Will Donald Trump become America's last Zionist president?

David Hearst

7 July 2026

Trump was the president who gave Israel all it needed, and more. But with a wave of Aipac-backed candidates defeated in Democratic primaries, support for Israel is now toxic

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/will-donald-trump-be-america-last-zionist-president

Hell hath no fury like an Israel scorned. 

In the space of just a few weeks - the blink of an eye in the timeline of this Middle East conflict - US President Donald Trump has gone from being so popular in Israel he boasted he could be its next prime minister to a man so hated he could qualify for Israel’s next Amalek.

The pro-government commentariat was unsparing in their verdict. 

To give you just a taste of the bile aimed at Trump personally, Yinon Magal, host of a primetime show on Channel 14, called the US president "a loser" and branded his son-in law Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff as "little Jews".

Yaakov Bardugo, an Israeli political commentator, said that Trump and his vice president, JD Vance, were becoming the modern Chamberlain, the British prime minister associated with appeasing Hitler in 1938.

Amit Segal, chief political analyst for Channel 12 and Israel Hayom - which is owned by billionaire Miriam Adelson - said Trump had completely surrendered by allowing Iran to enrich uranium.

Shimon Riklin, an anchor on Israel's right-wing Channel 14, posted on X that the US was weaker than ever and that no-one will want to be its ally.

These commentators are close to the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Some are considered his mouthpiece. And they have collectively executed a textbook hand-brake turn. 

They are turning on the president, who, in his first term, gave Israel the US recognition of the annexation of the Occupied Golan Heights and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, something that a long line of his predecessors in the White House had avoided doing. 

This is the president who appointed David Friedman, an advocate for the settlers, as US ambassador to Israel. Friedman abandoned all pretence of being neutral in this conflict by opening a tunnel under the Palestinian neighbourhood of Silwan in Occupied East Jerusalem with a sledgehammer. 

As a presidential candidate, Trump accepted Adelson as the third-largest donor of his re-election campaign in 2024.

To communicate with the White House, Netanyahu did not even have to pick up the phone. He already had Kushner, among many others, whispering in the president’s ear.

Trump: From loyal to traitor

Trump stood fully with Israel’s genocide in Gaza and continues to do so to this day.

Kushner was the planner behind "the Board of Peace" and a surreal plan to turn Gaza into one of his many Mediterranean beach resorts.

There is little dispute that Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran was made after a briefing by Netanyahu and David Barnea, then Mossad director, in the White House situation room.

That the leader of a foreign country was even allowed into the situation room was considered a first.

Never before had a US president been so suggestible and never before had a prime minister of Israel been so close to the beating heart of a US administration.

This is the man they now brand a traitor.

The real question is how deep does this rift go? And how permanent? Trump was the president who gave Israel all it needed, and more, to fight its forever wars.

Is he destined to be the US’s last Zionist president?

A rift of this nature is not unique in the history of Zionism. There are many examples of Zionists turning against the superpower of the day on which they depend.

A historic pattern

When 250,000 Jewish refugees were stranded in displaced persons camps in Europe after the Second World War and Britain refused to lift the ban on immigration to admit 100,000 Jews to Palestine, the Jewish underground united.

Between 1945 and 1948, over 780 British soldiers, police officers, and civilians were killed in Palestine, many targeted by the Irgun and the Stern (Lehi) Gang. 

All this despite the fact that Britain, through the Balfour Declaration, called for a Jewish Homeland in 1917,  breaking its promise to Arab leaders to set up an Arab state.

The worst atrocity was the bombing of King David Hotel on 22 July, 1946, the British administrative headquarters in Jerusalem, killing 28 British subjects out of the 91 total fatalities. 

To this day, Israel refuses to honour their graves, although it does those who bombed the hotel.

In 2006, the Menachem Begin Heritage Center, named after the former leader of the Irgun terrorist gang who approved the bombing and later became prime minister, held an event to commemorate the attack.

Brigadier Peter Smith-Dorrien, the most senior official killed in the bombing, lies in an unmarked grave.

Nor did outstanding bravery in the Holocaust present any bar to Jewish terrorists.

The Lehi or Stern Gang also killed a Swedish diplomat, Count Folke Bernadotte, who had negotiated the release of over 4000 Jews from Nazi concentration camps during the final months of the war. 

After the war, he became the first official mediator of the United Nations in the conflict between the new Israeli state and the Palestinians. His original sin, in the eyes of the Stern Gang, was to have negotiated a truce and laid the ground for early relief efforts. 

