When President Trump addressed the American public at the outset of the current war with Iran, he did something striking: he didn’t mention Israel.

Instead, he opened with a history of American grievances. US troops killed by Iranian proxies. American hostages taken and tortured. Direct attacks on American personnel and interests. He framed the conflict not as a favor to an ally, but as a matter of American security.

Israel’s presence in the speech was indirect. Hamas was referenced as an Iranian proxy, October 7 was mentioned in the context of American hostages, while the central argument was unmistakable: this is about America.

This mention wasn’t left out by mistake; it’s all a political choice. Over the past two years, public opinion in the United States has shifted hard against Israel. A recent Gallup poll shows that forty-one percent of Americans now say they sympathize more with the Palestinians in the Middle East situation, while 36% sympathize more with the Israelis. On the left, recent DNC polling has shown that Kamala’s support of Israel hurt her in the polls, while the right is leaning into framing Israel as the boogeyman of unnecessary foreign intervention. 

In that environment, tying a war with Iran too closely to Israel is risky politics. Trump understands where public opinion sits and so he framed the war as America First.

This trend should concern anyone who cares about the long-term strength of the US–Israel relationship.

This goes beyond geopolitics. It’s what happens when messaging fails for years on end.

For much of the past two years, pro-Israel and anti-antisemitism organizations have largely pursued one of two strategies:

The first has been to separate American Jews from Israel. The argument goes that attacks on Jewish communities are purely expressions of hatred, unrelated to Israeli policy. Jews are framed as victims of bigotry, while Israel is treated as a separate geopolitical matter. The most recent example of this was the Blue Square and ADL ad, which received significant blowback online. It was one of the rare moments that united both pro-Israel and anti-Israel voices in criticism, particularly around the portrayal of Jews as weak. Depicting Jews as powerless is not just poor messaging, it’s ineffective because it no longer reflects reality.

The second has been to treat anti-Israel rhetoric primarily as a hate-speech problem. The proposed solution: suppression through de-platforming, cancellation, and institutional discipline, with the hope that containment would reduce hostility. There are countless examples across institutions, lawsuits and various other de-platforming methods. And while these may help in specific cases they often create more backlash in the future.

Neither approach is working.

The first fails because it ignores perception. Israel is no longer viewed globally as fragile. It is seen as one of the most capable military powers in the world. Over the past year, it has reshaped the strategic landscape of the Middle East with speed and force. The American public sees that and messaging that suggests otherwise creates a credibility gap.

The second fails because it misunderstands the political moment. The right has built a counter-culture movement against “wokeness.” The left is undergoing its own reckoning with the excesses of Cancel Culture. Suppression rarely persuades, rather, it reinforces narratives of elite control and fuels backlash.

When leaders say one thing and voters see another, trust erodes quickly.

We saw this dynamic play out during the last election cycle. Democratic leaders insisted that President Biden was sharp and fully capable, while voters watched nightly clips that told a different story. In a particularly viral moment Biden fell at an Air force graduation ceremony. The issue was not only Biden’s health, it was the dissonance between message and perception. That gap damaged credibility far more than the underlying problem.

The same principle applies here.

If pro-Israel advocacy continues to rely primarily on vulnerability narratives, framing Jews as oppressed and vulnerable victims, and in real time Israel demonstrates regional power and influence, the gap between rhetoric and perception will widen. Voters respond poorly when messaging appears disconnected from visible reality.

America First is not a fringe concept. It is the default posture of most voters. Every nation, including the United States, makes decisions based on its own interests. The US–Israel alliance has always been strongest when understood as mutually beneficial. Intelligence sharing. Military innovation. Strategic deterrence. Democratic alignment in a volatile region. These are compelling arguments within an America First framework.

What is less compelling is a narrative that implies America’s support is charity, or that Israel’s strength is something to downplay.

Israel is now in what can only be described as an era of power. Its technological capabilities, military reach, and regional influence are evident. The world knows it. The American public knows it. The American Jewish community cannot distance itself from that reality, even if it feels politically uncomfortable.

The path forward isn’t denial, it’s adaptation.

Instead of asking Americans to support Israel out of guilt, history, or fear of antisemitism alone, the case should be made on strategic clarity. A strong Israel deters adversaries aligned with Iran. It weakens proxy networks that target American troops. It provides intelligence advantages that save American lives. It serves as a forward democratic ally in a region defined by instability.

This does not diminish the reality of antisemitism. Jew-hatred is real and resurging, but conflating antisemitism advocacy with geopolitical vulnerability narratives weakens both arguments.

Americans respect strength. They respect clarity. They respect honesty about national interest.

The alliance between the United States and Israel does not need to be framed as sentimental or fragile. It is durable because it is strategic and mutually beneficial.

Trump’s speech made this political truth crystal clear. Americans will support military action if they believe it serves American interests.

American politicians ultimately respond to the incentive of votes. Public pressure shapes political action far more often than the reverse. Power in a democracy flows upward from the electorate, not downward from elected officials.

Those who care about the long-term strength of the US–Israel alliance must understand that reality. If public opinion shifts, political alignment will follow. The future of the relationship will not be determined in backrooms, but in the court of American public sentiment.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)