Layout: See subtitle; i-italicize at ilagay ito below the head
FOR decades, United States support for Israel rested on one of Washington’s strongest bipartisan assumptions: that military assistance was strategically necessary and politically untouchable. But Gaza has weakened that consensus.
Critics now see Israeli military aid as a misguided strategy and political target.
Democratic opposition to US military aid
As legal debate is expanding, the political foundation of unconditional US military support for Israel has entered its most serious crisis in decades. The most visible shift has occurred within the Democratic Party.
Driven by voter and demographic shifts, humanitarian concerns in Gaza, and the unwarranted conflict with Iran, more than 100 Democrats in the House of Representatives recently supported an amendment seeking to block billions of dollars in Israel-related assistance, an extraordinary departure from previous voting patterns.
The House Democratic leadership, which includes Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, has officially called for a "major reset" in US-Israel relations.
Senate efforts to restrict weapons transfers have also attracted substantial Democratic support, reflecting growing concern about civilian casualties, international law, and US responsibility.
MAGA against US arms transfers
The Republican coalition is also less unified than before. While most Republican lawmakers remain strongly supportive of Israel, MAGA (Make America Great Again)-aligned figures influenced by anti-interventionism, “America First” priorities, and skepticism toward foreign aid have increasingly questioned open-ended commitments.
Growing opposition within the MAGA movement to US arms transfers centers on a deep ideological rift over foreign interventionism. Former Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Greene left office in January 2026 after a bitter falling out with President Donald Trump.
While much of the base supports Trump’s foreign policy, a growing, vocal faction — backed by prominent voices like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie — challenges continued, unconditional weapons shipments.
The result is a new political landscape: traditional pro-Israel Democrats, evangelical conservatives, progressive Democrats, libertarian Republicans, and anti-interventionist conservatives now approach the issue from fundamentally different premises.
From political controversy to legal challenges
At the same time, legal initiatives accusing US officials of complicity or failure to prevent alleged Israeli violations have moved the debate from politics into courts, international institutions, and questions of historical accountability.
The legal debate has developed along several tracks. The most significant US case was Defense for Children International–Palestine v. Biden, brought by Palestinian organizations, Gaza residents, and Palestinian Americans against former president Joe Biden, former secretary of state Antony Blinken, and former defense secretary Lloyd Austin for their alleged “failure to prevent and complicity in the unfolding genocide against Gaza.”
The plaintiffs proposed that a genocide, or serious risk of genocide, of Palestinians in Gaza was occurring. They argued that the US is violating its duties under international law to prevent and not be complicit in the genocide.
The Palestine et al. v. Biden et al. case was dismissed by a US court with a ruling that “while it is plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide,” US foreign policy was a political question over which courts lacked jurisdiction.
However, in a written decision, US District Judge Jeffrey White quoted approvingly from a prior preliminary ruling (by the International Court of Justice in the case brought against Israel by South Africa), which found Israel’s conduct in Gaza may amount to genocide and ordered it to stop killing and wounding Palestinians.
Other initiatives include advocacy and legal campaigns by groups such as Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN). It wanted the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate Biden, Blinken, and Austin for violating Articles 25(3)(c) and (d) of the Rome Statute. These crimes featured those identified in the ICC arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister Yoav Gallant.
More recently, DAWN and allied organizations have also challenged the Trump administration's measures targeting ICC-related advocacy.
The Trump escalation: Gaza...
The second Trump administration has transformed the Gaza debate from a question of US military support into a broader confrontation over the limits of executive power, international law, and American responsibility for allied conduct.
Critics argue that Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, former national security advisor and US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have moved beyond Biden-era policies by rejecting many external constraints on US and Israeli actions.
On Gaza, the Trump administration has supported positions that critics describe as facilitating potential war crimes, crimes against humanity, or forced displacement.
The most controversial proposal was Trump’s suggestion that the US could take control of Gaza and relocate its Palestinian population — a plan critics argued raised serious questions under international humanitarian law, while supporters presented it as a reconstruction and security initiative.
... Iran, the ICC, and complicity allegations
As the Trump administration pursued policies hostile to international accountability mechanisms, the confrontation with the ICC became a defining issue.
Trump issued Executive Order 14203 imposing sanctions and other restrictions on ICC officials involved in investigations affecting US personnel or Israeli officials, arguing that the tribunal had acted illegitimately against American sovereignty and its allies.
Critics argue that attacking the ICC while shielding Israeli officials facing allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity severely risks weakening global accountability mechanisms.
In Iran and the wider Middle East, the administration adopted a “maximum-pressure” strategy, restoring sanctions and intensifying efforts to constrain Tehran’s nuclear program, regional networks, and military capabilities.
Critics warn that escalation policies — including support for Israeli military actions against Iran and threats of overwhelming retaliation — risk expanding regional warfare, generating new civilian harm and participating in war crimes and mass atrocities.
Collapse of credibility
The US has historically promoted international legal norms with strategic exceptions. The Gaza debate exposes that contradiction more sharply than many previous conflicts because Washington is simultaneously a military supplier, presumed diplomatic protector, and global advocate of a “rules-based order.”
The ultimate issue, therefore, is the collapse of US institutional credibility due to the fatal gap between Washington's stated values and observable events.
There is no return to status quo ante Gaza.
Note: This is a (very) short version of the original article published by the Informed Comment (US) on July 21, 2026.
Dr. Dan Steinbock is an expert of the multipolar world and the founder of the Difference Group. He has served at the India, China and America Institute (US); Shanghai Institute for International Studies (China); and the EU Center (Singapore). He is also the author of two new books on the Middle East crises: “The Obliteration Doctrine” (September 2025) and “The Fall of Israel” (October 2024).
www.differencegroup.net