This pattern repeats itself throughout Israel's history.

Former US President Barack Obama’s parting gift to Israel was a military package worth £38bn ($51bn) over ten years. It was the largest aid package in US history.

Avi Shlaim, the Israeli historian, wrote in The Guardian at the time: "Netanyahu invariably repaid Obama’s generosity with ingratitude and abuse. He never missed an opportunity to attack Obama; he intervened crudely in the 2012 presidential elections by backing the Republican candidate; he abused the privilege of an address to a special session of both houses of Congress to insult their president; and he conducted the most vociferous public campaign to sabotage the nuclear agreement with Iran.

"One is hard put to think of a more blatant example of biting the hand that feeds you. Netanyahu’s conduct marks him out as the special ally from hell."

Former US President Joe Biden, an instinctive liberal Zionist, got the same treatment. General Amos Gilead wrote that Netanyahu’s "unprecedented berating" of Biden was an extreme manifestation of ingratitude and a first-rate strategic failure. 

"The United States is Israel’s only true ally, and Joe Biden is the friendliest president to Israel in history. There is no strategic logic to lashing out at him and at Senate Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and one can only suspect that petty domestic politics are coming in lieu of a strategy that is crucial to Israel’s security and future."

Zionism’s true face

For some commentators, what we are seeing is Zionism revealing its true supremacist face. And that even includes Moshe Ya’alon, a former defence minister under Netanyahu between 2013-2016.

In an Ynet interview, Ya'alon said that factions within the religious Zionist movement, which is closely aligned with Israeli settlers, hold a "Jewish supremacy ideology".

"What is Jewish supremacy? Eighty years after the Holocaust, it's Mein Kampf in reverse. The superior race is us," said Ya'alon

Jewish supremacism is now central to Israel’s mainstream political dialogue. Just listen to how Naftali Bennet, Netanyahu’s main challenger, talks about Iran and the Palestinians. Or for that matter just listen to how Israeli Jews talk about the Palestinians.

What is driving Israel’s feud with Trump could just boil down to the shock of the new. 

The shock consists of a US president telling Israel to stop waging war. It's the shock a settler colony experiences when it realises it has lost control of its parent. 

A similar shock was experienced by the Pieds Noirs in Algeria who helped bring Charles de Gaulle to power in 1958, only to see the French president pivot to self-determination and Algerian independence. 

Or take the rage of Northern Ireland’s Unionist community when the greatest Unionist of them all, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement allowing Dublin to have a say in the peace process. 

Toxic tsunami 

Whatever is brewing inside Israel, it's having a truly toxic effect on public opinion on the other side of the Atlantic.

It is no exaggeration to say the genocide in Gaza, the failed war on Iran, and Israel’s refusal to withdraw from Syria, southern Lebanon and Gaza have killed off a generation of support in the US.

In both Republican and Democratic parties, the majority of adults under the age of 50 rate Israel and Netanyahu negatively, Pew Research reveals. Today, 57 percent of Republicans between ages 18 to 49 have an unfavorable opinion of Israel, up from 50 percent last year. 

Overall 60 percent of US adults have an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53 percent last year. Fifty nine percent have little or no confidence in Netanyahu to do the right thing regarding world affairs - up from 52 percent last year.

The direction of travel is clear.  

But there is less consensus about what this shift in public opinion means in political terms and when this could trigger a meaningful change of policy.

New York, home to the world’s largest Diaspora Jewish population, has just seen three incumbent Democrat congressmen unseated and five local seats taken by candidates backed by mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Soon afterwards, Melat Kiros, a lawyer and PhD student, mounted a stunning upset for establishment Democrats after she was declared the winner of the Democratic primary in Colorado's 1st congressional district, which includes the state capital, Denver. 

Kiros ousted Diana DeGetter, a politician who had spent three decades on Capitol Hill and had received over $1.6m from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac).

Jewish Voice for Peace - Action said that the race proved Aipac was a "toxic brand" in the Democratic party, and that Democratic voters were tired of lawmakers who support or defend genocide.

This certainly was a defeat for Aipac. Three candidates critical of Israel’s genocidal war defeated opponents backed by Aipac.

But did the results represent a meaningful pro- Palestinian shift, or simply a Democrat re-incorporation of liberal Zionists, without the endorsement of Aipac?

