Israel’s leaders are naturally fixated on the war against Iran and Hezbollah’s missiles from Lebanon, but the threat that could ultimately prove most dangerous to their country is the loss of the one ally that has underwritten Israel’s security for half a century: the United States.

The relationship between Israel and the United States has long rested on two pillars: strategic alignment and American public support. For decades, Israel benefited from an overwhelming sympathy among Americans, which translated into bipartisan political backing, diplomatic protection, and extensive military assistance. The results of the recent survey by Gallup suggest that the second pillar is eroding in unprecedented ways. For the first time since Gallup began measuring the question, more Americans say their sympathies lie with Palestinians (41%) than with Israelis (36%).

This shift may appear marginal in statistical terms, or merely confined to the Israeli-Palestinian realm, but its broader and long-term strategic implications cannot be overstated. If sustained over time, the wearing down of American public sympathy constitutes a potentially existential threat to Israeli national security because the Jewish State’s military, diplomatic, and economic resilience has always depended in significant measure on the durability of its relationship with the United States. Should the American public gradually withdraw its support, especially if this trend becomes bipartisan, the political foundations of that relationship could weaken dramatically, degrading Israel’s long-term strategic posture.

Israel’s national security doctrine has historically rested on a combination of internal strength and external American support. Since the late Cold War period, the United States has functioned as Israel’s indispensable ally in several critical areas. First, the United States provides Israel with unparalleled military assistance. U.S. aid ensures Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region and facilitates advanced weapons procurement, intelligence sharing, and technological cooperation. Second, Washington has consistently used its diplomatic weight to shield Israel in international forums, most notably through vetoes in the United Nations Security Council. Third, the United States functions as Israel’s key political advocate within the Western alliance system, oftentimes shaping the broader international discourse around Israel’s legitimacy and security needs.

However, American policy toward Israel does not exist in a vacuum. In democratic systems, foreign policy ultimately depends on domestic political legitimacy. When public opinion shifts significantly, it alters the incentives and constraints politicians and decision-makers face. Therefore, the importance of American public opinion lies not only in its symbolic meaning but in its ability to influence actual policy.

The Gallup findings represent a watershed moment. For roughly a quarter century, Americans consistently expressed far greater sympathy for Israelis than for Palestinians, often by double-digit margins. The new numbers indicate a reversal of that trend that transcends political orientation. Equally significant are the demographic patterns underlying this shift. Younger Americans (18-34) and middle-aged voters (35-54) increasingly sympathize with Palestinians, while older voters (55+) remain somewhat more favorable toward Israel. This generational divergence suggests that the trend may deepen over time as political cohorts change.

Partisan polarization feeds into and compounds this dynamic. Support for Israel remains relatively strong among Republicans, yet Democratic voters now overwhelmingly sympathize with Palestinians. In fact, an analysis of the 2024 presidential elections commissioned by the Democratic National Committee concluded that the Biden administration’s support of Israel during the war in Gaza, and Kamala Harris’ refusal to harshly critique Israel’s military campaign, had cost them the White House. Because American foreign policy traditionally relied on bipartisan backing for Israel, this emerging partisan divide threatens to destabilize a core feature of the alliance.

For Israeli policymakers, the most dangerous implication of this shift is not the immediate loss of American support but the gradual erosion of bipartisan consensus in Washington that became quite apparent when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu actively supported Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney before the 2012 elections, or when he delivered an extremely controversial speech in the U.S. Congress against Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran in 2015.

Historically, Israel’s greatest strategic asset in the United States was precisely the absence of partisan conflict over the relationship. Both the Republican and Democratic parties broadly agreed on Israel’s importance as a democratic as well as strategic ally in the Middle East. As long as this consensus endured, fluctuations in leadership did not fundamentally threaten the alliance. Beyond Democrat and Republican voters, according to NBC News polling, 40% of independents held a positive view of Israel in November 2023, but that figure has fallen to 21% today. Meanwhile, negative opinions have surged from 22% in 2023 to 48% now. If American public opinion continues to shift in this direction, the already fragile bipartisan consensus may irreversibly break.

American politicians are becoming increasingly responsive to voter sentiment regarding Israel and may adopt more critical positions against its policies. Recently, Gavin Newsom, the governor of California and one of the leading Democratic candidates to run for president in 2028, has intensified his criticism of Israel, describing the country as behaving like an “apartheid state” and calling for a reassessment of U.S. military support. Over time, such rhetoric could translate into tangible policy changes: reduced military aid, greater conditionality on arms transfers, or a willingness to pressure Israel diplomatically.

