Anti-Israeli rhetoric has made its way into mainstream American political discourse, marking a huge shift in recent years in US sentiments toward the occupation, former US intelligence officer, Paul Pillar, wrote for The National Interest.

The former National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia asserted that ongoing efforts for a judicial overhaul in "Israel" have paved the way for long-standing critiques of US-Israeli relations to emerge into the public spotlight.

Pillar highlighted the calls to either cease or reduce the annual $3.8 billion unconditional aid that the US provides to "Israel"; a topic now at the forefront of discussions that would have been unlikely just a few years ago. He asserted that critics now enjoy greater freedom to express their ideas without fearing accusations of being against the occupation.

He said the issue has been raised in a number of publications encompassing The New York Times and The Washington Post, as well as staunch supporters of "Israel", including former US ambassadors to "Israel" Daniel Kurtzer and Martin Indyk. 

"The argument for phasing out U.S. aid to Israel is not only strong but has been for a long time. Israel is a wealthy country, and that fact is not new."

Read more: Israeli Protesters enter 32nd week of anti-judicial overhaul protests

The ex-intelligence official said while "Israel" "can afford to pay" for its military capabilities to which the US aid is going, "American taxpayers’ political leaders are bemoaning budget deficits and proposing major cuts to government programs that support the health, welfare, and prosperity of Americans themselves."

Pillar, who also held a position in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), said the huge sum paid to "Israel" over the years, amounting to $158 billion, has given the US "almost no influence over Israeli policies" except for some minor United Nation votes in which the occupation sides with the US.

He pointed to the current tensions between the Biden administration and Netanyahu's far-right government who clash on several issues in occupied Palestine, including the current government's approach to the West Bank. On the surface, the main issue of contention is the extremist government's push for a judicial overhaul that seeks to limit the power of the occupation's Supreme Court, which has spurred controversy and protests within the Israeli settler community.

However, Pillar highlighted a pattern in US policy toward "Israel" which has now come to light after the massive protests in the occupied territories, making it so that "American politicians and commentators can comfortably join in criticism of that government without damaging their “pro-Israel” credentials."

Pillar concluded that the judicial overhaul "not changed the fundamentals of the U.S.-Israeli relationship. They have just made it a bit less politically hazardous to inch closer to speaking some long-suppressed truths about that relationship."

Read more: US Democrats sympathize more with Palestinians than Israelis: poll