Is the party preparing simply for a post-Netanyahu era, when support for Israel will become baked into the system once again?

One of the victors was Brad Lander who won the primary for New York’s 10th Congressional district.

Lander, who ran for mayor before endorsing Mamdani, previously opposed Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) and increased New York City’s pension fund investments in Elbit Systems, an Israeli arms manufacturer, during his time as city comptroller. He describes himself as a liberal Zionist.

"At a time when those in the Palestine solidarity movement who disrupted the operations of Elbit Systems face the harshest of state crackdowns, it's a sucker punch to see elements of the same movement celebrate Lander, given his own involvement with the arms manufacturer Elbit," Nazia Kazi, professor at Stockton University, told MEE.

After Kiros’s victory, Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders congratulated her on X. "The tide is turning," he wrote. "Americans are tired of status quo politics."

Mamdani himself said it was a victory for the working class, reinforcing findings from a poll last year that showed voters were primarily driven by domestic economic concerns, affordable housing, and the cost of living.

However in their speeches, the wining candidates presented domestic issues and demands to end the genocide in Gaza as one package. Their challenge to the status quo was on both fronts.

A long journey

For experts on relations between Israel and US like Daniel Levy, president of the US/Middle East Project (USMEP), America is only at the start of a long journey on recalibrating its support for Israel.

"It has yet to be seen whether enough of the movement on the Democrat side can be focused on accumulating power, even if they have to hold their noses to achieve a shift in policy and this happens more slowly than any of us would wish.

"Unprecedented opportunities lie ahead and I would love to see that change happen but it's not there yet. The countervailing pressure of an entrenched lobby and the capacity for our own side to make mistakes, as well as the absence of a Palestinian liberation movement driving this change, all means that it's not there yet."

And yet there has been a real change in US public opinion.

One of the most significant changes in the United States has been the shift which moved Palestine from the political margins into the mainstream. 

Once dismissed as a niche concern of the left - or reduced to questions of Islamism or terrorism - it has become an issue that cuts across the political spectrum.

Even sections of the American right have begun to view Israel as a liability rather than an asset. For some conservatives, Israel’s conduct - its mass killing of civilians, including children, and its open disregard for international law - has made it increasingly difficult to reconcile unconditional support for Israel with America’s self-image. 

Distancing themselves from Israel has, for some, become a way of attempting to redeem the American project. 

Yet, the mainstreaming of Palestine has also come with new boundaries. The terms of debate have expanded, but they remain tightly managed across both conservative and progressive circles.  

It has become increasingly acceptable to discuss the influence of Aipac because doing so allows Americans to frame the problem as one of undue influence by a powerful lobby. 

However, for now at least, the limits of this debate are clear: Palestinian resistance, self-determination, or the political aspirations that underpin the Palestinian struggle are issues that remain largely outside the boundaries of respectable debate. 

America could be on a path which goes in stages: an increase in sympathy with Palestinian suffering and increasing hostility to an Israel permanently at war.

This in turn leads to the ending of Israeli exceptionalism in US politics and finally a recognition of the full rights of Palestinians. It may take several election cycles to achieve this.

But for Netanyahu, or whoever comes after him, making Israel relevant to the right in America once again will not be a simple task. Stymied over Iran, but allowed to keep its territorial gains in Lebanon and Syria, Netanyahu’s reaction will be to restart the war to take over all of Gaza. 

He has to - if he wants to keep the extreme right in his cabinet and alongside his election campaign. But renewed slaughter in Gaza will increase the sense of revulsion in the US on both sides of the political spectrum. 

Framing the war as Israel’s "9/11" is a card that has been played. Even Republicans like Tucker Carlson are reviewing the War on Terror as a wrongheaded attempt to frame the whole of Islam as an existential enemy.

For the moment there is no way out. The lobby is not about to roll over and will stage a ferocious rearguard action in US politics. 

But the more supporting Israel becomes an act of force, and the less it is an article of faith, the bigger the trouble Zionism is in.

 

MoU Stacked in Holding Pattern as U.S. Pivots to Plan 'B'

Alastair Crooke • July 6, 2026

https://www.unz.com/acrooke/mou-stacked-in-holding-pattern-as-u-s-pivots-to-plan-b/

With Hormuz still squeezed and White House factions at war, who’s really playing whom?

