The Democratic Party in the United States is currently navigating a complex web of internal divisions regarding its stance on Israel. This political turmoil comes at a critical time, as the party prepares for the upcoming midterm elections. The recent visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington D.C. on Monday, July 27, 2026, to attend the funeral of late South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, has further highlighted these tensions.
During his visit, Netanyahu met with President Trump to secure continued U.S. support for Israel’s military objectives in Iran and Lebanon. This meeting followed a significant vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, where 103 House Democrats attempted to eliminate $3.3 billion of U.S. military and humanitarian aid to Israel. However, 98 Democrats voted to preserve the funding, while 10 abstained by voting “present”. This vote underscored the deep divisions within the Democratic Party on this critical issue.
Key Figures and Public Criticism
Adding to the intraparty conflict, Rahm Emanuel, a potential Democratic presidential candidate for 2028, delivered a rare and extended public critique of Israel’s leadership at Tel Aviv University. Emanuel’s remarks were particularly pointed, stating, “The pursuit of a so-called greater Israel is as self-destructive and fanatical as the chant ‘from the river to the sea’.” He further criticized the far right in Israel and the far left in the U.S., asserting, “Your government has been complicit in the horrors now being inflicted on innocent families in the West Bank.”
These events have laid bare the growing schisms within the Democratic Party over Israel. Political strategists have noted that finding a way forward on Israel is a contentious issue for the party, particularly as it heads into the midterm elections in the fall. While some insiders argue that the divide among lawmakers is limited to military aid, others contend that the biggest gap is between the party’s elected officials and voters, who have moved against Israel faster than their representatives due to its wars in Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon.
The Role of Political Strategists and Advocacy Groups
Jake Dilemani, a Democratic strategist, highlighted that the debate over Israel is probably the highest profile and sharpest debate within the Democratic Party. “Everything else in the Democratic Party right now, the differences between far left and more mainstream candidates is more or less on minor nuance,” Dilemani said. Halie Soifer, the CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, emphasized that there is broad support for Israel within the Democratic Party, with the only division relating to the allocation of military aid to Israel.
Soifer believes that Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie introduced the amendment as a tactic to politicize the issue and highlight divisions within the Democratic Party. Massie was the only Republican who voted to block aid to Israel on July 15th. Soifer argued that Democrats who voted to cut aid were not turning their back on Israel or the U.S.-Israel relationship but were instead sending a message of disapproval with the policies of the right-wing Israeli government.
Shifting Public Opinion and Political Impact
House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark stated that the U.S. should not provide a blank check for military aid to any country that does not comply with U.S. law, interests, and values. Rep. Greg Casar, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, argued in a letter to colleagues that U.S. tax dollars could no longer be spent on subsidizing Israel’s military when Americans were struggling to make ends meet. “After the Israeli government has killed more than 70,000 people in Gaza and helped lead the United States into a destabilizing, deadly war with Iran, we are called to act,” Casar said. “The Democratic Party needs a new approach to Israel and Palestine.”
Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street, a liberal, pro-Israel advocacy organization, suggested that a new approach is what his organization has been offering for decades. “When we launched now almost 20 years ago, we were considered to be at the fringe of the debate,” he said. “The only understanding of what it meant to be supported in Israel was that you had to support the government of Israel, right or wrong.”
Ben-Ami believes that the Democratic Party is “coming to a consensus” around being critical of Israel’s far-right government. Shibley Telhami, a political science professor from the University of Maryland who polls U.S. attitudes on the Middle East, noted that Democratic voters are overwhelmingly critical of Israel and that the divide between public opinion and lawmakers is deeper than the one in Congress.
“We’re in the process of witnessing elected Democrats scrambling to catch up to the public opinion of their constituents,” Telhami said. “But they have not fully caught up yet.” A Gallup survey in February showed that Americans said their sympathies lie more with Palestinians than Israelis, by a 41%-36% margin, the first time that has happened in 25 years of asking the question. The biggest attitude shift was among Democrats and younger voters.
Telhami added that while Democratic leaders find it easier to focus on frustration with Netanyahu, the public doesn’t have a problem talking about Israel broadly. He noted that anger toward Israel used to come mostly from younger Democrats, but now that generational gap has almost disappeared. “This is not just a public opinion shift, but a profound paradigm shift,” Telhami said. “This is a shifting paradigm about Israel.”
The Influence of AIPAC and Campaign Contributions
Several of the 103 Democrats who voted to eliminate U.S. military funding to Israel have also accepted campaign contributions from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group. AIPAC promptly acted to withhold online donations from at least a dozen Democrats and removed laudatory language from profiles of those who aren’t currently campaigning, including former speaker Nancy Pelosi.
“We are deeply appreciative of the 314 Republicans and Democrats who voted to reject Thomas Massie’s latest anti-Israel effort and are disappointed by the 103 Democrats who voted with Massie to weaken America and our ally Israel,” said AIPAC in a statement after the vote. J Street’s Ben-Ami noted that one of the central dynamics of American policy toward Israel and the Palestinians in the Middle East is AIPAC’s disruptive role in American politics, given that it’s one of the largest spenders in the midterms.
“It’s AI, crypto lobbies and AIPAC, and voters are angry about the influence of money in politics,” Ben-Ami said. “They are angry that these large interest groups are undermining the actual interests of working families and Americans.” AIPAC did not respond to NPR’s request for comment about divisions within the Democratic Party regarding the future of the U.S.-Israel relationship.
One of the starkest rifts between Democratic candidates this primary cycle is in Michigan, between centrist Rep. Haley Stevens and former public health official Abdul El Sayed, a Democratic Socialist candidate who supports Medicare for All, the abolishment of ICE, and a drastic change in U.S.-Israel relations. Stevens has support from the Democratic establishment and millions of dollars from AIPAC, according to AdImpact.
The primary in Michigan could reveal more about how Democratic voters are thinking about AIPAC’s contributions to Democratic candidates and the future of the U.S.-Israel relationship. Telhami from the University of Maryland said that even though public opinion is steadily opposing the current U.S.-Israel relationship, electoral politics is not only about public opinion.
“It’s also about campaign contributions and about networking,” Telhami said. “And for many members, it’s very hard to break from years of momentum in a particular direction and break with your own history over time, but we see that struggle taking place right now within the Democratic Party.”
