Democrats playing catch up with their voters on Israel

Wendy Sherman, who served as deputy secretary of State under the Biden administration, made headlines in late April when she told Bloomberg that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had “led” the United States down the road to “genocide” in Gaza.

Sherman is the highest-ranking ex-Biden official to use the word publicly, though she quickly clarified that she did not have the qualifications to determine whether the destruction of Gaza would constitute a genocide as a matter of law.

In the next sentence, however, Sherman said that she remained a “strong supporter” of Israel. It marked one of the most blatant examples of a rhetorical strategy widely emerging among Democratic politicians since October 7: using language that validates progressive criticism of Israel — including, now, the word “genocide” — while simultaneously insulating themselves from the charge that they have abandoned Israel.

"I think there's this hope among some of them that it will be viable to be in this place where you think that Israel is both an ally and it is committing grave violations of human rights," Hamid Bendaas, the communications director at the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project, told Responsible Statecraft. "I don't see any polling that shows that it's sustainable."

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, one of the presumed frontrunners for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, offered perhaps the most compressed version of the pattern: on a podcast earlier this year, he said that people had started to “appropriately” describe Israel as "sort of an apartheid state” before saying weeks later that he regretted the comment and that he "revered" Israel and was "proud to support" it.

In Michigan, Senate candidate Mallory McMorrow has tried to occupy the middle ground between Abdul El-Sayed and Rep. Haley Stevens, who has called herself a “proud pro-Israel Democrat.” McMorrow described the war in Gaza as a "moral abomination" and eventually said it met the definition of genocide — before later arguing that the question had become "a political purity test" and declining to reaffirm her position when pressed.

At a January forum for candidates vying to replace Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the moderator asked whether Israel was committing genocide. Candidate Scott Weiner flipped a yes/no placard back and forth in his hands, showing neither answer, while both his opponents declared “yes.”

Wiener posted days later that he could no longer stop short of using the word. Nevertheless, he remains the only candidate in the race to say he explicitly supports continued U.S. funding for Israeli defense systems, such as the Iron Dome.

Experts say that the uncertainty over how to speak about Israel is in part a reflection of the speed with which public opinion has moved on the issue, particularly within the Democratic Party, in which ironclad support for the Jewish state was a longtime norm.

“We’ve witnessed a significant shift among Democrats regarding their perception of Israel,” Ryan O'Donnell, Executive Director at Data for Progress, told RS in an email.

“Among Democratic primary voters, in particular, our polling with Zeteo has found that more than 70% think ‘the US should restrict military aid to Israel until it stops attacking civilians in Gaza, supports Palestinian rights, and commits to a long-term peace process.’”

The Democratic Party has been moving steadily in this direction for some time, says Yousef Munayyer, head of the Palestine/Israel Program at the Arab Center. But the speed of the transition has accelerated since the war on Gaza started in 2023. “When you have a big shift in a short period of time as we've seen in the last couple of years, the understood boundaries are not clear,” Munayyer said. “And so I think we're going to see a lot of exploring of how far politicians can go in terms of what they're willing to support.”

The speed of this shift is evident in the debates surrounding Democratic races. In 2024, candidates were under pressure from the party’s left flank to call for a ceasefire in Gaza.

Soon after, the questions in key races became whether candidates reject money from pro-Israel lobbying groups such as AIPAC, support a halt to Washington’s military aid to Israel, and are willing to say the word “genocide” on the record.

But as the accusation of genocide or ethnic cleansing reaches the mainstream, the question of what it means to follow through on that language remains largely unaddressed in the political arena. Levying such an accusation, activists argue, is a starting point, not a conclusion. Under both U.S. and international law, Washington would be obligated to prevent Israel from committing genocide, and to impose penalties if it did. Congress has in fact codified punishment for genocide into law on at least six different occasions since 1990.

Despite ongoing investigations neither the International Criminal Court nor International Court of Justice have formally declared Israel's actions a genocide but the ICC has issued arrest warrants for top Israeli leaders regarding war crimes and a separate UN Commission of Inquiry report in 2025 found that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel offers a clear example of this gap between rhetoric and implication, according to observers of the political dynamics at play. The potential 2028 presidential contender has long been seen as a leading supporter of Israel in the party. In recent months, however, Emanuel has called for ending taxpayer-funded military aid entirely, arguing that Israel, as a wealthy nation, should purchase American weapons on the same commercial terms as any other ally.

“It's a different game now, and you will not get the United States taxpayers to foot the bill for you," he told Semafor earlier this year. "Not happening."

Those comments, and others, such as when he said the U.S. should never “spill any blood” for Israel’s security, drew significant attention. Coming as they did from someone of Emanuel's background, they were widely read as a sign of how far the Democratic center had moved.

But some see the position as a way of avoiding a more uncomfortable and necessary conversation about what the U.S.-Israel relationship should look like. Critics of Emanuel’s position, which has been endorsed by much of the Democratic establishment – including the self-described “pro-Israel, pro-peace” advocacy group J Street – say that it mirrors a proposal floated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and some of his strongest supporters in Washington.

"The debate should not be, should we give them weapons for free or should we just sell it to them,” Munayyer says, but about holding Israel accountable.

Emanuel himself has said that it is important for those who believe in a “special relationship” between Washington and Tel Aviv to recalibrate how they approach the issue given the rapidly evolving political terrain.

Public opinion among Democrats continues to move in one direction, and the U.S. entanglement in the war in Iran – and the alleged role played by Israel’s government in promoting it – has made the costs of the alliance feel, to a growing number of Americans of both parties, much more concrete. Views on the U.S.-Israel relationship have moved quickly in less than three years, and some are already pushing the next demand into frame.

Data for Progress’ polling has found that a strong majority of Democrats believe Israel has committed a genocide, and that a majority of voters in the party in multiple states support blocking weapons sales to Israel.

“This indicates that criticism of Israel's foreign policy among Democratic voters has transitioned from a slight majority position to a strong majority position in recent years. This is undoubtedly an issue that will have significance in the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election,” O'Donnell said. “The days of Democrats being able to run on sending Israel a blank check are gone.”