- The U.S. House nearly voted to cut $3.3 billion in annual military aid to Israel before the effort collapsed amid bipartisan opposition.
- Polls show a historic shift in American public opinion, with more sympathizing with Palestinians than Israelis for the first time since 2001.
- Progressive Democrats pushed to end funding over Gaza’s “genocide” claims, while centrists warned the amendment could harm diplomatic and humanitarian aid.
- Critics argue Israel’s reliance on U.S. subsidies is unsustainable as domestic economic struggles persist and Netanyahu admits Israel must reduce dependence.
- The issue is reshaping U.S. politics, with Democratic candidates facing pressure to address Gaza and shift from unconditional Israel support.
The U.S. House came within a day of a rare recorded vote on whether to strip Israel of $3.3 billion in annual military aid… until the whole effort collapsed. An amendment from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), backed by progressive Democrats including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Greg Casar, would have zeroed out the funding. But on June 30, the underlying State Department spending bill fell apart when a bipartisan coalition voted down the procedural rule needed to even begin debate. The amendment never reached the floor, yet the fight laid bare how sharply the politics of Israel have shifted.
A polling shift Washington can no longer ignore
Recent surveys show a striking change in how Americans view U.S. support for Israel. A February 2026 Gallup poll found 41% of Americans sympathize more with the Palestinians than the Israelis (36%) — the first time Israel has trailed since Gallup began tracking the question in 2001. A June 2026 Quinnipiac University poll found 48% of voters believe the United States is “too supportive” of Israel, the highest share since the pollster first asked the question in 2017.
Progressives push while the Democratic caucus splinters
The amendment became a litmus test for a divided party. Casar said Americans should not be “financing more weapons for Netanyahu,” citing Israel’s conduct in Gaza, which many critics describe as a campaign of genocide. Israel firmly rejects the charge. Gaza health officials now reporting more than 72,000 deaths, nearly half of them women and children.
Centrists like Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) called the measure “poorly drafted,” warning it could choke off diplomatic and humanitarian funds. Behind closed doors, members shared various points of view, with one anonymous Democrat conceding, “We know it’s crap, but…” Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), a longtime member, summed up the tension bluntly: “I’ve been around a long time, never seen it.”
The cost American taxpayers keep covering
Lost in the moral argument is a simpler question: Why are Americans still footing the bill? The $3.3 billion sent to Israel each year — part of a 10-year, $38 billion agreement signed in 2016 — flows overseas at a time when families at home face real economic strain. Notably, even some Republicans and senior Democrats now favor winding the aid down, especially after Netanyahu himself said Israel should reduce its “dependence” on Washington. For a nation fielding the most advanced military in its region, the case for open-ended American subsidies grows harder to defend.
Why Gaza will shape the November elections
The amendment’s defeat will not end the reckoning. Ocasio-Cortez’s own words trace her party’s drift: “mass inhumanity” in January 2024, an “unfolding genocide” by that March, and by February 2026 a flat charge that U.S. aid “enabled a genocide in Gaza.”
In the wake of the 2024 election, Democratic strategists concluded the party’s Gaza policy had cost it at the ballot box, and progressive challengers have since unseated establishment incumbents such as Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.). With the issue poised to loom over the midterms, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) may have put it best: “The timing is right for us to have a tough conversation.”
Whatever Washington ultimately decides, a growing share of Americans have already reached their own conclusion: the spending, and the policy it underwrites, no longer serves their interests.
Sources for this article include:
Original.AntiWar.com
Axios.com
TheHill.com
DenverGazette.com
Read full article here