US midterms could reshape support for Israel as anti-Israel sentiment grows among voters

The US midterm elections on November 3 will determine the balance of power in Congress during the final two years of President Donald Trump’s term. Historically, the president’s party tends to lose seats in midterm elections, and Trump’s declining approval ratings, particularly on the economy, leave Republicans facing a challenging political environment.

For Israel, however, the stakes extend well beyond whether Democrats regain control of the House or Senate. The elections will also offer an indication of how far criticism of Israel has spread from the Democratic Party’s progressive wing into its political mainstream - and whether candidates who oppose US military assistance to Israel can translate that message into electoral success.

The war with Iran has further complicated the administration’s political position. Rising energy costs have made the conflict harder to defend to voters already concerned about their household finances, who tend to judge presidents by the prices they encounter at the gas pump and in the supermarket rather than by broader economic indicators. Trump has promised that oil prices will fall, telling supporters: “I will be out of there soon, and you watch those oil prices come down like a rock, and watch everything, everything else come down.”

This environment gives Democrats an opportunity to campaign on affordability and lets candidates link foreign policy to economic concerns, arguing that America should not spend resources on overseas commitments while households face financial pressure.

One of the clearest examples came during a debate in Georgia between Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff and Republican Rep. Mike Collins, who are competing for the state’s Senate seat. Although the economy remains a central concern for many Georgians, Ossoff, a Jewish American seeking reelection and a potential contender in the 2028 Democratic presidential primaries, was asked directly about the widening divide within his party over Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza.

“Israel’s response has led to a major divide in your party, with many prominent Democrats accusing Israel of committing genocide,” the moderator said. “You yourself voted to block a shipment of arms to Israel, seen by many in Atlanta’s Jewish community as a betrayal. Do you believe Israel is guilty of committing genocide?”

Ossoff responded by focusing on the conduct of the Israeli military. “There is no doubt in my mind that Israeli forces prosecuting the war in Gaza violated the law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law,” he said. The exchange illustrated the increasingly difficult position facing Democrats who support maintaining the US-Israel relationship while confronting pressure from voters demanding a tougher approach toward the Israeli government.

The Senate race in Michigan offers another example of how Israel has become entangled in debates about American identity, foreign influence, and national priorities. Republican Mike Rogers is competing against Abdul El-Sayed, a Democratic candidate whose campaign has sharply criticized Israeli policy and US military assistance to Israel. During a debate, El-Sayed was asked a direct question: “Who do you think is a bigger threat to the United States, Israel or Iran?” Rather than choosing between the two, he rejected the premise. “That’s a ridiculous hypothetical,” El-Sayed said. His response reflects a broader argument advanced by some progressive candidates: that the United States should not automatically treat Israel as a strategic partner whose policies warrant continued American support, regardless of the circumstances.

Yiftach Dayan, a US political analyst, said El-Sayed had used media appearances and campaign messaging to portray Israel and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as outside forces exerting undue influence over US policymaking. “He managed, through a number of smart moves in the media and in his appearances, to brand AIPAC and Israel as foreign money, as a foreign actor pushing American policy in a direction that does not serve the interests of the American citizen,” Dayan said. “That has been his case from the moment he entered the race, and it is working for him, certainly in the primaries.” Dayan added that the argument could resonate beyond the Democratic Party’s progressive wing, including among some conservative voters who are skeptical of overseas commitments and foreign lobbying.

The shift is also visible in New York, where progressive politics and opposition to Israeli military assistance have become increasingly prominent in Democratic contests.

The rise of Zohran Mamdani has shown the electoral appeal of a message that combines affordability, expansive social programs, and sharp criticism of Israel. His success has encouraged other candidates to test similar arguments, including Brad Lander, a Jewish American Democratic candidate for the US House of Representatives in New York. Lander has taken an unequivocal position against additional US military assistance to Israel, including defensive aid. “I will not vote for any additional US military aid to Israel, offensive or defensive, as long as Israel is violating international law and Palestinian human rights,” he said when asked about his position.

For Yaki Dayan, a former Israeli consul in Los Angeles, the broader trend is unmistakable. “Israel, as we are seeing in these midterm elections, has increasingly become a tool for political gain, particularly for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party,” he said. He pointed to the Democratic Socialists of America and the growing reluctance among some Democratic candidates to accept campaign support associated with pro-Israel lobbying. “AIPAC was one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States,” he said. “Today, Democrats are not even willing to touch its money.” The implication is not that every Democratic candidate opposes Israel, or that criticism of the Israeli government is necessarily anti-Israel. Rather, positions that might once have been considered outside the party’s mainstream are increasingly becoming central to primary campaigns in certain districts. The question is how far this shift will extend.

For years, outspoken criticism of Israel in Congress was associated primarily with a small group of progressive lawmakers commonly known as the Squad. Some Israeli observers are concerned that the next Congress could include a larger number of Democrats who oppose military assistance to Israel or seek to impose additional conditions on the bilateral relationship. “There are circles in the Democratic Party that look at Israel as a litmus test,” Yiftach Dayan said. “The message is essentially that if you are not anti-Israel in every fiber of your being, or at least highly critical of Israel’s policy in Gaza and the supply of weapons to Israel, you do not belong.” That dynamic could have consequences beyond the candidates who win individual races. If Democrats take control of one or both chambers of Congress, lawmakers could use hearings, resolutions, restrictions on military assistance, and other legislative measures to challenge the administration’s approach to Israel. Even if such initiatives do not immediately change US policy, they could influence the political debate and signal which positions are gaining legitimacy within the party.

The implications extend beyond the midterms, as the next Congress will serve as an important testing ground for Democratic candidates considering a 2028 presidential run. If candidates who oppose military assistance to Israel perform well, their campaigns could encourage others to adopt similar positions. Yiftach Dayan said congressional votes and declarations could establish a new baseline for future Democratic presidential contenders. “If Democrats control both chambers and pass legislation and symbolic measures against Israel, changing the status quo to Israel’s disadvantage, that is unequivocally bad for Israel,” he said. “Even if it does not produce an immediate practical change over the next two years, it establishes a status quo within the Democratic Party. It signals to every presidential candidate for 2028 that these statements and measures against Israel are the baseline. This is where you start. You cannot afford to be less radical against Israel, because otherwise you will have no chance. The public has spoken.”

For Israel, the political environment is becoming more complicated as different motivations converge. Progressive Democrats often focus on Palestinian rights and opposition to the war in Gaza, while some conservatives and Republicans question foreign aid and American involvement abroad. Others object to what they see as the influence of lobbying organizations on US policy. These positions are not identical, nor do they necessarily lead to the same policy conclusions, but they can converge around demands for a more restrictive approach to American support for Israel.