Midterm results signal growing US skepticism toward Israel

Democrats secured majorities in both chambers of the United States Congress after the midterm elections held on Tuesday. As results came in, Republican officials quickly identified the administration's foreign policy as a primary factor in their defeat. Vice President JD Vance attributed the loss to the war in Iran, which has driven up fuel prices and incurred a cost of 47 billion dollars. He noted that many voters are dissatisfied with the administration's handling of the conflict and its relationship with Israel.

Vance shared insights from an unnamed pollster who asked voters why they switched parties. Respondents cited a desire to end the war in Iran, address the cost of living, and fundamentally alter Washington's ties with Israel. These sentiments align with a broader public frustration over the administration's foreign engagements, which many voters feel contradict earlier campaign promises to reduce US involvement in overseas conflicts.

Survey data from The Associated Press indicates that roughly 60 percent of voters viewed the decision to go to war with Iran as incorrect. Even more voters identified the cost of living as a decisive factor in their ballot choice. Andrew Payne of the Chatham House think tank explained that while voters may not have focused on the specific details of the conflict, they associated the war with rising domestic prices and punished the Republican Party accordingly.

In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed became the first Muslim elected to the US Senate. He campaigned heavily on healthcare and the cost of living but also called for an end to US military assistance to Israel. His victory was notable because it occurred despite a vigorous and expensive campaign by the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC. El-Sayed's win suggests that anger over Israel's policies in Gaza and Lebanon may have been a significant driver in this swing state.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee claimed that 234 candidates supported by its members won their seats. However, a report by Responsible Statecraft highlights a less favorable financial picture. AIPAC's super PAC and other committees spent 84.1 million dollars on races, but 55.3 million of that sum went to contests where their preferred candidates lost. This stands in contrast to previous cycles, where a much higher percentage of spending supported winning candidates.

El-Sayed's race in Michigan represented the lobby's most expensive setback, with 31.47 million dollars spent to defeat him. His success establishes a precedent for Democrats who wish to challenge the party's stance on Israel. President Donald Trump signaled an understanding of the political cost by stating that the US would end annual military aid to Israel after this year. He described the current funding as a bad talking point for Democrats, though he offered few details on how this early termination would work.

With control of both houses, Democrats are expected to use committee hearings to investigate how US weapons are being used in Gaza. Lawmakers may seek to place conditions on future military funding or force votes on individual sales. The appetite for such measures has grown, with increasing numbers of senators backing resolutions to review Israel's human rights record or block specific weapons transfers.

Despite these legislative moves, analysts suggest that a partial ban on weapons sales could be overturned by a presidential veto. Trump has indicated he plans to use this power to block what he calls insane Democratic policies. Overriding a veto requires a two-thirds majority in both houses, a threshold that Democrats are unlikely to reach. This dynamic means that while Congress can scrutinize US support for Israel, dismantling the deep structural security ties between the two nations remains a complex challenge.

AIPAC has stated its determination to expand political activism in future election cycles. Experts believe the lobby may try to frame dwindling support for Israel as a reaction to specific Israeli leaders, such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, rather than the state itself. However, persuading voters that a change in leadership will alter policy on Gaza and the Iran war remains a difficult task for proponents of the status quo.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid argued on social media that many Americans are opposed to extremist ministers and Netanyahu specifically, rather than the country as a whole. He urged the next Israeli government to engage with both parties in Congress. While it is unclear if these political shifts will materially change Israel's conduct in Gaza, the election results mark a significant moment where criticism of Israel has moved into the mainstream of US political debate.