The Washington Post published a report entitled “Amid the turmoil in the American political arena regarding support for Israel, Israelis fear a permanent shift in this position,” in which it confirmed that Abdul Rahman El-Sayed’s victory in the Democratic Party primaries in Michigan came to add to a series of unexpected results that reflect the increasing criticism directed at Israel.
The report, prepared by the newspaper's correspondent in Israel, stated that as the American political consensus on supporting Israel continues to erode — a trend clearly demonstrated by Mr. [Name]'s victory in the Democratic primary elections in Michigan this week — there are growing fears in Israel that this shift may be irreversible.
According to the report, these views reflect sharp criticism of Israel's practices, particularly under Netanyahu's leadership, with many accusing the Jewish state of committing war crimes and genocide against the Palestinians. There is a noticeable shift in American public opinion, accompanied by growing calls to end the "special relationship" with Israel, as divisions deepen within the American political arena regarding continued support for Tel Aviv. This has fueled Israeli fears that the shift in the attitudes of voters and both the Democratic and Republican parties could become a permanent and difficult-to-reverse trend.
Abdel Rahman El-Sayed's victory in the Democratic primary in Michigan adds to a series of unexpected results reflecting growing criticism of Israel.
The Washington Post asserted that critics of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believe that his focus in recent years on building a close relationship with the White House under US President Donald Trump may have come at the expense of maintaining the long-term US-Israeli relationship.
The report noted that the issue of US support for Israel has become a prominent feature in several key Democratic primaries this year, including in New York, Colorado, and Michigan. In Michigan, Abdulrahman El-Sayed faced off against Haley Stevens, who received over $30 million in funding from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its affiliated groups.
He stressed that divisions over Israel are no longer limited to Democrats, although they are still less pronounced within Republican ranks, noting that a Washington Post-Ipsos poll last month showed that a majority of Americans want to reduce or end U.S. military support for Israel, including about three-quarters of Democratic voters.
He pointed out that Netanyahu, who is known for his ability to maintain his political position, faces internal elections in Israel next October, at a time when his opponents are seeking to redefine the relationship with the United States.
He pointed out that Netanyahu, for more than a decade, had bet that strengthening his relationship with the Republican Party, especially during Trump’s term, could be a safeguard in case the Democrats distanced themselves from supporting Israel. However, these calculations began to face challenges, as Israel gradually became a contentious issue within the Republican Party as well.
The Washington Post confirmed that Netanyahu, despite continuing to project confidence after his meeting with Trump last month and reassuring Israelis that his relationship with the US president is “very good,” faces concern among Israeli officials and analysts about the future of the relationship between the two countries.
The newspaper quoted opposition leader and former Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid as saying during the Herzliya security conference last month that Israel’s foreign relations had never before reached such a low point, but he believed that the deterioration of relations was still repairable, because the problem, in the view of many, was not with Israel as a state, but with the current government.
The newspaper quoted Yael Sternhell, an associate professor of history and American studies at Tel Aviv University, as saying that feelings of anger and hostility toward Israel have become one of the few issues that unite the right and left in American politics.
Sternhell added that both sides now view Israel as the “bully” in the region, a source of tension and instability, without, according to this perception, providing any clear benefit to the United States.
The newspaper noted that some Israelis fear that American opposition to the idea of a joint US-Israeli war against Iran will reinforce this negative view.
The newspaper asserted that the war in the Gaza Strip, along with the impression among some Americans that Netanyahu pushed Trump towards a military confrontation with Iran, contributed to widening the gap between the two countries, amid a rising number of Americans who believe that Washington provides excessive support to Israel.
Michael Oren, the former Israeli ambassador to the United States, was quoted as saying that this is the first time in the history of US-Israeli relations that Israel has no alternative refuge when a dispute arises with one of the two parties, explaining that in the past Israel would turn to the Democrats when there was a problem with a Republican administration, and vice versa.
The newspaper also noted that Sternhell believes that media coverage within Israel has concealed from a large part of the public the extent of the decline in Israel’s international standing.
She pointed out that there is a big gap between the way the war in Gaza is presented inside Israel from the perspective of the Israeli army, and the way it is followed in the outside world from the perspective of the humanitarian suffering of the Palestinians, adding that Israelis live inside an “information bubble”, and therefore they are shocked by the change in the positions of Trump and the Republican Party towards Israel.
The Washington Post reported that Gael Talshir, a political analyst at the Hebrew University, believes that Trump has systematically begun to move away from pro-Netanyahu rhetoric, explaining that his previous description of Netanyahu as a “wartime prime minister” was seen as praise, but now carries a different meaning: that Netanyahu’s continued presence makes ending wars or reaching peace agreements more difficult.
The newspaper explained that the Israelis' attention is not currently focused on the American primaries, which are a secondary matter for them, but rather on the upcoming Israeli elections, as Netanyahu's critics believe that his foreign policy is largely driven by considerations related to his internal political survival.
She noted that despite military cooperation between the United States and Israel reaching unprecedented levels during the war with Iran, the ceasefire agreement that Trump concluded with Tehran in June was not well received by some Israelis, while Netanyahu's allies in political and media circles held the White House responsible for some of the shortcomings related to the war.
The newspaper noted that the truce later collapsed, while Talshir considered that Netanyahu was playing a dangerous game that could harm Israel’s relationship with the United States, the Republican Party, and the Trump administration, as well as with any future American president, whether Democrat or Republican.
