Bipartisan consensus eroding for 'Israel', when will US policy change?
7 Min Read
According to Kerry Anderson in War on the Rocks, changes in media, generational disparities, and party polarization have all contributed to a substantial shift in how younger Americans and Democrats perceive the relationship between the US and "Israel."
-
People gather at Harvard University to show their support for Palestinians in Gaza at a rally in Cambridge, Massachusets, on Oct.14, 2023 (AFP)
According to Kerry Anderson in War on the Rocks, a decades-long bipartisan majority in favor of unconditional backing of "Israel" has deteriorated dramatically. President Joe Biden is under increasing pressure from the Democratic Party to do more to assist Palestinian people in Gaza, and while minor adjustments in rhetoric and policy are nowhere near enough, fundamental changes in policy are unlikely until a new generation of Democrats is in power.
Although US policy will not turn completely against the occupation, Anderson argues that policymakers will become much more reluctant about handing over billions in aid.
In 2001, 51%of Americans sympathized more with Israelis than with Palestinians, with just a slight political difference.
Democrats' perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute have dramatically changed; in a yearly Gallup poll, they indicated for the first time that they sympathized more with Palestinians than Israelis.
53% of Democrats said they sympathized more with the Israelis in 2016, and 23% with the Palestinians. By 2022, that gap had virtually disappeared.
Only 38% of Democrats said they sympathized more with Israelis when Gallup polled them this year from February 1–23, while 49% said the same about the Palestinians.
Criticism of "Israel" becoming more common
Anderson contends that these shifts in the electorate are also affecting foreign policy practitioners, recalling how executives in federal agencies have expressed misgivings about the unwavering support for "Israel."
More than 1,000 staff members of the United States Agency for International Development signed a petition calling for a ceasefire, and current and former employees publicly questioned the agency's leadership in January. State Department personnel have utilized the internal dissent route to express worries about the implications of backing "Israel."
Criticism of "Israel" was uncommon 25 years ago, when there were few Arab or Palestinian voices in foreign policy. Now, voicing concern has become much more acceptable.
Changes in media, generational disparities, and party polarization have all contributed to a substantial shift in how younger Americans and Democrats perceive the relationship between both allies. Palestinian voices are also reaching a larger audience due to internet access and media dispersion.
As more of these voices have emerged, several traditional news outlets have begun to adopt a more balanced stance.
Smartphone cameras and social have also allowed Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to share their experiences on social media, giving them significantly more power to contribute their own opinions and proof.
After having access to Palestinian viewpoints, American attitudes regarding the war have changed. Baby Boomers were born around the same time as the creation of "Israel", and their generation recalls it as a country of Holocaust survivors attempting to build a state for the Jewish people.
Millennials and Gen Z hold unfavorable views of "Israel"
However, many Millennial and Generation Z Americans see modern "Israel" as an established "state" with a powerful military capable of inflicting much more harm rather than "self-defense". Younger Americans, more in tune with social justice, particularly since the Black Lives Matter movement, see "Israel" as the aggressor, while acknowledging Palestinians are the oppressed population.
A decline in Christian identity has also exacerbated this view. White evangelical Christian congregations have been extremely powerful in advocating pro-"Israel" legislation. However, their share of the population is declining; for example, a PRRI survey revealed that just 13.6% of the population classified as white evangelical Christians in 2022, down from 23% in 2006.
A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center published on December 8, 2023, showed that young Americans are holding a more negative view of the Israeli occupation entity and its role in the war.
The poll results show that a majority of both Republicans and Republican-leaning individuals (73%) and Democrats and Democrat-leaning individuals (62%) believe that Hamas is largely responsible for the current war. However, upon being asked about the role of the Israeli government, there is a significant difference between the two parties.
Among Republicans and Republican-leaning respondents, 21% believe that the Israeli government is responsible for the war, while 27% believe it bears no responsibility. In contrast, 50% of Democrats and Democrat-leaning respondents believe that the Israeli government is responsible, and only 6% believe it isn't.
Growing bipartisan rift
The bipartisan rift is also due to the occupation's drastic shift to the right in the last two decades.
During Barack Obama's administration, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly supported Republicans and openly criticized Obama's Iran policy which upset many Democrats.
For many Americans, particularly younger ones, unconditional support for "Israel" has become labeled as "Republican."
With "Israel" losing support from Democrats and unleashing its savage attack on Gaza, Biden has faced calls for a ceasefire and restrictions on US aid.
The administration is becoming more openly critical of Netanyahudomestic politica, reflecting rising dissatisfaction among US officials with Netanyahu's administration.
On March 25, the United States abstained rather than vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution asking for a ceasefire. Tensions rose following an Israeli strike on April 1 that killed three humanitarian workers, including one American. Biden allegedly told Netanyahu that the US approach to Gaza is contingent on "Israel" doing more for civilians.
Instead, Biden intends to direct additional US resources into a less effective marine delivery system while advocating for a two-state solution that Israeli officials continue to adamantly reject. Biden indicated that an Israeli military advance into Rafah would be a "red line," but added that he would never abandon the occupation nor cut off its weapons.
Read more: How war on Gaza created 'new world disorder', led US hegemony downhill
While Biden pledged to bring in more aid into Gaza, a futile endeavor since "Israel" continues to deny aid convoys and kills Palestinians awaiting it, only 44% of voters expressed that his efforts changed their opinion on how he handled the war.
As younger Democrats gain influence in the White House, Congress, and the bureaucracy, foreign policy is likely to shift to reflect their perspectives.
Future Democratic leaders will be more likely to impose restrictions on aid to "Israel" or limit money, support "Israel" less vehemently at the United Nations, and publicly criticize the Israeli government.
Although some Democrats have suggested that it is the Israeli leadership which is the problem, a change in its cabinet may not be enough to silence criticism.
Anderson concludes that the bipartisan shift away from Israeli support will most likely occur in "fits and starts," and will only happen if Democrats have complete power or a substantial influence on foreign policy.
He warns that "Israel should no longer assume that it automatically has the full backing of the United States."
