Shifting Perspectives: The Democratic Party's Evolving Stance on Israel

In recent discussions, California Governor Gavin Newsom has indicated a significant shift in the Democratic Party's approach to Israel, describing the nation as an “apartheid state” and suggesting a reevaluation of U.S. military support. This marks a departure from his previous firm support for Israel, particularly following the October 7 attacks when he met with survivors and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Newsom's comments reflect a broader trend among Democratic leaders who are increasingly questioning the party's longstanding alignment with Israel, especially in light of the ongoing conflict in Gaza and the implications of Donald Trump’s military actions in Iran.

The Bulwark

The evolving stance on Israel within the Democratic Party has been developing over the past decade. Tensions began to surface in 2015 when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed Congress to criticize President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. The Biden administration's perceived inaction regarding Netanyahu's policies has further fueled discontent among party members, particularly progressives who feel their concerns about human rights violations in Israel are being overlooked.

The Bulwark

Prominent figures such as Representative Ro Khanna and former foreign policy adviser Matt Duss have emerged as vocal critics of Israel's actions, framing the U.S.-Israel relationship as a critical moral issue for the party. Khanna has emphasized that this debate transcends foreign policy, questioning the integrity of American leadership. Duss has noted that the issue has become a litmus test for candidates, with progressive Democrats feeling misled by the Biden administration's stance.

The Bulwark

The Democratic primary landscape is increasingly polarized regarding Israel. Candidates like Mallory McMorrow have faced accusations of inconsistency on the issue, while others, such as Abdul El-Sayed, have taken a more hardline stance against Israel. James Talarico has expressed criticism but refrained from labeling the Gaza conflict as genocide. Newsom himself later clarified his remarks on Israel, indicating a cautious approach to avoid alienating voters.

The Bulwark

As the 2026 and 2028 elections approach, the Democratic Party's relationship with Israel is expected to be a focal point of contention. Party strategists anticipate that candidates will need to navigate this complex issue carefully to regain voter trust, particularly among younger constituents who have expressed dissatisfaction with the party's current stance. The acknowledgment of Biden's support for Israel as a factor in electoral losses underscores the urgency for Democratic leaders to address these concerns authentically.

The Bulwark

There are conflicting views on the extent to which the party's stance on Israel has impacted electoral outcomes. While some party officials assert that the issue significantly contributed to losses, others argue that it was not the primary reason for electoral defeats. This discrepancy highlights the ongoing debate within the party regarding the best approach to foreign policy and its implications for domestic electoral success.

The Bulwark

• “current leadership in Israel is walking us down that path where I don’t think you have a choice” — Gavin Newsom, Governor of California

The Bulwark

• “It is a bigger debate about how America acts in the world.” — Matt Duss, Former Foreign Policy Adviser

The Bulwark

• “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.” — Former Senior Adviser on the Harris Campaign

The Bulwark

As the Democratic Party grapples with its identity and voter expectations, the discourse surrounding Israel will likely continue to evolve, shaping the political landscape in the years to come.

The Bulwark