Dems Slowly Figuring Out How to Talk About Israel
Trump’s Iran war—and Netanyahu’s role in it—is just the latest complication.
GAVIN NEWSOM SAT DOWN at the Wilshire Ebell Theatre in Los Angeles last Tuesday to talk to a crowd of adoring fans about his new memoir. But it took only a few minutes before the moderators, Pod Save America hosts Jon Favreau and Tommy Vietor, steered the conversation toward Donald Trump’s war in Iran and the California governor’s position on the U.S.-Israel relationship.
With a stack of copies of his book on a table at his side, Newsom likened Israel to an “apartheid state” and said that the “current leadership in Israel is walking us down that path where I don’t think you have a choice” but to rethink U.S. military support. It was a telling shift for Newsom, who has historically been a firm supporter of Israel—as when he traveled to the country in the wake of the October 7th attacks to meet with survivors and with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Democratic operatives whom I spoke with this week said that Newsom’s comments were an indication of where the wind is blowing. Several predicted that the party’s voters would become even more polarized on the issue.
And it’s not just voters: Newsom’s remarks are illustrative of how Democratic leaders, too, especially those with an eye on the presidential nomination, are growing more skeptical of Israel. The party’s response to Trump’s attack on Iran—especially following reports that Netanyahu convinced Trump to strike—is just the latest instance. Party officials told me that the rift has been a decade in the making, going back to 2015 when Republicans invited Netanyahu to speak to Congress and he used the occasion to criticize President Obama’s plans for a nuclear deal with Iran. That rift widened during Israel’s retaliation for the October 7th attacks, as it leveled Gaza and brutally killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians. And the fact that the Biden administration did little to pressure Netanyahu to stop created tension between the party’s base and its leaders, with Democratic officeholders and candidates stuck in the middle.
A Gallup survey published last month found that for the first time more Americans sympathize with Palestinians than Israelis. This echoes a finding the New York Times reported last year: that more voters sided with Palestinians over Israelis for the first time since the newspaper began asking the question in 1998. And while foreign policy typically isn’t what motivates voters in elections, Democratic officials believe that the debate has come to represent much more than a policy position.
PARTY OFFICIALS TOLD ME they think Democratic voters will be motivated in the upcoming elections to back candidates who feel authentic—candidates who seem like independent thinkers unafraid to say what they truly believe. Following Joe Biden’s presidency, being critical of Israel is increasingly viewed as a way to demonstrate independence and regain voter trust that deteriorated under Biden. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who has been outspoken about Israel’s human rights violations, has predicted that the nature of the U.S. relationship with Israel will be a “defining moral issue for our party and nation in 2026 and 2028.”
“It’s not just a debate over Gaza or Palestine and it’s more than just a debate about foreign policy. It is a bigger debate about how America acts in the world. But it’s also a question of ‘Can we trust our leaders?,’” said Matt Duss, a former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and executive vice president at the progressive think tank Center for International Policy. “When any candidate is running for office and they’re telling you, ‘Here’s what I’m going to do for you,’ but then when they ask about this one issue they revert to these same bullshit talking points—that seriously undermines their credibility. I think that’s what it did for Harris. And I think the reverse is true for Mamdani.”
“It really has become a litmus-test issue,” Duss added. “There’s still a lot of very justifiable anger on the part of progressive Democrats who felt that they were just completely gaslit and lied to by the Biden administration.”
Party strategists whom I spoke with said that questions about policy toward Israel will be unavoidable as the 2026 election heats up and as the 2028 primary kicks off. It has consistently been a major point of focus on top left-leaning podcasts that party leaders are eager to appear on. Jennifer Welch of the I’ve Had It podcast has grilled leaders including New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker on their decision to accept donations from AIPAC, the hard-line pro-Israel lobbying organization. Hasan Piker has been deeply critical of Israel on his Twitch stream. And the Pod Save America hosts have also pressed their guests on military support for Israel. After the normally unflappable Pete Buttigieg went on their show last year, he was criticized for stumbling through an explanation of where he stood on the issue.
Buttigieg isn’t alone: Other Democrats have also appeared unsure on the issue. Mallory McMorrow, the state senator running in the Democratic primary for Michigan’s open U.S. Senate seat, has been accused of waffling on Israel and Gaza. In a recent interview with Detroit Public Radio, McMorrow said her opponents were “using this as a political weapon and fundraising off of it” and argued that the debate had been turned into a “political purity test.” It was a not-so-subtle reference to one of her primary opponents, physician Abdul El-Sayed, who has consistently accused Israel of committing genocide. Meanwhile, the third contender in the primary, Rep. Haley Stevens, has embraced her pro-Israel record.
Senate candidate James Talarico of Texas has also faced pushback from activists on the issue: He has been critical of Israel but has stopped short of labeling the war in Gaza genocide (his campaign declined to provide a comment for this piece on how he’d approach the U.S.-Israel relationship if elected).
And even Newsom offered a slight walkback of his comments in Los Angeles, later saying that he was quoting a recent column from Thomas Friedman when he used the word “apartheid.”
But perhaps the biggest indication that more change is yet to come on the issue is how many Democrats, in the wake of the 2024 election, have acknowledged that Biden’s staunch support of Israel played a meaningful role in the party’s loss, particularly among young voters.
When I interviewed Newsom last month, he attributed Kamala Harris’s 2024 loss in part to the party’s support of Israel. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz told the Washington Post last year that the party’s inability to address the “angst over Gaza” contributed to Trump’s win. And in her book about the 2024 campaign, Harris said that Biden’s poor polling was due in part to his “perceived blank check to Benjamin Netanyahu in Gaza” and said that his remarks about Palestinians “came off as inadequate and forced.”
“It’s an undeniable fact that this hurt us,” a former senior adviser on the Harris campaign told me. “Was it the primary reason we lost? No. But the emotions were real and we didn’t do enough to show our voters that they could trust us on it.”
My open tabs:
— How Jasmine Crockett slipped from Democratic frontrunner to decisive defeat in the Senate primary
— How Candidates Are Using Winks and Posts to Seek Crypto and A.I. Cash
— The Texas Senate Primary Was a Preview of Creator Wars to Come
There's nothing wrong with being against those who rule Israel.
Democrats need to be strong in this regard.
This is alarming but not surprising. A lot of Jewish voters have considered themselves politically homeless since 2023 and 2024. Clearly, many in the "pro-democracy" camp see the clearest path to victory as Israel-bashing and pieces like this only accelerate and validate this trend.
Newsom's remarks are particularly rank in this regard, going from being Netanyahu-critical (where most pro-democracy Jewish voters are) to parroting the "apartheid" line to play to the left.
Will it work? Maybe. But I don't like the view from under the bus.