A public opinion survey conducted in the US has revealed a significant shift in American views toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to the poll, conducted in partnership with Economist/YouGov and released on July 28, 49% of Americans believe Netanyahu should be arrested under the warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The poll also indicated that 47% of respondents believe Netanyahu committed war crimes in Gaza. These results were released as the Israeli prime minister was visiting Washington and seeking to reaffirm the alliance between the two countries.
According to an analysis published by Al Jazeera, these poll findings reflect a profound transformation in Israel's political standing in the US. Such numbers, unthinkable a decade ago, indicate that Netanyahu has turned Israel from a subject of bipartisan consensus into one of the most polarizing foreign policy issues.
The analysis suggests that this shift did not begin with the October 7, 2023 attacks or the destruction in Gaza, but that a strategy Netanyahu launched years ago accelerated the process. It states that Netanyahu's greatest strategic failure was tying Israel ever more tightly to the Republican Party, ignoring Democratic concerns, and undermining the broad bipartisan consensus.
The turning point is identified as Netanyahu's 2015 speech to Congress, delivered against the wishes of then-President Barack Obama. The speech, which took place amid debates over the Iran nuclear deal, is said to have led to Israel becoming identified with one party.
Steps taken during Donald Trump's presidency—such as recognizing Jerusalem as the capital, moving the embassy, accepting Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, and abandoning the demand for a Palestinian state—may have seemed to vindicate Netanyahu's strategy, but the analysis argues they were misleading.
The consequences of the war in Gaza have made the situation even clearer. President Joe Biden provided extraordinary military, diplomatic, and political support to Israel despite unprecedented pressure from within his own party. However, Netanyahu responded to this support by accusing Washington of blocking arms shipments, rejecting US proposals for post-war governance, and resisting demands for humanitarian access. According to the analysis, Netanyahu was less interested in maintaining US trust than in demonstrating Israel's independence to his domestic base.
The conduct of the war has fundamentally altered global perceptions. The relentless bombardment and severe humanitarian restrictions in Gaza have shaped political judgment not only worldwide but also within the US.
The poll results point not only to Netanyahu but also to a deep shift in how Israel is perceived in the US. That nearly half of Americans believe the Israeli prime minister should be arrested signals a hardening of public attitudes that could last for generations.
Within the Democratic Party, unconditional support has been replaced by demands that military aid be conditioned on compliance with international humanitarian law. Young voters are discussing the conflict in a different framework, and members of Congress are challenging it more openly. The analysis notes that even Republican support can no longer be taken for granted.
It is stated that Netanyahu's ruling coalition has deepened this crisis. The presence in government of far-right ministers who advocate annexation and reject Palestinian self-determination has blurred the line between state policy and extremist rhetoric.
One of the most striking points in the analysis is that Netanyahu has not presented a serious political vision for ending the conflict. He is criticized for consistently rejecting meaningful discussions leading to a Palestinian state and for offering no credible framework beyond prolonged military control.
The article concludes by suggesting that future historians, when looking for the moment Israel's unique position in Washington began to decline, will look directly at Washington and Netanyahu's decisions. It states that military superiority may deter enemies, but political legitimacy, once lost, cannot be reproduced.