Plan ‘A’ was to topple the Islamic Republic which was seen as nothing more than a fragile house of cards. That collapse – it was expected – would ripple through, and take down several connected Axis of Resistance fronts, according to the analysis of Mossad and interlinked Israeli power centres in the U.S. (Certain U.S. officials did, however, entertain doubts).

The prediction of a popular uprising in Iran has proved to have been a strategic mistake of such bearing that per contra, it catalysed a stronger, more defiant and assertive Republic. Even Israeli experts admit that the false premise underlying the war has generated a new balance of power in the Middle East. Until then, a top Israeli military commentator (Alon Ben David) could say, Israel was the ‘go-to’ address in the Middle East for the world’s interests; but that from now on, the ‘go-to’ state is, and will be, Iran. That comment exemplified the extent to which a Rubicon had been crossed.

So the collective pro-Zionist bloc has shifted to plan ‘B’ – a ‘deceit’ based on the MoU, which were Trump’s interpretations to be accepted by Iran (unlikely), would effectively lead to the disarming of Iran through a nuclear agreement that would strip the state naked by virtue of its ‘verification’ requirements: Intrusive, ‘go-anywhere’ surprise IAEA inspections of ‘secret underground sites’ and interrogations of scientists and research academies. All would (again) be exposed.

Taken in tandem with Plan ‘B’s wider Israeli hegemonic aspiration, the aim would be to concurrently lobotomise Hizbullah through a separate disarmament agreement effected through compliant Lebanese government factions pressing down on the movement from the north, whilst Israel pursued ‘desertification’ in the south.

In parallel, the plan envisages the sterilisation of Palestinian resistance by drawing from the Vietnam ‘Strategic Hamlet Programme’ forerunner of forced relocation into sterilised, fenced ‘concentration camps‘.

The third component comprises the cauterisation of the Iraqi Resistance via a compliant new American installed Prime Minister, Ali al-Zaidi, who under the cover of anti-corruption campaign, with U.S. support, is demanding the disarmament of the Iraqi resistance by 30 September. The neutralisation of the Iraqi resistance is seen as key to facilitating a Syrian incursion by President Jolani’s jihadist militia into northern Lebanon to complete the vice closing in on Hizbullah.

All in all, Plan ‘B’ seemingly suggests a very comprehensive regional pacification project, especially when taken in conjunction with U.S. efforts to try to force open an ‘American Corridor’ on the Omani side of the Hormuz Strait.

Likely, the regional pacification scheme will be viewed as a clever move by Trump to mitigate the pressure exerted on him by the neo-con’s anger at his MoU ‘concessions’ to Iran.

But is it so clever? Marco Rubio was instructed to oversee the Beirut establishment making pretty with Israel in their shared antagonism towards Hizbullah. But the resulting ‘bout de papier’ for the disarming of Hizbullah enjoys no legitimacy; it contradicts the Lebanese Constitution and would require cabinet endorsement and parliamentary approval to have any validity or meaning.

What the Israel-Lebanon agreement does do, however, is to stick a dagger in Vance’s separately agreed Qatari-chaired U.S. and Iran co-ordination structure for overseeing MoU compliance in Lebanon. Rubio’s initiative to cut Iran out from the Lebanese co-ordination framework cuts across the MoU and Vance’s mediation efforts. Rubio’s tripartite ‘paper’ will solve nothing, but will leave the ‘Lebanon issue’ to continue as an open sore.

Yet a “ceasefire in Lebanon and Israeli withdrawal” is pivotal to the functioning of the MoU. It appears that Netanyahu tee’d up Ron Dermer to get Rubio to sabotage the MoU.

So, now we have civil war inside the White House over Iran – Vance vs Rubio – whilst the MoU slides into abeyance, likely remaining in situ, albeit in comatose state.

In parallel, things are falling apart: leading challenger to Netanyahu in the upcoming elections and former IDF chief and former war cabinet member, Gadi Eisenkot, confirmed this week that “Iran never obtained nuclear weapons. I’m well aware of all the intelligence . . . Netanyahu is inventing a reality, manufacturing threats, and that’s how he frightens the Israeli public”. Former PM Bennett agreed, saying that Netanyahu’s claims are ‘lies’, accusing him of “reverse-engineering history”.

All this will not help Trump’s urgent need to fully to open Hormuz in order to prevent a major economic crisis. Contrary to the view that this is a clever move, one view (that is increasingly held by Iranians inter alia), would be that Iran is being played by the U.S. – that the MoU is a deceit to force the immediate reopening of Hormuz, as Vance has inferred, in order to fill up the U.S. and western strategic oil reserves, as well as to buy time to see where the U.S.’ leverage cards might then lie in respect to other elements of the MoU.