Another critical dimension concerns Israel’s diplomatic standing. The United States has long functioned as Israel’s primary defender in international institutions. American diplomatic protection often prevented international censure from translating into binding sanctions or political isolation. If American public opinion shifts sufficiently to influence policymakers, Washington’s willingness to provide such protection may weaken. Even subtle changes, such as abstaining rather than vetoing certain resolutions, could have far-reaching consequences for Israel’s legitimacy within the international system.

Moreover, public opinion in the U.S. often shapes broader Western attitudes. When American society becomes more critical of Israel, European governments and other democratic allies may feel emboldened and adopt tougher positions. Thus, the erosion of American sympathy could trigger a cascading effect across the Western alliance.

Israel’s military superiority relies heavily on technological cooperation with the United States. American military aid finances advanced weapons systems, missile defense programs, and joint research initiatives. While these programs enjoy deep institutional support, they ultimately depend on congressional approval.

Should public opinion continue to shift, political pressure could emerge to reduce or condition this assistance. Even partial restrictions could impose high costs on Israel’s defense planning. The Israeli military would face higher procurement expenses, slower technological integration, and potentially reduced operational flexibility. Such dangers do not exclusively emanate from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, as some in Israel think.

The increasingly critical rhetoric toward Israel from influential right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson may be emblematic of a shift among MAGA-aligned voters, particularly younger or more isolationist ones, making skepticism toward Israel more acceptable within the movement both during the political dominance of Donald Trump and potentially even more so in a post-Trump era when the coalition’s foreign-policy identity is less tightly defined. The current war with Iran could become a defining rupture for many of the president’s supporters if the view gains traction that Netanyahu maneuvered Trump into another failed and open-ended Middle East war that exacts an unreasonable cost in American blood and treasure.

In the long term, and regardless of the reasoning, diminished American support might force Israel to diversify its strategic partnerships or dramatically increase domestic defense spending. Both options would constitute difficult and possibly devastating adjustments for a relatively small state facing persistent regional threats. Beyond material assistance, the bond with the U.S. contributes to Israel’s deterrence posture. Regional adversaries must consider not only Israel’s own military capabilities but also the possibility of American involvement in major conflicts, as the current war with Iran demonstrates. If Israel’s relationship with the U.S. appears politically fragile, adversaries may perceive a narrowing of Israel’s strategic backing. Even subtle doubts about American willingness to intervene could embolden hostile actors or encourage risk-taking by regional powers.

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the Gallup data lies in its generational trajectory. Younger Americans are significantly more sympathetic to Palestinians and more critical of Israeli policies than previous generations. This suggests that the current shift is not merely a temporary reaction to specific events, such as the Gaza war, settler violence in the West Bank, or the war in Iran, but rather part of a deeper attitudinal transformation. As younger cohorts gradually become the dominant force in American politics, society, and the economy, their views will increasingly shape policy outcomes.

For Israel, this presents a long-term strategic dilemma. The country’s traditional approach, which relies on established political alliances and institutional ties, may prove insufficient if the underlying social foundation of American support continues to erode. The loss of American public opinion represents a potentially existential threat akin to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, and Israeli policymakers must confront a difficult question: how to reverse or mitigate this trend.

Investing more heavily in public diplomacy and engagement with American civil society, particularly younger audiences, will not suffice and may actually backfire if there are no tangible changes on the ground. While remaining vigilant in upholding its national security, greater sensitivity to humanitarian concerns and international norms must drive Israeli actions domestically and concerning the Palestinians and the region as a whole. Israeli leaders must vigorously pursue peace with their neighbors and contribute to stability across the Middle East. The Lebanese government has signaled its willingness to negotiate with Israel directly, and the price for normalizing relations with the Saudis is well known. Genuinely pursuing bilateral alongside comprehensive regional peace initiatives is not a naïve vision but rather a prescient strategic imperative.

The recent Gallup survey does not signify an immediate collapse of American support for Israel. Yet it reveals a trend that Israeli strategists cannot afford to ignore. If this transformation continues, particularly among younger voters, it could undermine the core foundations of the U.S.–Israel alliance.

Because Israel’s national security architecture depends so heavily on American diplomatic protection, military cooperation, and strategic deterrence, the erosion of American public opinion poses a long-term challenge of potentially existential proportions. The danger lies not in a single poll, but in the trajectory it reveals: a slow but consequential transformation in the attitudes of the most important actor in Israel’s strategic environment that must be reversed before it is too late.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)