The Old Playbook for Talking About the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Is Dead

How Democrats Should Approach the Issue in the 2026 Elections

For years, the safe political move for Congressional candidates on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was simple: Support Israel no matter what. A small, organized and well-funded group of American Jews treated the issue as a threshold question in elections, and most candidates decided it wasn’t worth antagonizing them. The result was policy that was bad for Israel, bad for Palestinians, and didn’t reflect where most American Jews and Democratic voters actually stood. J Street was created to fix this political distortion and expand the space for a more responsible US approach – and it has made real progress over the past 15 years. Increasingly, right-wing Israeli governments aligning with the GOP have also been a key factor in opening up much more room for honest debate within the Democratic Party and the American Jewish community itself.

But now something more transformative is happening. It started a few months after October 7 as the war in Gaza wrought relentless devastation. And with the upcoming elections in 2026 and 2028, we are likely to see the transformation come fully into focus.

Simply put: The old playbook is dead. Democrats are going to need a new way to talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and about Israel – and they are already starting to do it.

Shifting Sands

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not dominate the election cycle the way affordability, healthcare and democracy will, but US policy toward Israel is no longer a niche concern for a small minority of voters.

It has entered the mainstream, and even though it doesn’t show up in the polling on the list of priorities, the positions candidates take are read as broader signals about their values, judgment and view of the world.

A candidate who sticks to the old playbook – reflexively supporting Israel, placing near-exclusive blame on Palestinians, paying lip service to two states while opposing any meaningful steps to get there, and giving an extreme right-wing Israeli government a blank check – will be noticed by their constituents. And the message voters will hear in a Democratic primary or even a general election is: I am the establishment. I am a Washington insider. I support the old ways.

That’s a losing message, and not just in Democratic primaries, given broad voter dissatisfaction with the status quo and the fact that both Democrats and independents have become more critical of Israeli policy in recent years. Yes, a handful of older voters and donors may reward it, but it’s a dead end.

The opposite message – embracing an anti-Zionist or post-Zionist platform, calling Israel a settler colonial project, demanding a full arms embargo, and foregrounding the word “genocide” – may feel satisfying among segments of the left. The message many more moderate Democrats and independents will hear is: I’m more concerned with out-of-touch intra-party fights than fighting for your needs.

Democrats shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking that Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral election victory in heavily progressive New York City is an affirmation of anti- or post-Zionist politics. He won because he is a charismatic and effective communicator who offered bold, unapologetic, attention-grabbing policies that were laser-focused on affordability. And even in a city that sits far to the left of the national electorate, his Israel position was still one of his greatest political liabilities, as his opponents used those positions to unjustifiably try and portray him as an antisemite.

Embracing this kind of position in many ways would be akin to the mistake a small group of Democrats made in 2020 in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd, when they interpreted genuine national concern over police behavior as a signal to take positions on defunding the police that were far outside the mainstream. Democrats shouldn’t repeat that mistake. Real horror from the American public over Gaza indicates clear opposition to the Israeli government’s actions and policies, but does not translate into broad support for a total abandonment and disconnection from Israel.

Key Messages

All of this is, of course, complicated, but the good news for candidates is that there is a lane that threads the needle – allowing Democrats to demonstrate that they are breaking with the practices of the past while not swerving too far outside the mainstream. And as is so often the case, good politics also happens to be good policy.

1. Lead with humanity: Acknowledge the horrors of October 7 and the war in Gaza – and place responsibility where it belongs.

Voters want to elect people with empathy, not foreign-policy nerds (And I know I’m a foreign policy nerd). Candidates should speak honestly and specifically about the trauma on both sides of this conflict: The horror Israelis experienced on October 7 and the devastating suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, as well as the West Bank.

And they should not speak in the passive voice. Hamas bears responsibility for the 10/7 terrorist attacks and for triggering so much of the catastrophic suffering in Gaza. Netanyahu and his extreme right-wing government bear responsibility for much of the immense suffering in Gaza, the immoral conduct of the war, and the way in which they prolonged the war to stay in power despite opposition from the Israeli public and hostage families.

2. Make clear that Israel is a friend, but the blank check era is over.

Israel is a close ally, and it is often in our interest to work together. But friendship doesn’t mean unconditional support for actions that are against US interests and values. As we saw with the ceasefire that ended the war in Gaza, it was American pressure that helped bring about a deal that the overwhelming majority of the Israeli public wanted but Netanyahu and his allies long resisted. The US has leverage, and there are times when we must use it.

