In America, support for the Zionist regime is no longer that cost-free and low-challenge issue on which politicians of this country can take a position without concern. Israel's widespread crimes in Gaza, the killing of civilians, the destruction of vital infrastructure, and the published images of the lives of the Palestinian people under bombardment have gradually changed the image that had been built of Israel over the years in parts of American society. Today, even within the American political structure, opposition to Benjamin Netanyahu's policies is heard more than in the past, and this opposition has also reached the electoral arena.
US Senator Bernie Sanders's recent remarks are one of the signs of this very change. Sanders has announced that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee intends to spend 233 million dollars to defeat candidates who take a position against the Netanyahu government. He has also claimed that these groups spent about 33 million dollars to defeat Abdul El-Sayed in the Michigan primary elections, but did not succeed. Election reports also show that AIPAC-affiliated groups had spent tens of millions of dollars in the Michigan race to support Abdul El-Sayed rival.
The importance of this issue is not limited to the figure of 233 million dollars or the Michigan electoral race. The more important issue is why opposition to Israel's policies has become something against which such costs must be incurred. The answer must be sought in the change in America's social atmosphere.
Over the past decades, Israel had tried to present itself in Western public opinion, especially in America, as a democratic regime and a victim of security threats. This image has, of course, always faced criticisms, but after Israel's widespread attacks on Gaza, the gap between this image and the realities on the ground has become clearer for millions of Americans.
Images of killed children, families trapped under the rubble of their homes, hospitals facing shortages of facilities, and a city whose large part of its infrastructure has been destroyed are no longer seen merely in Arab media or the region's news networks. These images have reached American audiences directly through social networks and have confronted Israel's official narrative with serious questions.
This same change can also be observed in public opinion data. In a Gallup poll in February 2026, for the first time in the past few decades, the level of Americans' sympathy with the Palestinians exceeded their level of sympathy with the Israelis; 41 percent versus 36 percent. This change was especially more prominent among young people and Democrats.
These figures do not mean that American society has become uniformly against Israel. But the important issue is that Israel's monopoly on the narrative is being broken. In the past, criticizing Israel in many American political circles could carry a heavy cost for a politician. Today, however, parts of American society not only do not distance themselves from these criticisms, but themselves want increased pressure on the Israeli regime.
Abdul El-Sayed is a notable example of this very change. During the Michigan electoral races, he rejected America's unconditional military support for Israel and strongly criticized the Netanyahu cabinet's policies in Gaza and the West Bank. In contrast, pro-Israel groups spent tens of millions of dollars to support his rival, but Abdul El-Sayed was able to win in the primary elections.
This event carries an important message: money can buy advertising, but it cannot necessarily erase the realities on the ground from people's minds.
If the American people see the images and news related to Gaza, if they find more information about the killing of civilians, hunger, and widespread destruction in this region, and if some of them reach the conclusion that Washington's support for Israel must be limited, merely spending electoral funds cannot easily stop this social change.
The issue has even gone beyond this. Recently, in the US Senate as well, an effort was raised to compel the American government to present a report about human rights violations in the West Bank. This plan was stopped by a vote of 47 to 51, but the very fact that such an action was raised shows that the behavior of Israeli forces and settlers in the occupied territories has become a serious issue in America's internal disputes.
In fact, what Israel faces today is not just a crisis on the battlefield or a diplomatic crisis; the more important crisis is the crisis of its image and political legitimacy in the public opinion of parts of the West.
For years, the Israeli regime was able to justify extensive American support using a literature about security, the fight against terrorism, and the right to self-defense. But the continuation of military operations and the increase in civilian casualties have made this narrative no longer sufficient for part of American society. The new question is: if an American ally is accused of widespread violations of civilians' rights, should Washington still support it militarily and politically without restriction?
This same question has now also penetrated inside the Democratic Party. Election reports show that the gap over Israel policy among Democrats has increased, and a greater number of politicians want a review of America's military support for the Netanyahu cabinet.
Of course, this change does not mean the collapse of American support for the Zionist regime. The political, security, and economic structures of the two sides' relationship remain very powerful. But the important difference is that this relationship can no longer continue merely on the basis of unquestioning and unopposed public opinion support.
Today in America, the Palestine issue and Israel's crimes have become more than before an electoral, social, and generational issue. In many cases, America's young generation has a different narrative of Israel and Palestine compared to previous generations, and social networks have also provided the possibility of direct access to the images and narratives of the Palestinians.
For this reason, perhaps the most important development is not that a pro-Israel group spends several million dollars in elections; the more important thing is why, despite such expenditures, candidates who take a position against Netanyahu's policies can still gain considerable support from voters.
The reality is that Israel's crimes in Gaza have once again turned the Palestine issue into one of the important topics of world public opinion. Even in America, a country whose various governments over the past decades have been among the main supporters of Israel, one can no longer easily pass by the images and reports related to the killing and destruction in Gaza.
This may be Israel's greatest political challenge: not only how much financial support it has at its disposal, but to what extent it can change the image that public opinion has built of its actions. And if the trend of change in American public opinion continues, the Israel issue will, more than before, turn from a traditional foreign policy commitment into a real electoral issue for American politicians; an issue that can no longer be removed from the agenda of American society with a few slogans about "Israel's security."
MNA
Your Comment