The U.S.-Israel Alliance / Politics
Israel’s election is over, but its political outcome remains unresolved. Beyond who will lead its next government is a larger question: Can a change of leadership repair Israel’s relationship with America, or has that relationship become vulnerable to a deeper transformation in American politics?
For decades, support for Israel enjoyed substantial bipartisan backing in Washington. That consensus is eroding. Benjamin Netanyahu’s close alignment with Republican leaders, particularly Donald Trump, has exposed Israel to America’s partisan divisions. Did Netanyahu create the divide, or accelerate a shift that would challenge any Israeli government?
If this is a crisis of leadership, a new government might rebuild trust. If it reflects a broader realignment, changing the government in Jerusalem will not be enough. The alliance is increasingly vulnerable to domestic political incentives in both countries.
Consider a recent advertisement circulated by Rebellion PAC in support of Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed. In a supermarket scene, a woman says the couple must set aside money “for killing Palestinians.” The ad links U.S. aid to Israel to grocery costs and speculates that American taxpayers may be paying for Israel’s universal health care. El-Sayed’s campaign said the ad was “not affiliated in any way” with it, adding that he was focused on addressing the Trump administration’s impact on prices. The Times of Israel/JTA reported the campaign’s response and the PAC’s defense.
Rebellion PAC defended the ad as criticism of excessive and misused foreign aid. Opposing aid to Israel is a legitimate political position. But the ad offers no evidence that military assistance caused grocery prices to rise, and speculation about Israel’s health-care system does not explain a couple’s grocery bill. Americans deserve an honest debate about foreign aid, not a misleading connection between a foreign government and household expenses.
The United States’ longstanding annual security-assistance commitment to Israel is $3.8 billion: $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing and $500 million for cooperative missile-defense programs, separate from supplemental wartime funding. Much of the military financing supports purchases of American defense equipment and services. Joint development of systems such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow combines American industrial capacity with Israeli engineering and operational experience. The State Department outlines the partnership here.
This does not make every dollar automatically justified. It means the alliance should be judged on its merits—not blamed for household expenses without evidence.
There is also a historical warning. Antisemitic movements have repeatedly blamed Jews for economic hardship. Not every critic of Israel is antisemitic, and one advertisement cannot establish its creators’ motives. But when Israel is made the explanation for Americans’ financial distress without a demonstrated connection, the rhetoric deserves scrutiny. Legitimate policy disagreement should not become collective blame.
The Democratic Socialists of America’s national endorsement criteria require candidates to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, refrain from affiliation with the Israeli government or Zionist lobby groups, and pledge to oppose legislation that harms Palestinians. These are national-endorsement criteria, not proof that every DSA member holds identical views. DSA publishes its criteria here.
According to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs’ 2026 survey, 56 percent of Americans favor reducing or eliminating U.S. military aid to Israel, including 72 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of independents. By contrast, 68 percent of Republicans favor maintaining or increasing assistance. These figures measure attitudes toward aid, not the alliance as a whole. But they reveal a sharp partisan divide over one of its most tangible commitments.
Israel’s voters are weighing the relationship, too. An Israel Democracy Institute survey found that half of respondents considered relations with the United States important when deciding which party to support.
Replacing Netanyahu might create an opportunity to rebuild trust across party lines. But generational differences, disagreements over Gaza and skepticism toward foreign aid will not disappear with a new prime minister.
Israel must also prepare for a less predictable relationship. Greater self-reliance need not mean abandoning American cooperation. It means strengthening Israel’s defenses while preserving cooperation that benefits both countries.
Israel must stop treating its relationship with America as if it can be secured through ties to one party or president. American leaders must debate the alliance’s costs and conditions honestly rather than turn it into a weapon in domestic politics.
Israel’s election may change its government. It cannot, by itself, reverse America’s political realignment. The alliance’s future depends on distinguishing legitimate policy disagreements from the temptation to make a strategic partnership a partisan liability.