By Matt Underwood Democrats, it’s time to face the music: opinions on Israel are changing fast. It’s a dynamic shift, a societal tremor rippling through the Democratic Party’s base, and ignoring it could be politically perilous. The story of Zohran Mamdani’s victory in the New York mayoral primary provides a striking example. While various factors contributed to his win, the changing views on Israel were a significant undercurrent, a signal that the Democratic establishment’s stance might not be aligning with the evolving sentiments of its voters.
The parallels to Dave Brat’s victory over Eric Cantor in 2014 are worth noting. Just as Brat tapped into the dissatisfaction within the Republican grassroots, Mamdani seems to have capitalized on a similar sentiment among Democrats. The divide isn’t necessarily about a single issue as defining as immigration was for Republicans then; but the deep chasm between many ordinary Democrats and their leadership on the subject of Israel is undeniable. Mamdani’s focus on local issues such as affordability resonated with voters, and his willingness to voice support for Palestinian rights didn’t seem to damage his chances. The campaign of the establishment candidate, on the other hand, focused heavily on attacking Mamdani, which seemed to backfire.
The national trend is clear. The data from Gallup shows a dramatic shift in Democratic sympathies, with more Democrats now siding with Palestinians over Israelis. This change isn’t confined to the young and progressive; older Democrats are also shifting their views. This generational convergence, and the general unease with the status quo regarding Israel, is a significant development, painting a picture that’s significantly different from just a few years ago. The numbers tell the story: fewer Democrats view Israel favorably, and the contrast with the party’s leadership, who tend to avoid conditioning U.S. military support on human rights concerns, has widened.
The implications are clear: this is a potential political vulnerability. The support for Israel might not be the primary driver of discontent among Democrats, but it has become a symbol for some of the timidity and inauthenticity that many feel the party elite exhibits. As a result, this creates opportunities for insurgent candidates. At the congressional level, the pro-Israel lobby has exerted its influence, but presidential races offer a different arena. The ability to garner grassroots support, as seen with Howard Dean, Barack Obama, or Bernie Sanders, provides an alternative path, where support for Palestinian rights can become a beacon of moral consistency.
The Democratic Party is facing a similar shift to the one the Republican Party faced on immigration. The establishment that is out of touch with the base risks a repeat of history. The more Democratic leaders double down on unwavering support for Israel, the more vulnerable they become to challenges from candidates who reflect the changing viewpoints of the electorate. In short, the path is open for a candidate willing to be outspoken on this issue.
The reason for this evolving opinion is multifaceted. It is not just about Israel/Palestine; it’s about bread-and-butter issues like the cost of living and what matters to the working class and the poor. This economic pressure amplifies the frustration with seemingly distant foreign policy concerns. The NYT’s assessment seems to be missing this critical point. The focus of the media should be, and often is, on the needs and concerns of everyday people and their families, not necessarily the political machinations that appear to drive it.
The underlying point is not to focus on Israel as the most important issue but the growing disconnect between the party’s establishment and the shifting sentiment of the base. The fact that AIPAC provides a substantial amount of its financial contributions to Democrats points to the entrenched nature of the support for Israel within the party. That support is not necessarily in sync with the changing views of the electorate. A different approach may be needed to be more aligned with the values of equality and anti-discrimination. This may be the only way to win elections.
This leads to another point: the nuances of this debate are easily lost. You can support Israel’s right to exist while also criticizing its actions. You can condemn Hamas and still be concerned about the treatment of Palestinians. These are not mutually exclusive positions, yet they are often presented as such. This complexity is often disregarded, reducing the discussions to simplistic slogans and overused cliches. We have lost sight of the importance of nuanced discussion in an attempt to create thought-terminating cliches.
The shift in opinion should not be surprising. Genocide, war crimes, and apartheid should have been obvious negatives to all involved from the beginning. The reality is that the party understands this. They just don’t care enough to change their position, particularly because they are reliant on money from AIPAC. The only way to deal with the corruption may be to take back the influence from our representatives in Congress. They can and should be held to a higher standard.
Finally, the success of a candidate in this environment will likely depend on a focus on domestic issues and a willingness to address the economic and social concerns of everyday Americans. This approach is what might get the party back on track. Those who are focused on a free Palestine will continue to advocate for it. This is a valid argument, but the party may need to pivot in other directions to keep its momentum. While foreign policy is important, it cannot come at the expense of the needs of the American people. The next winning presidential candidate will be one who addresses the practical needs of the American population and will need to avoid falling into the political traps of the past. The future of the Democratic Party depends on it.