Netanyahu and the Unraveling of America's Bipartisan Consensus on Israel

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu begins his latest visit to Washington to reaffirm the indispensable alliance between Israel and the U.S., a public opinion poll has offered a striking measure of how profoundly this relationship has changed. The Economist/YouGov survey, released on July 28, found that 49% of Americans believe the Israeli prime minister should be arrested under the warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Even more notably, 47% said they believe he has committed war crimes in Gaza.

Just a decade ago, such results would have been considered politically impossible. Today, they are the clearest evidence that Netanyahu has achieved what generations of Israeli leaders sought to avoid: turning Israel from a bipartisan cause into one of the most divisive foreign policy issues in the United States.

This transformation did not begin with the October 7, 2023 attack, nor is it solely due to the devastating war in Gaza. Those events accelerated a process that Netanyahu initiated years earlier. His greatest strategic failure is political: by tying Israel ever more closely to one American party, treating Republicans as permanent patrons while disregarding Democratic concerns, he has undermined the broad bipartisan consensus that has underpinned the relationship for decades.

For generations, Israeli leaders understood that Israel could never become a partisan issue. The alliance existed because both parties viewed Israel as a strategic partner whose security transcends domestic politics. That consensus has been as valuable as any military aid package. Netanyahu inherited this asset but now risks squandering it.

Ironically, few Israeli politicians understood America better than he did. Educated partly in the U.S., fluent in the language of politics, and with deep ties to Washington's elite, he understood how power works. Yet that understanding led to a miscalculation. Convinced that demographic and ideological shifts favored a permanently ascendant Republican Party, Netanyahu abandoned the balanced approach of his predecessors and made a heavy bet on one side of America's growing political divide.

The decisive breaking point came in 2015, when he accepted a Republican invitation to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress, over the explicit objections of President Barack Obama amid the Iran nuclear debate. Conservatives hailed the speech as a brave act; strategically, however, it was a turning point. No Israeli prime minister had ever intervened so directly against a sitting U.S. president. Millions of Democrats concluded that Israel's leader had chosen sides, with consequences lasting well beyond the Iran deal.

Donald Trump's presidency appeared to vindicate this strategy. He recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, moved the U.S. embassy, recognized Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights, withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, ceased pressure on settlements, and rejected demands for a Palestinian state. Netanyahu mistook these victories as proof that bipartisan support was obsolete, believing that Republican loyalty could permanently replace Democratic consensus. That belief was a strategic delusion. Alliances endure because they are rooted in institutions, shared values, and broad legitimacy—not because they depend on a particular administration. Hitching Israel to Republican politics weakened the alliance precisely when it needed to be strongest.

Israel's devastating war in Gaza has exposed the consequences. President Joe Biden, despite unprecedented pressure from within his own party, extended extraordinary military, diplomatic, and political support to Israel after the October 7 attack. He visited Israel during wartime, expedited military aid, shielded Israel at the United Nations, and endured fierce domestic criticism. Netanyahu responded with a series of public confrontations, accusing Washington of withholding weapons, rejecting U.S. proposals for post-war governance, obstructing humanitarian access, and contradicting the White House on strategic matters. Even as Biden spent enormous political capital, Netanyahu seemed more focused on demonstrating independence to his domestic voters than on maintaining the confidence of Israel's most important ally.

Meanwhile, the conduct of the war has fundamentally altered global perceptions. The relentless bombing devastated Gaza, destroying hospitals, schools, universities, and entire residential neighborhoods, while severe humanitarian restrictions led to famine warnings. Senior ministers openly advocated for permanent displacement, collective punishment, and indefinite military control. Whether the allegations meet the legal definition of war crimes is for courts to decide; politically, the verdict is already forming—not only worldwide but increasingly in the United States.

The poll's results are significant far beyond Netanyahu himself. The fact that nearly half of Americans believe Israel's prime minister should be arrested, and nearly half believe he has committed war crimes, reflects a profound shift in how Americans view Israel under his leadership. Polls often fluctuate; strategic shifts do not. As public attitudes harden across generations, rebuilding trust becomes exceedingly difficult.

The political consequences are already visible. Within the Democratic Party, unconditional support has given way to demands that military aid be tied to compliance with international humanitarian law. Younger voters discuss the conflict in terms of occupation, apartheid, and universal human rights rather than traditional alliances. Lawmakers who once hesitated to criticize Israel now openly challenge successive governments. Even Republican support cannot be taken for granted; younger conservative populists have grown skeptical of unconditional foreign commitments. The bipartisan consensus that once protected Israel is gradually giving way to a far more volatile environment.

Netanyahu's governing coalition has deepened this crisis. By empowering extremist nationalist ministers who openly advocate annexation, reject Palestinian self-determination, and defend collective punishment, his government has blurred the line between fringe rhetoric and official state policy. Settler violence and the near-total absence of accountability have further eroded Israel's standing.

Most striking is the complete absence of any serious political vision to end the conflict. Netanyahu has consistently rejected meaningful discussions of a Palestinian state, opposed the return of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza, and offered no credible reconstruction framework beyond prolonged military control. This is not just Netanyahu's project; much of the Israeli public and most mainstream political leaders share these views. Military power can destroy infrastructure and weaken armed groups, but it cannot by itself resolve a national conflict rooted in disputes over land, sovereignty, and self-determination. By refusing a viable political horizon, Netanyahu has made perpetual conflict not an unintended consequence but official policy.

History may be more forgiving of tactical victories than of strategic failures. Netanyahu achieved significant diplomatic gains under favorable administrations, but those achievements rested on a foundation built over decades: the bipartisan belief that Israel is both a strategic and a democratic partner. That foundation is now visibly cracking.

The timing of the poll could hardly be more symbolic. As Netanyahu meets with American leaders to shore up the alliance, nearly half of the U.S. public views him not as a reliable ally but as a leader who should be arrested, with a nearly equal proportion viewing him as a war criminal. These numbers indicate that Netanyahu's political strategy has fundamentally altered Israel's standing in American public life.

Military superiority can deter enemies. Political legitimacy cannot be fabricated once lost. Trust, credibility, and bipartisan support are strategic assets accumulated over generations and dissipated far faster than they can be rebuilt. If future historians seek the moment when Israel's unparalleled standing in Washington began its most severe decline, they will not start in Tehran, Gaza, or Beirut. They will start in Washington itself—and with Netanyahu's decisions.