SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
u.s. foreign policy
US Opinion Is Shifting on Palestine; Can Political Leaders Shift With It?
Growing support for Palestine means that more U.S. voters will base their future political decisions on how the U.S. engages with Israel and its disregard for Palestinian rights.
Mar 24, 2025
It is crucial for any American administration to recognize that, regardless of political agendas, the views of the American public regarding the situation in Palestine and Israel are undergoing a significant shift. A critical mass of opinion is rapidly forming, and this change is becoming undeniable.
Paradoxically, while Islamophobia continues to rise across the U.S., sentiments supporting Palestinians and opposing Israeli occupation are steadily increasing.
In theory, this means that the pro-Israeli media's success in linking Israel's actions against the Palestinian people to the so-called "war on terror"—a narrative that has demonized Islam and Muslims for many years—is faltering.
Palestine may not be the sole measure by which the Trump administration will be judged, nor the only factor shaping future voting patterns. Yet, it is undoubtedly a crucial test.
Americans are increasingly viewing the situation in Palestine as a human rights issue, and one that is deeply relevant to domestic politics. A recent Gallup poll underscores this shift.
The poll, released on March 6, was conducted between February 3 and 16. It found that American support for Israel is at its lowest point in 25 years, while sympathy for Palestinians has reached its highest level. Having 46% of Americans supporting Israel and 33% supporting Palestinians would have seemed inconceivable in the past, when the plight of Palestine and its people was largely overlooked by the general public.
Even more remarkable is that this shift continues to gain momentum, despite the fact that mainstream media and American politicians have been more biased than ever, promoting a dehumanizing discourse of Palestinians and unprecedented, uncritical support for Israel.
While the growing shift in favor of Palestine—particularly the genocide in Gaza, which played a role in influencing political outcomes in several states during the last presidential election—had gone largely unnoticed by the Biden administration, it's clear that the dissatisfaction with the government's position remains unchanged.
The previous administration approved significant military aid to Israel, topping $17.9 billion in the first year alone, enabling its genocidal war in Gaza, resulting in over 160,000 casualties over a span of 15 months.
Yet, this blatant disregard for Palestinian lives and rights persisted under the new administration of President Donald Trump, who appointed some of the most staunchly anti-Palestinian, pro-Israel figures to key positions in his government.
Trump did this despite making repeated, though often contradictory, promises to end the war and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Instead, the U.S. president approved the release of a shipment of heavy MK-84 bombs and passed a nearly $3 billion arms sale to Israel.
Trump also introduced a new U.S. policy that solely focused on "taking ownership" of Gaza and displacing its population. Although this position was inconsistently articulated, Trump ultimately, on March 14, seemed to reverse it altogether. This left many wondering whether U.S. foreign policy was truly independent or simply a reflection of Israel's influence and its Washington lobby.
Unlike Biden, whose support for Israel has been consistent, Trump's stance has been confusing and contradictory. The U.S. news portal Axios reported on March 5 that talks between the U.S., led by Adam Boehler, and Hamas had taken place in Doha. In an interview with CNN four days later, Boehler made the striking statement that U.S. and Israeli foreign policies should be seen as separate. "We're the United States. We're not an agent of Israel," he said.
However, as analysts began mulling over this unprecedented language, it was soon revealed that Boehler was removed from his position, and the traditional, unwavering support for Israel quickly returned.
As U.S. policymakers continue to swing between their unwavering commitment to Israel and the "America first" rhetoric, they must keep in mind the following.
First, the American public is increasingly aware of events in Palestine, so masking Israel's violations of Palestinian rights under the guise of "Israel's right to defend itself" no longer suffices.
Second, U.S. and Israeli interests are not identical: The U.S. seeks geopolitical dominance followed by stabilization and so-called "containment," while Israel thrives on provocations, destabilization, and long-lasting conflicts.
Third, Palestine has become a domestic issue in the U.S., and the debate on Palestine and Israel is no longer one-sided. Growing support for Palestine means that more U.S. voters will base their future political decisions on how the U.S. engages with Israel and its disregard for Palestinian rights.
Fourth, crackdowns on dissent, arrests of activists, and funding cuts will only deepen the polarization around this issue, rather than fostering an open, informed, and productive debate about a matter of great importance to millions of Americans. Such actions are quickly eroding the reputation of the U.S. as a democratic state and undermining confidence in its commitment to a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
Palestine may not be the sole measure by which the Trump administration will be judged, nor the only factor shaping future voting patterns. Yet, it is undoubtedly a crucial test. If the contradictions persist, and the U.S. continues to provide unwavering military support for Israel, Palestine could become the defining issue that contributes to the unraveling of U.S. foreign policy, not only in the Middle East but around the world.
