetoric has not automatically positioned liberal Zionist voters and donors on the opposing side, as was the case in previous periods. This has made it possible for anti-Zionist activists and liberal Zionists who maintain a distance from the Netanyahu government’s policies to align behind the same candidate. Consequently, signals have emerged suggesting that a political landscape could emerge within the Democratic Party that criticizes not so much Israel’s existence as the US’s unconditional support for Israel.
However, some Democratic lawmakers have announced that they will not accept donations from contributors who have expressed open support for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the most influential Jewish lobbies in the US (Morgan McGarvey of Kentucky, Deborah K. Ross of North Carolina, and Valerie P. Foushee are among those who have done so). However, despite this stance among some Democratic members of Congress, it is important to note that pro-Israel sentiment continues to prevail across the entire Congress. Indeed, in July 2025, a bill introduced by Bernie Sanders in the Senate aiming to halt US sales of offensive weapons to Israel could not be blocked. However, for the first time, a majority of Democrats voted against it.
It appears that the stance of the moderate group, which has adopted a more balanced position in contrast to politicians who have taken a strongly opposing stance, will be more decisive in this process. This group, which offers important clues for tracking the direction of change within the Democratic Party, has sent notable signals following October 7. For example, New York Congressman Ritchie Torres, who has been a vocal advocate for Zionism within the Democratic Party, could no longer ignore Israel’s starvation policies in Gaza after October 7 and began to question the unconditional support given to Israel. The shift in stance toward Israel is not limited to Torres alone. For example, the fact that House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries has accepted the support of J Street, an organization that advocates for a two-state solution and positions itself on the center-left, shows that the Democratic mainstream is not anti-Israel; rather, it is attempting to develop a critical stance toward the policies of the Netanyahu government. The fact that J Street currently supports more than half of the Democrats in Congress demonstrates that this orientation has become a mainstream trend within the party, rather than a marginal one. Consequently, Democrats are gradually repositioning themselves around the axis of “a two-state solution and humanitarian sensitivity” rather than unconditional support for Israel.
General Assessment
In conclusion, the trend of opposition to Israel and Zionism among Democratic voters has reached a scale that cannot be ignored following October 7. However, it is evident that this wave has not spread to the same extent among Democratic politicians. First and foremost, this transformation cannot be explained as is often claimed by simple radicalization or a rise in antisemitism; rather it is the result of the Democratic political coalition redefining itself around normative references such as human rights, racial justice, and international law. At this stage, the focus of the debate is not at the level of anti-Zionism that could be interpreted as a challenge to Israel’s existence. The idea of placing the previously unlimited support for Israel within a specific, limited framework is gaining traction. Indeed, votes in Congress and the stance of the current party leadership point toward the continuation of military and diplomatic support for Israel.
On the other hand, the circulation of rhetoric regarding war crimes and starvation during Israel’s operations in Gaza indicates a qualitative shift among politicians that cannot be ignored. A new ideological balance is emerging within the party. However, considering the ongoing US-Iran conflict as of the time of writing (March 2026), it should not be forgotten that potential scenarios leading up to the 2028 elections will not be influenced solely by domestic dynamics. Various security crises, particularly in the Middle East, could lead to increased polarization in the American public and a renewed perception of Israel as a strong security partner. Such a development could result in the continuation of the strategic alliance despite growing criticism from the voter base, and the influence of the progressive wing, which has been on the rise within the party, may remain limited.
This article was first published on the Türkiye Research Foundation’s Website on April 14, 2026.
