Policy analysis by Ameer Makhoul, Progress Center for Policies
Introduction: In his speech at Tel Aviv University and his interview on July 8, 2026 with Israel’s Channel 12 and journalist Yonit Levi, the US presidential candidate (a likely contender for the 2028 election), former mayor of Chicago and former chief of staff to President Obama, made statements unusual in their forcefulness. Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State and presidential candidate, described Rahm Emanuel’s direct and incisive speech in a tweet as deserving the attention of everyone concerned about the future of Israelis and Palestinians.
Emanuel directly attacked Netanyahu, but his sharp criticism was not confined to the Israeli prime minister — it extended to the State of Israel itself and its practices. Among his statements: that Israel has lost Europe and is losing the United States, and that all it has left is Somaliland; that the longer the conflict continues and the reliance on perpetual war persists, the more isolated Israel becomes globally; and regarding Jews — Emanuel, who is himself Jewish, affirmed that New York’s elected mayor Zohran Mamdani is more popular among Jews than Netanyahu. He added that Israel’s problem is not confined to the Democratic Party, but to America as a whole, and specifically to the younger generation up to the age of thirty.
Analysis
Rahm Emanuel’s statements have unsettled the Israeli scene. He is the American Jew known for supportive and backing positions toward Israel in all his previous roles, and had a clear impact on the Obama administration’s policies. What stands out in his speech is that it was in no way apologetic, nor did it show deference to any Israeli political camp. His message was clear: Israel is in its worst position ever in the United States, criticizing its policy and practices in Gaza and the West Bank, stating that there is no future for the premise of “conflict management” — that the time for solutions has come, and that Israel has no choice but an agreed solution with the Palestinians within an international framework.
Emanuel placed responsibility on Netanyahu, describing him as having led Israel into international isolation and disarray, warning that the Israeli-American alliance stands at a crossroads. He called for an end to the concept of absolute American support for Israel, criticizing the American policy built on “blind backing” of Israel as mistaken, and called for halting the redesign of American security support for Israel, believing the time has come for the United States to stop funding Israel’s security budget at the expense of American taxpayers.
The Regional and International Approach to a Solution
Notably, on the question of a Palestinian state, he adopted the “23-state solution” approach rather than naming the two-state solution — an approach that has characterized the positions of the progressive Jewish lobby J Street. This approach is based on a regional context encompassing 23 states, including Palestine and Israel. Under his proposal, Arab states would bear responsibility for establishing a new Palestinian leadership and for progress toward full regional recognition of Israel.
What also stands out in this vision is how shifts in American policy are reflected in positions toward Israel. What is new, however, is that a future candidate for the American presidency is embracing the idea of internationalization — effectively imposing the solution internationally and regionally and ending the conflict by imposing it on the parties, in contrast to Israeli policies — which is not necessarily different from Trump’s policy in this regard.
The Israeli Elections
In effect, Rahm Emanuel’s speech constitutes the framework for a political project for the Israeli opposition, specifically for Yesh Atid… no — for Gadi Eisenkot, head of the “Yisrael” party [Hebrew: “Yashar”], who has become Netanyahu’s strongest rival, with his party in continuous ascent to the point of surpassing Likud. It may also be acceptable to Lapid, and clearly to the “Democrats” party led by Yair Golan. Meanwhile, it appears that the American Democratic Party’s bet is on Eisenkot leading the opposition bloc. In this regard, there appears to be a substantive American consensus between the Republican and Democratic parties toward a solution based on a multilateral regional and international approach, with the condition for progress being the formation of an alternative government to Netanyahu’s current one.
In addition, Emanuel’s speech — backed by figures in his party, as Hillary Clinton stated — indicates that it represents the crystallizing and consensus-based position of the Democratic Party, and is in fact influenced by boycott and sanctions movements against Israel, with which the mainstream trend among the younger generation in the party identifies. His speech in Tel Aviv, delivered before the Israeli media, repositions the Palestinian question and the necessity of a solution at the heart of Israel’s electoral political agenda, after the opposition had lacked this framing and, at best, had tried to sidestep it.
It is also known that the United States — administration, Democrats and Republicans alike — intervenes directly in Israeli elections, with each side seeking to engineer party alignments and influence election outcomes, and there is near-unanimous American consensus on the necessity of getting rid of Netanyahu and his coalition.
These positions will also make it difficult for Netanyahu to realize any intention to postpone elections, since doing so would mean further confrontation with both American parties and even with the United States itself. Emanuel represents the centrist current within his party, indicating that future alternatives will be even harsher in taking action against Israel.
Conclusion
Rahm Emanuel’s visit — as a candidate concerned with the US presidency — is an electoral visit in which he positions himself as a promising American presidential candidate, and an electoral one from an Israeli standpoint, within an effort to influence Israeli public opinion and confront it with the reality of the state’s deteriorating position and its isolation, placing responsibility on Netanyahu’s policies and the concept of sustained war and conflict management.
Emanuel presents a comprehensive vision based on a lasting, comprehensive solution founded on Israeli-Palestinian peace that does not come from the two unequal parties themselves, but rather from a regional approach and internationalization of the issue toward resolving it within both a regional and international context simultaneously.
Emanuel poses a challenge to the opposition, which has sought to avoid presenting a political alternative to Netanyahu, and puts forward a political project betting on segments of the opposition adopting it — specifically Gadi Eisenkot, the strongest challenger to Netanyahu.
Increased American intervention in the Israeli elections appears set to compensate for the structural imbalance engineered by the ruling coalition against the opposition through the “constitutional and judicial coup” (the deep changes to the Israeli judicial system) and in the identity of institutions — including ensuring elections are held and pushing Netanyahu to step down should he face a unified American consensus from both parties.
