On the morning of the midterm elections, a president who had once spoken of Israel as an unshakable ally floated cutting its military aid, and in doing so he seemed to acknowledge what the voters would soon confirm: that the American bond with Israel, once a settled matter of bipartisan faith, has become a contested and costly commitment. Across the country, candidates who spoke openly for Palestinian lives won races that their opponents, backed by tens of millions of dollars, had tried to prevent. It is the kind of turning that history tends to recognize only in hindsight, when a consensus th
Midterms Deliver Sharp Rebuke to US-Israel Relationship as Pro-Palestinian Candidates Win
The Gaza war has killed more than 70,000 Palestinians, according to the article, and has been widely described as a genocide.
The old bipartisan consensus on Israel is over.
Mark
Trump's aid comment on election morning seems almost throwaway. Why does the piece lean on it?
Mimi
Because of what it implies, not what it does. He proposed swapping nearly $4bn in aid for arms sales, so the money keeps moving. But the Guardian reads it as him acknowledging that support for Israel had become a liability.
Luke
That's the Guardian's interpretation, though. Trump gave a reason, that Israel doesn't need the aid. Nothing in the piece shows he was thinking about votes.
Mark
Fair. What about the new House members?
Mimi
They're a portrait of the shift: a doctor who served in Gaza, a lawyer fired over a blogpost, a Jewish lawmaker detained in the West Bank, and an organizer who won an upset on "babies, not bombs."
Mark
And Aipac?
Mimi
It spent more than $40m against El-Sayed and lost. Last month it admitted its open support was hurting candidates and stopped direct endorsements and contributions.
Luke
Worth noting the piece says that has little practical consequence. And the claim that Israel drove the results is argued by advocates. Munayyer ties it to gas and grocery prices, but the article offers no polling isolating Israel as a vote driver.
Mark
What about Jewish voters?
Mimi
El-Sayed won a majority in Michigan, per exit polls. J Street says 72% of Jews voted Democratic, though Republicans gained share since 2024.
Luke
J Street's figure is its own polling, and the Republican gain complicates any clean story. Also, the Democrats aren't unified, and Trump's veto limits what Congress can do.
O Pulso
- Trump's morning remark about cutting Israel's military aid landed as a jolt, drawing fire from both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel voices alike.
- Pro-Palestinian candidates, including Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, defeated well-funded opponents despite more than $40m in AIPAC spending.
- AIPAC has stepped back from direct endorsements, yet critics see the retreat as a symbolic admission with little practical effect.
- The old bipartisan consensus on Israel is breaking apart, and the incoming Congress may push arms embargo or settler sanctions bills.
- Any such measures would face Trump's veto, so the coming fight will be a test of how far the shift can travel through a divided government.
On the morning of the midterm elections, a president who had once spoken of Israel as an unshakable ally floated cutting its military aid, and in doing so he seemed to acknowledge what the voters would soon confirm: that the American bond with Israel, once a settled matter of bipartisan faith, has become a contested and costly commitment. Across the country, candidates who spoke openly for Palestinian lives won races that their opponents, backed by tens of millions of dollars, had tried to prevent. It is the kind of turning that history tends to recognize only in hindsight, when a consensus that seemed permanent is found to have been quietly wearing thin for years.
On the morning of the midterm election, Donald Trump said he would cut military aid to Israel at the end of the year because, in his words, "they don't need it." Pro-Palestinian advocates called the remark desperate, and pro-Israel voices called it unserious. By nightfall, the election had delivered a sharp rejection of Trump's politics, and his offhand comment looked like a sign of how heavy the Israel question had become after the war in Gaza, which has killed more than 70,000 Palestinians.
The proposal would change little on paper, since nearly $4bn in annual aid would simply shift toward arms sales and become harder to track. Still, the gesture revealed how far support for Israel has fallen. The incoming House reflects the change, with a former army doctor who served on a Gaza medical mission, a lawyer fired over a critical blogpost, and a Jewish lawmaker recently detained in the occupied West Bank. A community organizer who joined a pro-Palestine student encampment also won a stunning upset under the banner "babies, not bombs."
The wins reached beyond the House. In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed became the first Muslim elected to the US Senate, despite more than $40m in AIPAC spending against him and a campaign marked by Islamophobic attacks. AIPAC later admitted its open support was hurting pro-Israel candidates, and it pledged to stop direct endorsements, though many see that as a remarkable admission with little practical consequence. El-Sayed answered the charge of hatred directly: believing Palestinian children deserve peace and dignity is not hate, he said. Exit polls suggested he won a majority of Jewish voters in his state.