It is not too late for this trajectory to shift, or for some degree of balance to emerge. The lives of millions are at stake.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Here's One Way Trump Could Actually Improve US Foreign Policy
A "'what's-in-it-for-me' approach to world affairs may enable Trump to jettison Washington's mythmaking about its coalition-of-the-willing international order."
Jan 12, 2025
Donald Trump was hardly a steward of responsible global governance in his first term. His withdrawal from multilateral agreements, including the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate accords, showcased an unusual disdain for international institutions and cooperation. He has little evident regard for the “rules-based international order” favored by the Biden administration. However, therein lies an opportunity.
The idea that the United States upholds global stability by leading a “rules-based” order tends to generate more ill will than goodwill in many parts of the world. Rather than offering a positive American vision, it has come to symbolize American hypocrisy and double standards. Trump would be wise to drop the phrase from the U.S. lexicon.
The concept of a rules-based order gained popularity in the D.C. foreign policy establishment, known as the “blob,” in recent years because it encapsulated how experts — liberals and neoconservatives alike, many blindsided by Trump and thrown out of power — viewed what they, and America, stood for.
The Biden administration made the rules-based formulation an organizing principle of its foreign policy. The idea played a key role in shoring up like-minded states to counter China and Russia, which Washington accuses of seeking to overturn the current world order. Yet the order’s fallacies have been laid bare by Washington’s weaponization of this concept against its geopolitical foes even as, for example, the U.S. provides arms to Israel despite its repeated violations of international law.
More important, the rules-based concept has masked revisionist motivations of its own. Aiming to sustain America’s dominance of the international system has precluded a functional global legal framework. That risks inciting the formation of numerous competing orders rather than a more collaborative system following a single set of laws.
China has indicted rules-based talk for masking one-power rule of the globe. Its response so far, however, has been to operate within the existing system while seeking to reform it to its own liking. But if Biden had succeeded in turning the rules-based international order into a bloc, China might have responded by teaming up with Russia and Global South states to form a rival bloc with its own sets of laws.
Though nations in the Global South have disagreements with Russia and China, many are united in their opposition to the rules-based conceit, which they see as largely designed to prolong American unipolarity at the expense of rising powers such as Brazil and India. “I am struck by how much we have lost the trust of the Global South,” French President Emanuel Macron admitted at the 2023 Munich Security Conference.
A world in which states no longer differ over competing interpretations of one legal regime but instead proffer competing sets of rules is more frightening than anything Trump has done so far.
The more America and its allies fracture the global and legal order in the name of their rules, the less anyone follows them. We can’t forge an international order by imposing rules on states that have been excluded from their formulation. No wonder many international law experts view the rules-based order concept not as complementary to international law, but as a threat to it.
A multi-order world lacking a working framework for engagement, collaboration and de-escalation would fuel conflict and great-power competition at a fragile moment. It would be less capable of containing military aggression, preventing nuclear proliferation or managing shared crises such as climate change. If great-power competition is already happening, the key question is whether it proceeds under some common framework or becomes a matter of every great power for itself.
That makes Trump’s choices essential. He appears to be open to a multipolar world, though his investment in rules and laws is a different matter. But if he is serious about reducing America’s global military footprint, bringing our troops home and ceasing to play the increasingly unwanted role of world police, then avoiding anarchy and promoting peace by sustaining a multilateral system will serve U.S. interests and thus Trump’s.
Trump is a keen advocate for his own interests. His first-term foreign policy was marked by a transactionalism that occasionally enabled him to transcend Washington’s typical moralizing in favor of advancing U.S. interests through engagement, such as negotiating the withdrawal from Afghanistan with the Taliban. This “what’s-in-it-for-me” approach to world affairs may enable Trump to jettison Washington’s mythmaking about its coalition-of-the-willing international order.
A working world order is an important condition for Trump’s apparent foreign policy goals — including winning the economic competition with China and forging peace in Ukraine. Those goals can’t be achieved without a healthy, predictable security framework that prevents disagreements and conflicts from spiraling into mutually destructive wars.
Some existing norms, laws and institutions encourage a range of good outcomes and deserve to stay in place, among them United Nations Charter rules that constrain force and the United Nations itself. As for ending the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza, that will depend on the art of the deal. But everything depends on whether the bargaining occurs in the shadow of some belief that it is better to have fair, common standards.
The rules-based international order has betrayed that possibility. Over the next four years, America needs to do better.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bernie Sanders Says US Must 'Fundamentally Rethink' Its Foreign Policy
"In this pivotal moment in human history, the United States must lead a new global movement based on human solidarity and the needs of struggling people."
Mar 18, 2024
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday called for a "revolution in American foreign policy" that replaces "greed, militarism, and hypocrisy" with "solidarity, diplomacy, and human rights."
In a lengthy piece published in Foreign Affairs, Sanders (I-Vt.) asserted that "it is long past time to fundamentally reorient American foreign policy," a shift that starts with "acknowledging the failures of the post–World War II bipartisan consensus and charting a new vision that centers human rights, multilateralism, and global solidarity."
"If the goal of foreign policy is to help create a peaceful and prosperous world, the foreign policy establishment needs to fundamentally rethink its assumptions," the democratic socialist senator wrote. "Spending trillions of dollars on endless wars and defense contracts is not going to address the existential threat of climate change or the likelihood of future pandemics. It is not going to feed hungry children, reduce hatred, educate the illiterate, or cure diseases. It is not going to help create a shared global community and diminish the likelihood of war."
"In this pivotal moment in human history, the United States must lead a new global movement based on human solidarity and the needs of struggling people," Sanders argued. "This movement must have the courage to take on the greed of the international oligarchy, in which a few thousand billionaires exercise enormous economic and political power."
Sanders' article examines U.S. foreign policy since World War II, underscoring commonalities between the many wars and acts of aggression perpetrated by Washington over the decades.
"Dating back to the Cold War, politicians in both major parties have used fear and outright lies to entangle the United States in disastrous and unwinnable foreign military conflicts," the senator wrote, noting the U.S.-led war in Southeast Asia in which as many as 3 million Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians and more than 58,000 American troops were killed.
Sanders also highlighted the U.S. record of perpetrating or backing coups in Iran, Guatemala, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Chile, and other countries, "often in support of authoritarian regimes that brutally repressed their own people and exacerbated corruption, violence, and poverty."
"Washington is still dealing with the fallout from such meddling today, confronting deep suspicion and hostility in many of these countries, which complicates U.S. foreign policy and undermines American interests," he wrote.
Sanders then moved on to the 21st century, when the George W. Bush administration responded to the 9/11 attacks by committing "nearly 2 million U.S. troops and over $8 trillion to a 'Global War on Terror' and catastrophic wars in Afghanistan and Iraq"—the latter "built on an outright lie."
The senator continued:
The Iraq War was not an aberration. In the name of the Global War on Terror, the United States carried out torture, illegal detention, and "extraordinary renditions," snatching suspects around the world and holding them for long periods at the Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba and CIA "black sites" around the world. The U.S. government implemented the Patriot Act, which resulted in mass surveillance domestically and internationally. The two decades of fighting in Afghanistan left thousands of U.S. troops dead or wounded and caused many hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilian casualties. Today, despite all that suffering and expenditure, the Taliban is back in power.
"I wish I could say that the foreign policy establishment in Washington learned its lesson after the failures of the Cold War and the Global War on Terror," Sanders wrote. "But, with a few notable exceptions, it has not."
"In the past decade alone, the United States has been involved in military operations in Afghanistan, Cameroon, Egypt, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen," he noted. "The U.S. military maintains around 750 military bases in 80 countries and is increasing its presence abroad as Washington ramps up tensions with Beijing. Meanwhile, the United States is supplying [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's Israel with billions of dollars in military funding while he annihilates Gaza."
"U.S. policy on China is another illustration of failed foreign policy groupthink, which frames the U.S.-Chinese relationship as a zero-sum struggle," Sanders said. "For many in Washington, China is the new foreign policy bogeyman—an existential threat that justifies higher and higher Pentagon budgets."
Revisiting a major theme from his two Democratic presidential runs, Sanders contended that "economic policy is foreign policy."
"As long as wealthy corporations and billionaires have a stranglehold on our economic and political systems, foreign policy decisions will be guided by their material interests, not those of the vast majority of the world’s population," he said. "That is why the United States must address the moral and economic outrage of unprecedented income and wealth inequality, in which the richest 1% of the planet owns more wealth than the bottom 99%—an inequality that allows some people to own dozens of homes, private airplanes, and even entire islands, while millions of children go hungry or die of easily prevented diseases."
"The benefits of making this shift in foreign policy would far outweigh the costs," Sanders wrote. "The United States must recognize that our greatest strength as a nation comes not from our wealth or our military might but from our values of freedom and democracy."
"The biggest challenges of our times, from climate change to global pandemics, will require cooperation, solidarity, and collective action," he added, "not militarism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular