Israel, Palestine, and the Transformation of Local U.S. Elections

Shortly after October 7, New York Governor Kathy Hochul visited Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. On her trip the Governor stated, “The community feels, in Israel and in New York, that my going during these times will be the most significant symbol of their importance to us than anything else we could do.” However, the Governor’s office maintains no jurisdiction over foreign policy. New York State is home to the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, with approximately one in five Jewish Americans living in the state. Thus, traveling to the Middle East to demonstrate solidarity may have been unnecessary, as she could have engaged with Jewish communities closer to home, including those in Brooklyn, the Upper West Side of Manhattan, or the Hudson Valley.

The Israel–Palestine debate has increasingly taken on a local dimension. For example, candidates in Democratic primary races devoted considerable time and attention to the issue, particularly in New York’s 10th and 13th congressional districts. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani likewise attracted attention for his decision not to march in the Israel Day Parade, which was attended by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. Furthermore, New York Republicans introduced Assembly Bill A4814, the New York State Palestinian Refugee Relocation Prevention Act, which would prohibit any state or local agency, authority, or official from cooperating with or providing assistance to the federal government in the relocation or resettlement of Palestinian refugees within New York State. 

This trend expands beyond New York. The city councils of Akron, Ohio, and Kalamazoo, Michigan, approved resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, as did tribal communities in South Dakota, several municipalities in Northern California, and numerous other local governments across the country. The contrast is compelling: voters are choosing officials responsible for potholes, zoning, or schools, yet debates revolve around Gaza and Israel. 

The Israel-Palestine conflict has migrated from Washington into city councils, school boards, mayoral races, and state legislative contests. Candidates are now being questioned, endorsed, funded, attacked, and sometimes defeated over positions on a conflict thousands of miles away, reflecting the growing nationalisation of American politics and the symbolic power of Middle East issues. 

The Traditional Rule and the Nationalisation of Local Politics

Historically, foreign policy has belonged to presidents, senators, and members of Congress. Local officials have rarely commented on international conflicts, as municipal governments have generally focused on issues such as budgets, public safety, infrastructure, and education. Nevertheless, since Hamas’s attacks on October 7 and the subsequent Israeli response, that dynamic has changed. 

Israel is part of a larger trend where social media and activist networks have blurred the distinction between local and national politics. Today, it is not uncommon for local election campaigns to feature debates over immigration, environmental and climate policy, abortion, policing, and other issues that extend beyond traditional municipal concerns.

Why Israel Became Different 

Several avenues allowed the conflict in Gaza to come to the forefront of political debate. First, supporters of Israel and Palestine tend to view the conflict through a moral lens, with supporters of Israel emphasising self-defence and security, while supporters of Palestine emphasise human rights and oppressive colonialism. 

Secondly, identity and religion play a substantial role. The generational trauma associated with centuries of persecution as a minority plays a significant role in Jewish identity and should not be overlooked. For many Jews, Israel serves not only as an ancestral homeland but also as a refuge from antisemitism and insecurity. Many Palestinians view themselves as indigenous to the land and believe they have been deprived of their land, rights, and political power. From this perspective, Israel is often seen as a settler-colonial project supported by powerful Western states. In the United States, American evangelicals overwhelmingly support Israel, often for religious reasons. Many evangelicals view the continued existence of the State of Israel as central to biblical prophecies concerning the end times, particularly as interpreted through the Book of Revelation. Within this theological framework, the Jewish people must possess a homeland in the Holy Land before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ can occur. Consequently, evangelicals are more likely than other Americans to view Israel's existence as the result of divine intervention.

Interestingly, polling suggests that 82 percent of evangelicals believe that God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people. This figure is slightly higher than that of Ultra-Orthodox Jews, 81 percent of whom expressed the same belief. 

Third, and perhaps most significantly, social media has dramatically increased public attention to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For more than two years, videos depicting Palestinians fleeing airstrikes, surveying the destruction of their neighbourhoods, begging for food, and mourning deceased family members have circulated widely across social media platforms. The rapid dissemination of such content allows distant events to be experienced with a sense of immediacy. 

The Money Factor 

In 2007, political scientists John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard University published The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Mearsheimer and Walt describe the lobby as “a loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction”. Critics argue that this book is reminiscent of antisemitic conspiracy theories. Yet, this is not antisemitic nor a conspiracy. The significant influence of pro-Israel groups in American politics is grounded in concrete evidence. 

Notably, some critics of Mearsheimer and Walt have their own history of making racist and Islamophobic comments. For example, Daniel Pipes, the Founder and President of Middle East Forum, suggested that mosques are breeding grounds for militants and that Muslims serving in the U.S. government and military should be given special attention as security risks. In defence of his position, Dr. Pipes endorsed the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and linked the Japanese-American wartime situation to that of Muslim-Americans today. 

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its super PAC, the United Democracy Project, spent over $100 million in the 2024 election cycle. These efforts continue at the local level as well. For example, Solidarity PAC, a pro-Israel organisation, raised $80,000 for seven candidates running for New York City Council. 

Why do pro-Israel groups devote substantial resources to local elections? One reason is that these contests have increasingly become symbolic battlegrounds. For instance, protests at Columbia University have demanded divestment from Israel. While local governments and institutions lack formal foreign policy authority, both activists and political actors treat these actions as symbolic signals that can shape public opinion and, indirectly, national policy debates.

Critics and Defenders

Critics argue that local officials should focus on local issues and that municipal bodies are not appropriate venues for addressing international conflict. Former San Francisco Mayor London Breed stated that, “city supervisors were neither elected nor qualified to undertake complex foreign policy.”

On the other hand, defenders contend that human rights concerns are everyone’s concerns and elected officials are obligated to take a stance. This sentiment is illustrated in the Boston City Council’s ceasefire resolution calling on elected leaders and residents to “uphold the safety, dignity, freedom, and collective humanity of all people.” 

What This Says About America

The story is not only about Israel and Palestine. It is more about the collapse of boundaries between local, national, and international politics. A city council race in New York, Ohio, South Dakota, or California can now become a referendum on events in the Middle East and elsewhere, depicting how interconnected politics have become in our digital age. 

Image: Flickr/Mayoral Photography Office (New York City, Benny Polatseck)

Licence.

No image changes made.