In America, public opinion on Palestine no longer matches policy 

On 4 September at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, Macklemore, the American rapper known for "Thrift Shop", shared a stage with one of the world's biggest pop stars and called for a free Palestine. Days later, he no longer had a place on Ed Sheeran's tour.

On 14 September, the American rapper said in a statement posted on Instagram that several venues had refused to host him during Sheeran's tour. Sheeran blamed the promoter for his removal.

Robert Kraft, a Jewish billionaire who owns Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts, defended excluding Macklemore, citing what he described as a history of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery. The rapper rejected the claim that criticism of Israel amounted to hostility towards Jewish people.

There is no evidence that the Trump administration had anything to do with Macklemore's removal. But the dispute raises a question that also applies to US policy. More and more Americans are expressing sympathy for Palestinians with each passing day[C1] . Why has it then made so little difference to the decisions taken by those in power?

A public that has moved

A February 2026 survey by Gallup, an American polling organisation, found that 41% of Americans sympathised more with Palestinians, while 36% favoured Israelis. The gap was too small to establish a clear lead for either side. But it marked a change. Israelis had been ahead in every annual Gallup survey from 2001 to 2025.

On the other hand, some 65% of Democrats sympathised more with Palestinians, while 70% of Republicans favoured Israelis. Among adults aged 18 to 34, Palestinian sympathy reached 53%. These figures describe a divided country rather than a settled national consensus.

The numbers help explain why policy does not simply follow the national average. Republican leaders know that most of their voters still favour Israel. Democrats, especially those with younger supporters, face more calls to support Palestinians.

"Criticism of Israel is not hostility towards Jewish people."  -Macklemore

But sympathy is only part of the picture. People may care about Palestinian suffering without agreeing that the US should stop supplying Israel with weapons or recognise a Palestinian state.

Still, the change challenges the assumption that strong backing for Israeli government policy reflects an equally strong consensus across American society.

Other musicians also took a stand. American singer and producer Finneas, Danish band Lukas Graham, Irish singer Aaron Rowe and Irish folk band Beoga pulled out of Sheeran's tour in solidarity with Macklemore. Finneas was due to join the South American shows, while Beoga had been performing alongside Sheeran during his sets.

More than a question of delay

Calling American policy slow captures only part of the problem. Washington is capable of moving quickly. The question is which priorities receive that urgency.

On 16 September, US Congressman Gregory Meeks said he would not approve a proposed $2.8 billion weapons sale to Israel because the administration had not shown how civilians would be protected.

"Macklemore's removal from the tour was the promoter's decision." -Ed Sheeran

The package includes 40,000 bombs, each weighing 2,000 pounds. But Meeks cannot stop the sale on his own. The Trump administration could declare a wartime emergency and proceed without the usual congressional review, as it has done before.

The US government is making a choice here. It is pushing ahead with military support for Israel despite concerns that the weapons could harm civilians.

US military support for Israel has continued under various presidents.

"Macklemore was excluded because of… antisemitic rhetoric and imagery." -Robert Kraft

In 2016, Washington agreed to provide $38 billion over 10 years, ending in September 2028, to help Israel buy military equipment and fund missile defence systems.

Reuters reported in January that Israel was preparing to seek another agreement, with more emphasis on jointly developing defence projects. These agreements keep the two countries working closely together even when a new president takes office.

Supporters regard this continuity as a strength. AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, argues that cooperation in intelligence, missile defence and technology advances American security. From this perspective, assisting Israel is an American strategic choice, not simply a concession to foreign pressure.

But an alliance does not settle every decision about weapons or accountability. Supporting Israeli security and demanding protection for Palestinian civilians need not be competing commitments. The difficulty is making the second carry consequences when it conflicts with the first.

The political cost of changing course

Organised lobbying helps reinforce that imbalance. AIPAC openly campaigns to elect candidates who support the alliance and defeat its critics. It says its members and donors are Americans and that it is neither directed nor funded by Israel's government.

In 2024, its affiliated campaign group, the United Democracy Project, spent about $15 million against Jamaal Bowman and $8.5 million against Cori Bush. Both were Democratic members of Congress who criticised Israel's war in Gaza. Both lost their party's primary elections.

Spending alone does not prove why voters rejected either candidate. It does, however, illustrate the resources an organised group can bring to individual contests. For a politician, national polling is one consideration. A heavily funded challenge in their own constituency is another.

"We are withdrawing from the tour in solidarity with Macklemore." -Finneas, Lukas Graham, Aaron Rowe and Beoga

Many evangelical Christians in the US also strongly support Israel, although younger members are less supportive. The Washington Post reported in January that American pastors had visited Israel as part of an effort to rebuild that support.

So it would be wrong to blame Jewish Americans as a group for US policy. Support for Israel comes from people of different faiths and political backgrounds. To understand their influence, we need to look at how they fund campaigns, lobby politicians and make their case for the alliance.

The Israeli American Council, which campaigned against Macklemore's participation, is a separate organisation from AIPAC. Its involvement and Kraft's venue decision should be examined on their own evidence, not treated as proof that one organisation directs both Congress and concert bookings.

What kind of peace broker?

The deeper foreign policy problem concerns credibility. On 4 June 2025, Washington vetoed a Gaza ceasefire resolution supported by the other 14 Security Council members. American officials argued that its terms failed to adequately address Hamas and to link a ceasefire to hostage releases. Those concerns explain the veto, but do not remove its consequences for efforts to stop the fighting.

AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, argues that cooperation in intelligence, missile defence and technology advances American security. From this perspective, assisting Israel is an American strategic choice, not simply a concession to foreign pressure.

American diplomacy has also produced results. A ceasefire brokered by the US took effect in October 2025. That record makes it inaccurate to describe Washington as doing nothing for peace. The more difficult question is whether its diplomatic efforts are undermined by the military and political protection it continues to provide.

This September, Washington extended visa sanctions against officials from the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, which represents Palestinians internationally.

Its stated objections included Palestinian efforts to pursue international court action and recognition of statehood. Palestinian officials argue that decades of negotiations mediated by America have failed to deliver independence.

If negotiations fail and alternative diplomatic routes are penalised, Palestinians are left asking what effective peaceful route remains.

Macklemore's removal showed how quickly a dispute over Palestine can reach the music industry. But it also showed that not everyone accepted the decision. Four artists left the tour in protest, while some US lawmakers have begun questioning further arms sales to Israel.

Even so, the people objecting do not have the final say. The venue owner could block an artist from performing, and the government can still go ahead with an arms sale despite objections in Congress. That is why public sympathy for Palestinians has not yet brought a major shift in US policy.