Rahm Emanuel just launched his 2028 presidential campaign -- in Israel. He did so by giving what might be called a "Sister Souljah moment" speech in Tel Aviv, where he delicately tried to thread the needle of addressing the relationship between the U.S. and Israel in a realistic fashion without burning his bridges with either American Democrats or Israeli Jews. That is a challenging thing to attempt these days, which is why Emanuel's speech was such an important political development.

I'm not going to get into dissecting Emanuel's words too deeply here, or even stating my own beliefs or viewpoint of what should happen in the relationship between the two countries. Instead, I'd prefer to examine the political aspects of it here at home.

Rarely has public opinion shifted so quickly and so dramatically as how the American public now views Israel and the current Israeli government. It wasn't that long ago that both major political parties here were almost in competition to see which one could support Israel more. Support for Israel was never universal among the voters of both political parties, but it was fairly strong across the entire political spectrum.

Nowadays, that support is crumbling. Both Republican and Democratic base voters now have growing factions that are calling for radical changes to the way America deals with Israel, as deep disapproval for Israeli actions (and our own financial, political, and military support for them) spreads wider and wider.

On the right are MAGA supporters who are incredibly disappointed in Donald Trump's decision to go to war with Iran. Bombing their nuclear production sites from the air last year caused some grumbles, but it was over quickly and the objectives seemed to be at least partially accomplished. But this year's new war with Iran is seen as an outright betrayal of the "America First" slogan Trump ran on.

On the left are pro-Palestinian groups as well as a growing number of Democrats who just cannot continue to support unconditional military aid to a country that has been credibly accused of genocide. Benjamin Netanyahu has squandered American support for his country and his government by his actions and what seems to be his overall strategy of continuing a "forever war" against its neighbors, with no possible end ever in sight.

While most Democratic politicians have been trying to carefully choose a position that somehow bridges the gap between unconditional support for Israel and outright condemnation, Democratic voters are souring on Israel and Netanyahu at an increasing pace. The issue may have been a big factor in the loss of the 2024 election, since Kamala Harris refused to either criticize Joe Biden's support for Israel or to lay out a plan for how our relationship with Israel should change. She offered more of the same -- which caused a whole bunch of voters to stay home and not vote, in disgust.

This problem will be magnified in both the upcoming midterms and in the 2028 presidential race among Democrats. Some Democratic politicians still unconditionally support Israel, no matter what. Other Democratic politicians condemn the Israeli government in scathing terms and advocate for completely cutting them off. But very few have tried to walk the tightrope between these two positions with any sort of nuance, which is why Rahm Emanuel's speech was so interesting.

You can read the full text of Emanuel's speech on his Substack page (complete with a number of typos and, for some reason, numerals seemingly randomly inserted into the text). It's worth the time to read it in full (it's not that long).

Emanuel is rather perfectly positioned to have this "Sister Souljah moment." That phrase, of course, refers to Bill Clinton denouncing a musical performer for her comments on race relations in the U.S. It was seen as a big turning point, because Clinton was seen as taking on extremists within his own party's ranks. So it became shorthand for doing so -- for denouncing someone ostensibly on your side when others in your party stay silent.

Rahm Emanuel has unimpeachable family ties to Israel, which he pointed out at the very start of his speech. His uncle is buried on the Mount of Olives, and "died as a member of the underground." His father was born in Jerusalem and fought in the Israeli war of independence. Emanuel was one of Bill Clinton's senior White House policy advisors when the prime minister of Israel and the leader of the Palestinians shook hands and signed a peace agreement (the Oslo Accords) at the White House in 1993. Those are all pretty strong credentials -- few other Democratic politicians have such impressive and such deep ties to Israel and the peace process.

This is what allowed Emanuel to say what he did this week. He strongly denounced the actions of Benjamin Netanyahu and condemned the approach Israel was taking with the rest of the world:

The Prime Minister and his government have led Israel into a dead-end. For too long, American policy toward Israel operated under the assumption that the best thing Washington could do for Jerusalem was to blindly and silently stand behind your government, without conditions, without demands, and without consequences when we disagreed. That has been our mistake.

