On November 5th, former President Donald Trump decisively won over his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris. For many in the pro-Israel camp in America—along with the Israeli right—this outcome felt like a significant win. Trump, they believe, will grant Israel greater latitude in Gaza, potentially expediting the return of hostages and securing a resolution more favorable to Israel.

This perspective may hold some truth. A Trump administration could adopt a less demanding stance on humanitarian aid to Gaza, take a harder line against Hamas’s backers in Iran, and impose fewer restrictions on Israel’s military operations. However, Israel cannot afford to let this situation linger. Even with Trump poised to return to the White House, Israel’s best course of action is to conclude the war in Gaza before Trump is given the keys to the White House. While delays might yield short-term advantages, they risk undermining Israel’s most vital alliance.

To safeguard the long-term strength of the U.S.-Israel relationship, the conflict must end before Trump assumes office on January 20. Otherwise, support for Israel could devolve into a partisan wedge issue in the United States, weakening the alliance and jeopardizing the strategic interests of both nations.

Since its founding, Israel has relied on bipartisan support in the U.S., a cornerstone of American foreign policy. Both Democrats and Republicans have consistently upheld the U.S.-Israel relationship as one of America’s most important alliances. While critics argue that the Democratic Party has already abandoned its pro-Israel stance, this assertion oversimplifies the reality.

President Joe Biden, a lifelong Democrat, openly identifies as a Zionist and has directed billions in military aid to Israel over the past year. His administration has steadfastly shielded Israel from condemnation at the United Nations, even post-election. Democratic leaders such as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have publicly affirmed Israel’s right to self-defense, as demonstrated during last year’s March for Israel. The Democratic National Convention further underscored its support by giving a platform to the families of Israeli hostages while sidelining anti-Israel factions.

The anti-Israel movement, often conflated with progressive Democratic politics, represents a distinct ideological strain. These activists have branded Biden—arguably one of Israel’s strongest defenders in the White House—as “Genocide Joe.” Many abstained from voting or backed third-party candidates with explicitly anti-Israel platforms. Their alignment with some Democratic policies does not make them Democrats; their fundamental opposition to Biden’s Zionist stance placed them on the periphery.

Many exacerbated Democrats went so far as to argue that Muslim voters in Michigan were voting against their interests by voting for Jill Stein, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West, and other candidates that the Trump campaign wisely promoted as alternatives to Kamala Harris.

This dynamic also holds true among Democratic lawmakers. A vocal minority has sought to erode support for Israel but has faced pushback from the party’s mainstream. Under Biden’s leadership, anti-Israel factions had little incentive to challenge the administration’s policies, as doing so risked aiding Republicans. Yet Trump’s victory changes these calculations. Some progressives have already begun framing the election outcome as a consequence of the Democratic Party’s alignment with Israel.

If the conflict extends beyond Inauguration Day, the implications could be profound. At some point, Congress will need to deliberate on U.S. support for the war. For Democratic legislators with neutral or skeptical views on Israel, aligning with Republican-backed pro-Israel measures could alienate key segments of their constituencies. The trend is already visible. In January, only 11 senators supported efforts to condition aid to Israel. By year’s end, resolutions to block specific arms sales to Israel garnered 17 to 19 votes—indicating growing skepticism.

Should Israel become a partisan issue, the consequences would outlast the current conflict. Bipartisan support, once a given, could become a relic of the past. Upholding the U.S.-Israel alliance might come to be viewed as a divisive, cross-party stance.

Conversely, concluding the war before Biden leaves office offers an opportunity to reinforce Democratic support for Israel. Ending the conflict under a Democratic administration would validate longstanding party policies and blunt the momentum of the anti-Israel movement. While figures like “the Squad” may continue advocating against Israel, the absence of a live conflict would mitigate their influence. The alternative—a prolonged war under Trump—could swell the ranks of anti-Israel voices in Congress, transforming a fringe movement into a formidable bloc.

Over the past year, the indispensability of the U.S.-Israel alliance has been laid bare. Without American military aid, weapons, and diplomatic backing, Israel would be severely weakened and globally isolated. Preserving bipartisan support for this relationship is crucial to Israel’s security and stability.

The U.S.-Israel alliance has weathered political transitions before. Yet never has it faced a vocal, organized anti-Israel movement of today’s magnitude. To protect its most critical partnership, Israel must act decisively—before it’s too late.