Candidates have multiple policy options to back this point. They can support Iron Dome funding while calling for restrictions on offensive weapons until a more responsible Israeli government is in place, or condition them on Israel implementing its parts of the 20-point peace plan. They can state that Israel should be subject to the same arms transfer standards as every other country, including adherence to American and international humanitarian law: If there is evidence of violations, restrictions must follow.

3. Pledge to use US leadership and apply pressure on both sides to end this conflict once and for all.

Candidates should say clearly that we cannot return to the pre-October 7th status quo. The conflict needs to end, and the United States must help end it. The best path is full implementation of the American peace plan that was associated with the Gaza ceasefire.

The hostages have come home, and the fighting has mostly stopped, but Gaza remains in agony, and the ceasefire is fragile. We need to follow through and implement the rest of the plan. Extremists on both sides – Hamas and Netanyahu – prefer a frozen status quo where Gaza stays divided and hopeless. We cannot allow that.

The US, working especially with Arab partners, must apply real pressure on both sides to implement the deal that leads to reconstruction in Gaza, a credible Palestinian government, a Palestinian state and Israel fully integrated into the region.

(And if a candidate wants to appeal to the center, it doesn’t hurt to acknowledge that – even while disagreeing with him on almost everything – Donald Trump played a role in securing the ceasefire).

4. Stay away from divisive labels and focus on what matters

People hold fundamentally different views about whether what happened in Gaza meets the definition of genocide. Rather than debating labels, I am much more concerned with what has happened and is still happening in Gaza. Ultimately, international courts – not candidates – will render a legal judgement on the issue of genocide in the years to come.

Rather than engage in this debate, candidates should pivot to what matters more: “I’m less focused on what you call it. I’m horrified by the suffering that both Palestinians and Israelis have experienced and am focused on ending it, stabilizing the ceasefire and addressing the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.”

Similarly, calling for a total arms embargo against Israel does not reflect the type of pragmatic policy position that most voters support. There is not a significant portion of the electorate that objects to the idea of providing Israel with Iron Dome and other ballistic missile defense systems that are being used to shoot down missiles targeting civilian populations, not just from Gaza but from Iran, Yemen and other parts of the Middle East. And calling for an end to that support is bad policy and will leave candidates open to political attack.

Two Redlines

Not all candidates will take this advice. Some will lean into the support for Israel no matter what stance, while others will go hard left to anti- or post-Zionism. But there are two red lines that must not be crossed.

1. Don’t weaponize antisemitism – or Islamophobia.

Candidates can highlight their pro-Israel credentials and criticize opponents. But they must not equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, fuel panic or indulge Islamophobia. Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s criticism of Mamdani for his positions on Israel was fair game. Calling him an antisemite and stirring up Islamophobic fears and violent threats against him was not. For example, when Cuomo failed to push back – indeed, nodded along – after a conservative interviewer suggested that Zohran Mamdani would “cheer another 9/11,” he crossed a line. This kind of rhetoric is bigoted, fractures the Democratic coalition and risks pushing Jewish voters – who are legitimately worried about antisemitism – toward the GOP, which specializes in this sort of fearmongering.

2. Don’t use rhetoric that drifts into antisemitic tropes.

Criticizing Israeli policy or AIPAC’s political influence is fair game. But when candidates link money, Jews, weapons and Israel in the same breath, they veer into dangerous territory. A good example is Michael Blake’s recent launch video for his campaign against Congressman Ritchie Torres in New York. Torres is strongly associated with traditional pro-Israel positions; critiquing those is legitimate. But Blake’s ad visually tied money, genocide, weapons and Jewish figures together in a way that – while not explicitly antisemitic – came uncomfortably close. Dog whistles from the left are no better than those from the right. Progressives invoking global conspiracies and conservatives demonizing George Soros draw from the same poisoned well.

It’s Already Happening

The good news is that Democrats don’t have to invent this approach from scratch – many are already modeling it. Statements from Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee Adam Smith and several Senators on arms sales to Israel demonstrate how to support Israel’s legitimate defense while demanding accountability. A recent letter led by Representative Madeline Dean and signed by 90 Democrats backs the US peace plan and underscores that real progress will only come with sustained American engagement and pressure. Another letter, led by Representative Gabe Amo and signed by 125 members, affirms the importance of the ceasefire while urging urgent expansion of humanitarian aid.

The bottom line is that these issues will remain complicated terrain for Democrats. But there is a viable path – one that is both politically smart and substantively right. And the encouraging part is that an increasing number of Democrats are already walking it.

---

We’re proud to be powered by supporters like you. Like many advocacy groups, J Street relies on End-of-Year donations for nearly half of our annual grassroots fundraising. Your support makes our important work possible.