Opinion in the crucial Iranian Assembly of Experts (and on the street) has hardened against Iran making any concession to the U.S., especially in respect to permitting passage to (unfriendly) vessels transiting Hormuz. The consensus is to retain Iran’s squeeze on Hormuz until the pain throbs.

So, as fractures open in Washington – and with Iran becoming increasingly distrustful of Trump and his zigzagging – the MoU shows itself to be a deceit intended just to get the Strait open before striking Iran both indirectly (via its resistance allies), and harder.

Interestingly, this sedimenting opinion coincides with Russian FM Sergei Lavrov giving voice to his own judgement that the Anchorage ‘understandings’ reached with Trump were likely a U.S. deceit, too.

So, who has ‘played’ whom? For now, the oil coming out of the Persian Gulf is not heading to the U.S. According to Reuters, at least five super tankers carrying a total 10 million barrels ‌of Saudi oil loaded from Ras Tanura have exited the Strait of Hormuz. Two of the five very large crude carriers ⁠that have left the Strait are heading to Japan, while another two are making their way to China. Which means – as Larry Johnson has outlined – that even were tankers to head to the U.S. now, the U.S. would still face a serious deficit of sour crude until 23 August at the earliest, given the 42 days voyage time to the U.S. (Sour crude is crucial feedstock for complex U.S. refineries to produce diesel and jet fuel).

The post-mortem on the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran must be suspended as both Trump and Netanyahu enter a holding pattern ahead of elections. Trump might threaten to ‘obliterate’ Iran if it does not capitulate and bend the knee before him, but it is doubtful that the U.S. can long maintain its military presence in the region with munitions in short supply. Nonetheless, a further round of intense kinetic war is highly probable – and widely expected in Iran.

A short ‘performative’ U.S. military strike on Iran is possible, but would achieve little – and nothing strategic.

So who is losing in this ‘war’? Israel – and Netanyahu. Netanyahu is in deep distress electorally too.

The expected triumph of Israel over the Middle East has failed. The connected revolutionary war on Russia and the siege of China are faltering also, and Israel’s (until now unassailable) hold over the U.S. is in question too.

In wake of Netanyahu convincing Trump to withdraw from the JCPOA in 2015, leading Israeli security commentators began to lament their strategic mistake as “one of the greatest strategic mistakes of the twenty-first century“. Amazingly, some in Israel – including senior military figures – are already lamenting Israel’s assassination of the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, on 28 February 2026 – “At least we knew where we stood with Khamenei”, a senior Israeli military source told Ben Caspit –

“[Khamenei] had red lines, he had a strategy, and he was sober to some extent. There was a certain stability to the Iranian madness. The current leadership is much less stable, far more extreme and unpredictable. They are intoxicated by power and hubris, convinced that they defeated both America and Israel”.

America’s Hard Left and Right Have Had It with Israel

New York socialists are done with these wars. So are America First conservatives.

Jack Hunter

Jul 2, 202

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/americas-hard-left-and-right-have-had-it-with-israel/

Last week, POLITICO published a story about New York City’s recent congressional primaries, noting that “moderate Democrats fear they’re on the verge of losing the party’s ideological civil war to progressives.”

On X, Krystal Ball replied, “They already lost.”

The progressive Breaking Points podcast host was partaking in the left-wing jubilation that followed the victories of three insurgent candidates in New York’s closely watched primary races. 

In NY-10, former city chief financial officer Brad Lander defeated incumbent Dan Goldman; in NY-13, student and activist Darializa Avila Chevalier won against incumbent Adriano Espaillat; and in NY-7, state assemblywoman Claire Valdez beat Brooklyn borough president Antonio Reynoso. All are expected to win their deep-blue districts easily in November.

Each of these candidates has ties to the hard left Democratic Socialists of America: Valdez and Reynoso are current members, while Lander was a member until 2023. And all enjoyed the support of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (their opponents, meanwhile, were backed by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries).

While various reasons have been given for these victories, one common thread is that the winning candidates all made intense, vociferous criticism of Israel a central part of their campaigns. Those who lost, on the other hand, pursued a softer line on Israel, more closely resembling establishment Democrats on foreign policy even while taking leftist positions on other issues. 