The vote also rejected Trump's war in Iran, a conflict that voters felt in everyday costs. Analysts argue that Israel sits at the center of that story. Jewish Voice for Peace's Beth Miller said the old bipartisan consensus is over, and the next Congress may weigh measures from arms embargoes to sanctions on violent settlers, though a Trump veto would stand in the way. The shift does not mean the Democratic party is united on Israel. Still, advocates say the party long shut out progressives who spoke for Palestine, until voters and a new generation of candidates forced the door open. The question now is whether Democrats will read the message that Americans are tired of war and want a different foreign policy.
On the morning of the midterm election, Donald Trump said he would cut military aid to Israel at the end of the year because, in his words, "they don't need it." The remark drew criticism from every direction. Pro-Palestinian advocates called it "desperate," and pro-Israel voices called it "unserious." By the end of the night, the election had delivered what the Guardian describes as an unequivocal rejection of Trump's brand of politics, and his last-minute comment looked like a nod to how heavy the issue had become.
The proposal itself would change little in practice. Trump suggested replacing nearly $4bn in annual military aid with arms sales. The money would keep flowing, and it would become harder to track. Still, the Guardian reads the gesture as a notable admission by the president of how far support for Israel has fallen during the latest war in Gaza. That war has killed more than 70,000 Palestinians, has been widely described as a genocide, and has reshaped US politics in ways that would have seemed unthinkable three years ago.
The incoming House shows the change. Come January it will include an army doctor who went on a medical mission in Gaza. It will include a lawyer fired by her firm over a blogpost criticizing Israel's war, and a Jewish lawmaker recently detained by Israeli forces while helping Palestinians harvest olives in the occupied West Bank. It will also include a community organizer who took part in a pro-Palestine student encampment and won one of the primary season's most stunning upsets under the banner "babies, not bombs."
The wins went beyond the House. Pro-Palestinian candidates, Palestinian-American ones among them, won downballot races. In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed became the first Muslim elected to the US Senate. Aipac spent more than $40m trying to defeat him, and his campaign saw last-minute drama and unprecedented levels of Islamophobic rhetoric and bigotry. Across the country, unabashedly pro-Palestinian candidates beat pro-Israel ones even though groups like Aipac put tens of millions of dollars into trying to reverse Israel's collapsing standing among US voters. Last month Aipac acknowledged that its open support was hurting pro-Israel candidates more than helping them, and said it would stop making direct endorsements and contributions. The Guardian calls that a remarkable admission, though one with little practical consequence.
The results also cut against a narrative the Trump administration and pro-Israel voices have pushed for three years: that criticism of Israel is by default antisemitic. The right tried to cast El-Sayed and several other winners that way. In his acceptance speech, El-Sayed said they call you hateful if you believe Palestinian kids should grow up in the land of their forefathers without being murdered by American tax dollars. "If you believe in equal rights to peace, dignity, and self determination, that's not hate, it's love," he said. Exit polls showed him winning a majority of Jewish voters in Michigan. J Street said its polling found 72% of Jews voted for Democrats on Tuesday, although the Republican share of the Jewish vote rose from 2024.
The vote was also a rejection of Trump's war in Iran, which JD Vance said on Wednesday was "obvious to almost everyone." Foreign policy rarely decides American elections unless it reaches into daily life. Yousef Munayyer of the Arab Center Washington DC said Americans were reminded of the war's failures at every gas station and grocery store, and that Israel is a central piece of that story.
Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, said the old bipartisan consensus on Israel is over. Without it, the next Congress could take up measures ranging from an arms embargo to sanctions on violent settlers and officials, though Trump would keep his veto. The shift does not mean the Democratic party is unified on Israel and Palestine or opposed to foreign wars. Lara Friedman of the Foundation for Middle East Peace said the party long excluded or marginalized anyone whose progressive values extended to Palestine, until voters, organizers and a cohort of talented candidates "kicked the door down."
Matt Duss of the Center for International Policy, a former foreign policy aide to Senator Bernie Sanders, argued that Trump won as an anti-war candidate in 2024 because Democrats left that lane open. His question for the party now is whether it will finally recognize that Americans are tired of war and want a new foreign policy.
Citações Notáveis
If you believe in equal rights to peace, dignity, and self determination, that's not hate, it's love.— Abdul El-Sayed, acceptance speech
The question is: will Democrats finally get it? Will they finally realize that Americans are tired of war and want a new foreign policy?— Matt Duss, Center for International Policy
Quer a matéria completa?
Leia o original em The Guardian ↗
Politics & Governance