The general approach of American media to the hostage deal, the events of October 7 and Israel more broadly signals troubling trends for public sentiment toward Israel in the United States.
Conservative outlets such as Fox News and The Wall Street Journal remain steadfast in their support of Israel. Among relatively neutral networks, NewsNation leans slightly toward the political right and exhibits a generally pro-Israel stance. Conversely, CNN skews modestly left and less overtly pro-Israel, though its coverage of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is considered relatively balanced.
The contrast is stark at MSNBC, where many journalists and commentators represent far-left perspectives. The network often portrays Israelis as aggressors and Palestinians as innocent victims. Rare acknowledgments of Israeli suffering are perceived as perfunctory, leaving an uncomfortable impression. Some members of MSNBC’s team are outright antisemites.
The situation is more nuanced at The New York Times and The Washington Post. While The Washington Post’s coverage is not overtly sympathetic to Israel, it includes measured and serious analyses of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
However, the reader comments on its articles reveal a more disturbing trend: a significant number of readers openly express extreme antisemitism, including perpetuating egregious blood libels against Israel. The unfiltered nature of these comments on such a prominent platform underscores the growing normalization of hostile rhetoric against Israel within parts of the American public discourse.
The picture emerging from flipping through The New York Times—which includes Israeli writers among its contributors—is more complex. Since October 7, for every pro-Israel report or article, the paper has published several critical pieces, often harsh and misleading.
'It is crucial to acknowledge that the era of unconditional American support for Israel is over and is unlikely to return'
The fact that the world's most influential newspaper consistently casts Israel in a negative light is deeply concerning. Among the paper's readership, comments tend to favor the Palestinian side, though the vulgarity and overt antisemitism seen in The Washington Post's readership are generally absent from The Times.
Additionally, compared to the Post, there are more pro-Israel voices within The New York Times, both among its columnists and its readers.
Get the Ynetnews app on your smartphone: Google Play: https://bit.ly/4eJ37pE | Apple App Store: https://bit.ly/3ZL7iNv
What conclusions can be drawn from this? First, it is crucial to acknowledge that the era of unconditional American support for Israel is over and is unlikely to return. In general, American media coverage of Israel is nearly evenly split between critics and supporters. At first glance, some may find reassurance in the notion that half of Americans still support Israel. But this is a significant problem.
Even in the wake of the horrors of October 7, half of the American public—particularly those engaged with the news and informed about the region—does not support Israel. Some are even willing to believe the most egregious blood libels and lies about the Jewish state. This is a shocking reality, even without considering that the situation is far worse in Europe and other parts of the world.

Moreover, this trend is unlikely to reverse. It does not take a prophet to predict that in the coming years, fewer Americans will stand with Israel. In the not-so-distant future, the U.S. government itself may no longer support Israel militarily or diplomatically.
The incoming Trump administration may seem pro-Israel, but this is misleading. The reasons most Americans voted for Trump have little to do with Israel. In the future, Israel will have fewer friends in America, and preparations for that day must begin immediately.
Our adversaries likely understand this reality better than we do. Hamas leaders see the American media's reaction to the hostage deal as a significant victory. For the people of Israel, the hostage deal was a necessity that should have occurred many weeks ago. However, we must not delude ourselves—its long-term cost will continue to affect public opinion and media coverage in America for years to come.