Israel has become a toxic brand in the US - so its advocates are shifting tactics

Israel’s position in American politics has shifted, dramatically and permanently. This is clear not only in opinion polls of US voters, but in the rhetoric of political campaigns, which are more focused than ever on foreign policy - yet go out of their way to avoid any mention of Israel .

US policy continues to lag far behind public opinion, which now clearly wants an end to support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza , its invasion of Lebanon , and its outsized influence on US policymaking.

But as each election cycle passes, more politicians are going to be elected who fastidiously avoid taking pro-Israel money, and who commit to a change in foreign policy.

Presidential races are no exception; Democratic hopefuls have either distanced themselves from Aipac , the country’s most powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, or tried desperately - often embarrassingly - to avoid the topic.

With Aipac having become toxic among Democrats, and increasingly viewed with suspicion even among some Republicans, Israel is pursuing a new strategy. Its advocates are crafting legislation that, building on years of lawmaking, would codify Israel’s interests as a legal priority and grant Israel a permanent seat at the table for strategic decisions.

New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch

Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on

Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters

Israel is collaborating with its American allies to ensure that it will be exceedingly difficult to disentangle it from US policymaking going forward, regardless of public opinion. It won’t be impossible, but it will be complicated, with layers of legal and structural obstacles - some of which are already in place.

For example, Congress years ago made it law that the US president must continue to guarantee Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge , defined as “the ability to counter and defeat any credible conventional military threat from any individual state or possible coalition of states or from non-state actors, while sustaining minimal damages and casualties, through the use of superior military means, possessed in sufficient quantity, including weapons, command, control, communication, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities that in their technical characteristics are superior in capability to those of such other individual or possible coalition of states or non-state actor”.

In other words, US law requires the country to ensure that Israel can beat back any assault from any combination of forces, regardless of whether that conforms to a given president’s official policy.

Deepening security cooperation

Now, Israel’s advocates are trying to surreptitiously insert two measures into must-pass legislation that would prioritise Israel’s position in US policymaking, and grant it and its chosen allies broad access to American intelligence.

These measures would be included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA), which together fund the American military and intelligence programmes writ large, so they cannot realistically be rejected by Congress.

Because these are must-pass bills, Congress members often add other measures to them, rather than trying to pass them as standalone legislation.

In the NDAA, the proposed measure would create an executive agent responsible for ensuring widespread integration of Israeli and American defence and security cooperation across all departments of the US government. It would also require that Israeli technology be integrated into major American defence purchases, and vastly expand tech sharing.

In its utter contempt for the wishes of the people whose taxes would be funding so much of this, it is hard to imagine anything more anti-democratic

This would create a union that would be difficult to untangle, just as more Americans are demanding that the US reverse its complicated relationship with Israel and chart a course based on American, rather than Israeli, interests and concerns.

Because technology, strategy and intelligence are integral parts of what would be shared, Israel could also argue that it would be illegal for a president to exclude Tel Aviv from planning in a joint war effort, as US President Donald Trump recently did in his quest to find a path towards a permanent ceasefire with Iran .

As for the IAA, it includes a proposed measure for vast intelligence sharing not only with Israel, but with any Muslim or Arab country that joins the Abraham Accords and agrees to normalise relations with Israel.

That measure requires intelligence sharing on just about everything defence-related that Israel might be interested in, and only allows the president to withhold such intelligence if there’s a “specific and identifiable national security concern ”, which the president would then have to justify to Congress.

Moreover, it treats American intelligence - which, we should recall, is harvested from some of the m…