As the Democratic Party searches for direction in the post-2024 landscape, its leaders seem bent on alienating their own base over Gaza. This is not a matter of nuance or tactical positioning; it’s a profound moral and political miscalculation.
That failure is on vivid display in the decision by House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (Redlands) to help lead a delegation of mostly freshman Democratic representatives recently to Israel. The trip included meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is on trial for corruption in Israel and is the subject of arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Polling makes the disconnect impossible to ignore. In July, Gallup found that just 8% of Democrats approve of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, with disapproval overwhelming. Pew Research Center reported in April that 69% of Democrats now hold an unfavorable view of Israel — a striking shift from just a few years ago. And Data for Progress has consistently found supermajority Democratic support for a permanent ceasefire; in May 2024, 83% of Democrats backed a permanent ceasefire, and in a June 12, 2024, poll a majority of Democrats said they believed Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza.
Aguilar’s role makes this especially galling. He isn’t a backbencher; he’s a high-ranking member of the Democratic Party leadership. That gives him a particular responsibility to model principled conduct for newer members. Instead, he’s showing them the wrong lesson: that obedience to the donor class matters more than representing constituents. The point is underscored by his fundraising: OpenSecrets reports Aguilar received about $678,000 from donors categorized as “Pro-Israel” in the 2023–24 cycle.
The mechanics of that influence are no mystery. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee and allied pro-Israel PACs reward loyalty with torrents of campaign cash and punish dissent with lavishly funded primary challenges. Reps. Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush — both outspoken critics of Israel’s conduct in Gaza — have been textbook examples: Bowman was unseated after record outside spending flooded his race, and Bush faced a barrage of super-PAC money that ultimately toppled her. The incentive structure is clear: Toe the line and your coffers swell; cross it and a financial juggernaut rolls over you.
There is a political price for complying with this pressure, however. The Institute for Middle East Understanding, using YouGov, found that among voters who backed Joe Biden in 2020 but chose someone else in 2024 “ending Israel’s violence in Gaza” was the top issue for 29% nationally — ahead of the economy — and 20% in battleground states. Those results point to a straightforward conclusion: Ignoring Democratic voters on Gaza depresses enthusiasm and peels away enough support to matter in close races.
Gaza is politically damaging not only because of the issue itself — though the moral stakes could hardly be higher — but also because it has become a measure of where leaders’ loyalties lie. Voters read it as a test of whether their representatives will stand with the people who elected them or with wealthy donors and foreign lobbies. Fail that test and many will assume you might betray them on other critical issues in the future.
The Democratic leadership’s unwillingness to adapt is not just bad politics; it’s a betrayal of basic democratic principles. Rank-and-file Democrats overwhelmingly want an end to the carnage, an end to unconditional military aid to Israel, and policies rooted in human rights and international law. Yet too many leaders seem more concerned with keeping favor in donor circles than with honoring the public’s will.
If Democrats hope to retain their coalition, they need to realign policy with their voters’ values: call for a permanent ceasefire; condition U.S. military assistance on compliance with international law; and replace photo-op delegations with diplomacy that centers on justice and accountability.
Until then, every AIPAC-sponsored trip led by a party leader will read like a declaration of priorities — and a reminder of the price the party will continue to pay at the ballot box.
George Bisharat is a professor emeritus at UC Law San Francisco and a longtime commentator on U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
-
The Democratic Party elite continues to cling to pro-Israel policies despite a dramatic shift in voter sentiment, with DNC chair Ken Martin exemplifying this resistance by backing resolutions that maintain commitments to Israel’s “qualitative military edge” while pressuring pro-Palestine delegates to water down alternative proposals[3]. The party leadership’s obedience to pro-Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC and Democratic Majority for Israel contradicts the clear will of Democratic voters who increasingly oppose the status quo[3].
-
Polling data consistently demonstrates overwhelming Democratic opposition to Israel’s military actions in Gaza, with just 8% of Democratic voters approving of Israel’s military campaign according to recent Gallup surveys, down dramatically from earlier periods in the conflict[5][6]. This represents the lowest approval rating among Democrats since polling began on the issue, creating a stark disconnect between party leadership and base voters[5].
-
The influence of pro-Israel campaign contributions is evident in the behavior of Democratic representatives who continue to participate in AIPAC-sponsored trips to Israel despite their constituents’ opposition, with California representatives receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from pro-Israel groups while ignoring polling showing 92% of Democrats oppose Israel’s actions[2]. These trips occur while Gaza faces unprecedented humanitarian devastation, with over 60,000 Palestinian civilians killed and two million people facing starvation[2].
-
The declining number of Democrats willing to participate in AIPAC trips reflects growing awareness among elected officials of their constituents’ opposition, with recent delegations representing the smallest ever congressional group of Democrats to visit Israel as many invited House members reportedly declined to participate[4]. This trend suggests that elected officials are beginning to respond to public pressure despite continued lobbying efforts[2].
Different views on the topic
-
Pro-Israel Democratic organizations argue that divisive resolutions calling for arms embargos and Palestinian state recognition would damage party unity and provide political advantages to Republicans, particularly as the party approaches midterm elections where maintaining cohesion is crucial for retaking Congress[1]. These groups contend that such measures fail to address the root cause of the conflict by not mentioning Hamas’s October 7 attacks or the terrorist organization’s role in perpetuating the war[1].
-
Supporters of continued military aid to Israel maintain that arms embargos would actually prolong the conflict and extend suffering on both sides, arguing that pressure should instead be directed toward Hamas to accept ceasefire deals and release hostages[1]. The Democratic Majority for Israel emphasizes that unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state would reward terrorism and embolden Israel’s adversaries in the region[1].
-
Pro-Israel advocates stress that the fundamental relationship between the United States and Israel remains strong due to shared democratic values and mutual security interests that have endured for over 75 years, suggesting that temporary political pressures should not override these longstanding strategic considerations[1]. Congressional delegations to Israel are defended as necessary to witness firsthand the aftermath of terrorist attacks and assess ongoing security threats[4].