In the NY-10 race, for example, the Democratic pollster Adam Carlson told Responsible Statecraft there was “very little daylight between Brad Lander and Dan Goldman ideologically, except when it c[ame] to Israel.” Yet Lander beat Goldman—who received significantly more funding—by a whopping 30 points.

Nor has the success of anti-Israel progressives been limited to New York. Earlier this year, similar candidates won Democratic primaries in Maine and California. And polling suggests that the issue resonates with Democrats nationwide. A June Quinnipiac poll showed that 66 percent of Democrats thought “the U.S. was too supportive of Israel,” while a May New York Times/Siena poll found that nearly three quarters of Democrats opposed U.S. aid to Israel and 60 percent of Democratic voters said they were more sympathetic to the Palestinians than to Israel. (By contrast, only 15 percent had more sympathy for Israel.)

A similar trend can be seen on the right. Just one month after President Donald Trump launched the U.S. war on Iran, slightly more than half of Republican voters answered “yes” when polled on the question of whether Israel had too much influence over American foreign policy. And although the majority of Republicans are still broadly supportive of Israel, multiple polls have shown significant drops in the country’s favorability over the past several years, particularly among younger conservatives.

There are even stirrings on Capitol Hill. Last summer, then-Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene became the first member of the congressional GOP to call the Gaza crisis a “genocide.” And Representative Thomas Massie attracted national attention—and lost a primary—in part because of his staunch opposition to U.S. aid for Israel.

Rather than debate their critics on the merits, many in the establishments of both parties have sought to dismiss any criticism of Israel as antisemitism, pure and simple. As Sen. Ted Cruz said last month during a diatribe against the popular commentator (and noted Israel skeptic) Tucker Carlson, “We are seeing a cancer on the right. It is rising antisemitism…. Here’s the scary thing: I’ve seen more antisemitism on the right over the last 18 months than any time in my life.” Cruz went on to try to tar opposition to Israel as an inherently left-wing position, claiming it was a “gateway drug to anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism.”

Leaving aside the histrionics, the Senator from Texas is right about one thing—both the hard right and the hard left have ended up in a similar place on Israel. And for similar reasons: opposition to American vassalage, disgust with the treatment of Palestinians, skepticism of the endless regional wars, and a conviction that our resources are better spent at home.

As the independent journalist Glenn Greenwald observed of the NY-7 winner on Thursday, “Note how Claire Valdez—when asked about Israel or foreign policy generally—emphasizes the need to stop burning American resources on Israel and foreign wars and instead invest them in American communities for the American working class: a potent MAGA political message not all that long ago.”

Exactly.

Right and left will disagree, profoundly, on how to use those resources (the progressives’ aim of building socialism in this country, for example, should be vigorously opposed by everyone who calls himself a conservative). But what we can and should agree on is the notion that America’s interests must be prioritized above those of foreign nations. And in this important respect, there is a natural and important alliance to be made.

The hard left House and Senate candidates of this cycle, current Israel-skeptic lawmakers like Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), and journalists like Krystal Ball and Glenn Greenwald can work with America First conservatives in Congress (outgoing Representative Thomas Massie and current Senator Rand Paul, for example), in the media (Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Steve Bannon, etc.), and elsewhere. Such a partnership could speak to the majority of patriotic Americans much more effectively and authentically than either the Democratic or Republican establishments.

For the undeniable fact is that, when it comes to the U.S.-Israel relationship, most voters are ready for a new chapter. And the energy is clearly with the insurgents. This is especially true now that the administration is in peace talks with Iran. Both Trump and Vance have expressed frustration with Israel, with the latter recently articulating what few American politicians have been allowed to say openly: the two countries have different interests.

At the same time, many of our political elites are scrambling to save the pro-Israel consensus. The uniparty loves its wars, and will stoop to any low or call their political opponents any slurs in order to keep them going. Just ask Vance.

Hence the need for a left-right alliance.

We understand our differences. Conservatives will never acquiesce to wealth confiscation, abortion-on-demand, DEI, speech codes, open borders, or any of the other noxious policy priorities beloved of the left. And we certainly don’t expect our progressive counterparts to suddenly disavow their most deeply-held principles (no matter how wrong or ill-considered).

But should the America First right and the antiwar left unite to restore our national sovereignty, rein in the war machine, extricate ourselves from endless, far-off quarrels, and ensure that this country’s energies and resources are applied to its own problems?