A public opinion survey in the US has revealed a significant shift in attitudes toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to the Economist/YouGov poll, whose results were released on July 28, 49% of Americans believe Netanyahu should be detained under an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant.
The survey also found that 47% of respondents believe Netanyahu committed war crimes in Gaza. These results were published at a time when the Israeli prime minister was visiting Washington and trying to reaffirm the alliance between the two countries.
An analysis published by Al Jazeera stressed that the poll findings reflect a fundamental transformation in Israel's political standing in the US. These figures, unthinkable a decade ago, indicate that Netanyahu has turned Israel from a bipartisan consensus issue into one of the most polarizing foreign policy matters.
According to the analysis, this shift did not begin with the October 7, 2023 attacks or the destruction in Gaza; rather, a strategy Netanyahu launched years ago accelerated the process. The Israeli prime minister's greatest strategic failure was tying Israel ever more tightly to the Republican Party, ignoring the concerns of the Democratic Party, and undermining the broad bipartisan consensus.
A turning point is seen as Netanyahu's 2015 speech to the US Congress against then-President Barack Obama. Delivered during the debate over the Iran nuclear deal, that speech is said to have led to Israel's identification with one party. Netanyahu's view of Republicans as a permanent guarantor while dismissing Democratic concerns weakened decades of bipartisan support.
Steps taken during Donald Trump's presidency—recognition of Jerusalem as the capital, moving the embassy, accepting Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, and abandoning the demand for a Palestinian state—seemed to vindicate Netanyahu's strategy, but the analysis argues this was misleading. The notion that Republican loyalty could permanently replace Democratic consensus is assessed as strategic shortsightedness.
The consequences of the war in Gaza have made the situation even clearer. President Joe Biden provided extraordinary military, diplomatic, and political support to Israel despite unprecedented pressure from his own party. Yet Netanyahu responded by accusing Washington of blocking arms shipments, rejecting US proposals for post-war governance, resisting humanitarian access demands, and contradicting the White House on strategic issues. According to the analysis, Netanyahu was trying to demonstrate Israel's independence to his domestic base rather than preserve US trust.
The way the war has been conducted has fundamentally altered global perceptions. Relentless bombardments in Gaza have razed hospitals, schools, universities, and neighborhoods, while severe humanitarian restrictions have triggered famine warnings. Senior ministers are said to have openly advocated permanent displacement, collective punishment, and indefinite military control.
The poll results show not only a shift regarding Netanyahu but also a deep change in how Israel is perceived in the US. That nearly half of Americans believe the Israeli prime minister should be arrested and a similar proportion view him as a war criminal points to a hardening of public attitudes.
Within the Democratic Party, unconditional support has been replaced by demands that military aid be conditioned on compliance with international humanitarian law. Young voters discuss the conflict through the lens of occupation, apartheid, and human rights, while members of Congress who once hesitated to criticize Israel now openly challenge it. The analysis notes that even Republican support can no longer be assumed permanent, as young conservative populists view unconditional foreign commitments with skepticism.
Netanyahu's ruling coalition is said to have deepened this crisis. The presence in government of far-right ministers who advocate annexation, reject Palestinian self-determination, and defend collective punishment has blurred the line between state policy and extremist rhetoric.
One of the most striking points in the analysis is that Netanyahu has put forward no serious political vision for ending the conflict. He is criticized for consistently rejecting meaningful discussions leading to a Palestinian state, opposing the return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza, and offering no credible framework beyond prolonged military control. It is emphasized that military force can destroy infrastructure and weaken armed groups, but cannot alone resolve a national conflict.
The piece concludes with the assessment that future historians, when looking for the moment Israel's unique position in Washington began to decline, will look directly at Netanyahu's decisions. It states that military superiority may deter enemies, but political legitimacy once lost cannot be reproduced.
