Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
America’s elections will not change its Israel policy. They may change the Democrats’
A shifting party, a constrained Congress and a long wait until 2029
Whatever happens on November 3rd, American policy towards Israel and Palestine will remain in Donald Trump’s hands. Even a Democratic Congress could hold hearings and demand documents, but it could not force the administration to change course. What the midterms can do is measure something slower-moving: how far the Democratic Party has shifted, and how much of that shift it is prepared to turn into law.
The Senate offers the clearest evidence. On September 29th the chamber rejected, 51-47, a resolution from Chris Van Hollen, Tim Kaine and Bernie Sanders that would have forced the State Department to report on the killing of American citizens in the West Bank by settlers or Israeli forces. Yet 46 of the 47 members of the Democratic caucus voted for it, along with one Republican. John Fetterman was the only Democrat to oppose it. The contrast with the past is stark: a similar vote in January 2024 attracted only 11 Democrats. A party that once split on whether to criticise Israel’s conduct now votes almost as one to demand information about it.
The House is moving too, though with less chance of success. Six Democrats led by Joaquin Castro have introduced the Stop the Settlements Act, which would sanction individuals and entities that build or expand settlements and ban settlement goods from the American market, and has more than 30 original co-sponsors. Its prospects in this Congress are nil. The bill faces significant obstacles in a Republican-controlled House and under Mr Trump. Its purpose is to set the baseline for the next Democratic administration.
Public opinion supplies the tailwind. Gallup found in February that 41% of Americans sympathise more with the Palestinians and 36% with the Israelis, against 54% and 31% three years earlier. About two-thirds of Democrats now side with the Palestinians, and independents did so for the first time this year. Younger voters lead the change.
Yet the electoral payoff for candidates is far from clear. Israel remains a second-tier issue for most voters, well behind the economy and health care. The best test is in Michigan, where Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive who has described Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocide (a charge Israel’s government rejects), faces the Republican Mike Rogers for a seat that could decide control of the Senate. A Fox News poll in late September put him ahead by 50% to 49%, and most other surveys are within their margins of error. Barack Obama is due to appear with him in Detroit today, a sign that the party establishment is learning to live with his politics. That support also reveals the tension: Mr El-Sayed lost Wayne County, which includes Detroit, to Haley Stevens, the candidate backed by Chuck Schumer, in the primary, and Mr Rogers has made Mr El-Sayed’s ties to the streamer Hasan Piker central to his campaign. The issue can cut both ways.
If the Democrats win a chamber, their tools will be modest but real. Most congressional influence over foreign policy comes through hearings, letters, reporting requirements, funding conditions and quiet pressure rather than dramatic floor votes. Committees could examine settler violence, scrutinise arms sales and press for briefings. The minority has already learned to use privileged resolutions, one of the few ways Senate Democrats can force votes in a Republican-controlled chamber, and a majority would add subpoenas and the power of the purse.
A harder task lies behind these. Decades of statutes restrict American dealings with the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the Palestinian Authority. Advocates want Democrats to sort out which can be eased by executive action and which need Congress to amend or repeal them, and to build the contacts with Palestinian officials and civil society that most legislators lack. That runs into several obstacles. The party is not united on how far to go. Many Democrats still draw a firm line between criticising the Israeli government and weakening Israel’s security. Pro-Israel groups remain well funded, and Israel’s own coming election will shape what its government is willing to concede. Mr Van Hollen himself has objected to conflating the Palestinian Authority with Hamas, a distinction that Republicans, and some Democrats, are likely to contest.
The realistic prospect is therefore two stages. In 2027 and 2028, a Democratic Congress could oversee, constrain and prepare, so that a Democrat elected in 2029 would not be starting from scratch. The race for the party’s nomination, which begins in earnest once the new Congress is seated, will show how much of this agenda candidates are willing to adopt. None of it will change anything soon for Gaza, where the local health ministry says more than 70,000 people have been killed, or for the Israelis still living with the consequences of Hamas’s attack on October 7th 2023. What the midterms will reveal is how fast the American politics of the conflict is changing, and how many Democrats are ready to move with it.