Emanuel then listed the mistakes he thinks Netanyahu has made, in detail, and called for a "fundamentally new and different approach to the alliance." He warned that support for Israel is "plummeting" all over the world:

You've lost Europe. Your scientists face exclusion from international research networks. Your artists and academics are shut out of exhibits and conferences. 55% of Americans held a favorable view of Israel in 2022 -- today, it's 37% and dropping.

He then called out President Trump and Netanyahu's rejection of the deal struck with Iran by Barack Obama as a gigantic mistake. He also condemned the Jewish idea of "Greater Israel" (which is the exact opposite of the Palestinians' goal to control everything "from the river to the sea"). And he identifies how America has done itself no favors by its always-unconditional support of Israel: "The hard truth is that America's silence through the years has engendered the worst of your domestic politics. We've done you no favors by averting our eyes from your misjudgments."

Emanuel then called for not a two-state solution but a "23-state solution" -- adding the 21 Arab countries who would, under his plan, set up a governing authority for the Palestinians and then make sure it works and doesn't reward or engage in terrorism. He also called for an end for American military subsidies to Israel (which is a wealthy enough country to afford paying for their own military now). America could continue to sell Israel weapons, on similar terms to how we sell them to other foreign allies.

Nothing Emanuel said was all that radical -- or at the very least, it shouldn't be seen as such. He delivered this speech, after all, in Israel. He wasn't taking potshots at the country from thousands of miles away, he was speaking directly to the Israeli people. And because he is a Jew with strong family ties to the country, he felt no compunction in calling out Netanyahu and identifying his mistakes and shortcomings. Emanuel is able to do so without instantly having the label "anti-Semite" slapped on him, which is what put him in such a unique position to give this speech.

Now, I should state that I am not personally a big fan of Rahm Emanuel. He would not be my first choice for a Democratic presidential nominee in 2028... or my second choice, or third, or fourth. He is a creature of the Democratic establishment and an unapologetic centrist and I do not think he fits the political moment in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I think his upcoming presidential campaign is doomed from the very start. I would welcome just about any other Democrat as the nominee over Rahm, and I know I am not alone in that feeling.

Nonetheless, I remain impressed with what Emanuel just did -- both the symbolism and optics of giving such a speech in Israel as well as the actual content of that speech. Few other Democrats have the ability to give such a speech in such a setting with such an impact. And Emanuel said things that truly needed to be said to the Israeli people by an American Democrat right now.

In fact, this speech might easily become a reference point for other Democrats who are contemplating a presidential run in 2028. I could see such Democrats answering questions about Israel with some version of: "Well, I agree with some of the things Rahm Emanuel said in his Tel Aviv speech, but here is where we differ...."

It is pretty clear that the relationship between Israel and America is going to change in dramatic ways in the very near future. If a Democrat wins in 2028, these changes will likely come quicker and be more dramatic than if a Republican wins the presidency. Or Donald Trump could decide on a whim to radically change everything before we even get to that point. Or (and this is a very real possibility) Netanyahu could lose his upcoming election (which will take place even before our own midterms) and be ousted from power -- that would be a radical change on the other side of the alliance.

What is becoming much clearer is that the status quo of Democratic politicians unquestioningly and unconditionally supporting Israel and its current government is not a dynamic that is going to continue much longer. No matter what my personal views are about Emanuel, I respect his political instincts (in much the same way I used to respect Karl Rove's political instincts). Even he can see that big changes are coming, so he is trying to get out in front of them and address them in a proactive (and provocative) way. I have to salute him for doing so, no matter what I think of him personally. I really think this week's speech by Rahm Emanuel in Tel Aviv is going to become a reference point for other Democratic politicians in the future, which is why I had to write about it today.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant