As Benjamin Netanyahu began his latest visit to Washington, DC, to reaffirm Israel’s indispensable alliance with the United States, a public opinion survey offered a remarkable measure of how profoundly that relationship has changed. An Economist/YouGov poll released on 28 July found that 49% of Americans believe the Israeli prime minister should be arrested under the warrant issued by the International Criminal Court.

Even more striking, 47% said they believe the prime minister has committed war crimes in Gaza. Only a decade ago, such findings would have been politically inconceivable. Today, they are the clearest evidence that Netanyahu has accomplished what generations of Israeli leaders worked to avoid: transforming Israel from a bipartisan cause into one of the US’s most polarising foreign policy issues.

That transformation did not begin with the 7 October 2023 attack, nor solely with the genocide and devastation in Gaza. Those events accelerated a process Netanyahu set in motion years earlier. His greatest strategic failure was political. By tethering Israel ever more tightly to one US party, treating Republicans as permanent guarantors while dismissing Democratic concerns, he undermined the broad bipartisan consensus that had anchored the relationship for decades.

For generations, Israeli leaders understood that Israel could never afford to become a partisan issue. The alliance endured because both parties regarded Israel as a strategic partner whose security transcended domestic politics. That consensus was as valuable as any military aid package. Netanyahu inherited that asset. He is now in danger of squandering it.

Ironically, few Israeli politicians knew America better. Educated partly in the US, fluent in its political language and deeply connected to Washington’s establishment, he understood how power operated. Yet that familiarity bred miscalculation. Convinced that demographic and ideological changes favoured a permanently ascendant Republican Party, Netanyahu abandoned his predecessors’ careful balancing act and invested heavily in one side of the US’s widening partisan divide.

The decisive rupture came in 2015, when he accepted a Republican invitation to address a joint session of Congress in open defiance of President Barack Obama during the Iran nuclear debate. Conservatives celebrated the speech as an act of courage; strategically, it marked a watershed. Never before had an Israeli prime minister intervened so directly against a sitting president. Millions of Democrats concluded that Israel’s leader had chosen sides, and the consequences outlasted the Iran deal.

Donald Trump’s presidency appeared to vindicate this strategy. He recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moved the US embassy, recognised Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights, withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement, abandoned pressure over settlements and discarded demands for a Palestinian state. Netanyahu mistook those victories for proof that bipartisan support had become obsolete, believing Republican loyalty could permanently replace Democratic consensus. That belief was strategically short-sighted. Alliances survive because they are rooted in institutions, shared values and broad legitimacy — not because they depend on one administration. By allowing Israel to become identified with Republican politics, Netanyahu weakened the alliance precisely when it needed to remain strongest.

Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza exposed the consequences. President Joe Biden, despite unprecedented pressure from his Democratic Party, extended extraordinary military, diplomatic and political support to Israel after the 7 October 2023 attacks. He visited Israel during wartime, accelerated military assistance, defended it at the United Nations and absorbed fierce domestic criticism. Netanyahu answered with repeated public confrontations, accusing Washington of withholding weapons, rejecting US proposals for post-war governance, resisting humanitarian access and contradicting the White House on strategic questions. Even as Biden invested enormous political capital, Netanyahu appeared more intent on demonstrating independence to his domestic base than preserving the confidence of Israel’s most important ally.

Meanwhile, the conduct of the war fundamentally altered global perceptions. Relentless bombardment devastated Gaza, destroying hospitals, schools, universities and entire neighbourhoods, while severe humanitarian restrictions produced warnings of famine. Senior ministers openly advocated permanent displacement, collective punishment and indefinite military control. Whether the alleged conduct meets the legal definition of war crimes will be determined by courts; politically, the verdict is already forming — not only worldwide but increasingly within the US.

The poll findings are significant beyond Netanyahu personally. The fact that nearly half of Americans believe the Israeli prime minister should be arrested, and nearly half believe he has committed war crimes, reflects a profound shift in how Americans view Israel under his leadership. Polls fluctuate; strategic realignments do not. Once public attitudes harden across generations, rebuilding trust becomes extraordinarily difficult.

The political consequences are visible. Within the Democratic Party, unconditional support has given way to demands that military assistance be made conditional on compliance with international humanitarian law. Younger voters discuss the conflict in terms of occupation, apartheid and universal human rights rather than traditional alliances. Members of Congress once reluctant to criticise Israel now openly challenge successive governments. Even Republican support can no longer be assumed to be permanent; younger conservative populists have become sceptical of unconditional foreign commitments. The bipartisan consensus that once protected Israel is steadily giving way to a far more volatile environment.

Netanyahu’s governing coalition has deepened that crisis. By empowering ultranationalist ministers who openly advocate annexation, reject Palestinian self-determination and defend collective punishment, his government has blurred the line between extremist rhetoric and official state policy. Settler violence and the near absence of accountability have further eroded Israel’s standing.

Most revealing is the complete absence of any serious political vision for ending the conflict. Netanyahu has consistently rejected meaningful discussion of Palestinian statehood, opposed the return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza and offered no credible framework for reconstruction beyond prolonged military control. Nor is this simply Netanyahu’s project; a clear majority of Israelis and virtually all mainstream political leaders share these convictions. Military power can destroy infrastructure and weaken armed groups; it cannot by itself resolve a national conflict rooted in competing claims to land, sovereignty and self-determination. By refusing a viable political horizon, Netanyahu has made perpetual conflict appear not as an unintended consequence but as official policy.

History may be kinder to tactical victories than to strategic failures. Netanyahu secured significant diplomatic gains during favourable administrations, but those achievements rested on a foundation built over decades: bipartisan confidence that Israel remained both a strategic ally and a democratic partner. That foundation is now visibly cracking.

The timing of the poll could scarcely be more symbolic. As Netanyahu met US leaders to reinforce the alliance, nearly half of the American public viewed him not as a trusted ally but as a leader who should face arrest, while almost as many regarded him as a war criminal. These numbers suggest that Netanyahu’s political strategy has fundamentally altered Israel’s standing in American public life.

Military superiority can deter enemies. Political legitimacy cannot be manufactured once lost. Trust, credibility and bipartisan support are strategic assets accumulated over generations and squandered far more quickly than they are rebuilt. If future historians search for the moment when Israel’s unrivalled position in Washington began its most consequential decline, they will not begin in Tehran, Gaza or Beirut. They will begin in Washington itself — and with the decisions of Netanyahu.

The writer is a Washington-based Journalist.

Source: Al Jazeera