US House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Senate Foreign Relations Chair, US Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), listen as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of Congress at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, July 24, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Craig Hudson

On Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke before a joint session of Congress, to near constant and thunderous applause by American lawmakers and their guests.

However, one Republican and some 70 Democrats boycotted the speech, including former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Vice President and presidential hopeful Kamala Harris was also absent, citing a scheduling conflict. This is the only address by a foreign leader to a joint session of Congress that Harris has missed during her term. Capitol Hill also saw several violent protests, including the burning of American flags.

Some of the lawmakers who skipped the speech claim to be “pro-Israel but anti-Netanyahu,” and claim that many Israelis feel the same. But is that really true?

It is common for the United States to oppose leaders of dictatorships or enemy states, but it is extremely rare to oppose the democratically-elected leader of an ally, regardless of that leader’s local popularity.

Israel’s detractors in America and around the world (as well as many Israelis) frequently quote Israel’s Channel 12 poll indicating that 72% of Israelis want Netanyahu to resign. Yet alone, the headline is misleading: in fact, only 44% of Israelis want the Prime Minister to resign immediately, while 28% want him to resign only after completing the current war in Gaza. The remaining 28% support Netanyahu and would like to see him remain in office.

These figures reveal two important insights:  one is that a majority of Israelis (56%) do not want to see a change in leadership until after the current war is complete; the second is that Netanyahu actually has a relatively high degree of support by Israeli standards.

Being accustomed to a two party system, Americans typically see anything less than 50% support as a sign that the public opposes a particular leader. Yet Israel is a multi-party, coalition democracy, where 25% to 30% support is often enough to put a frontrunner ahead of all other contenders.

In fact, if elections were held today, according to another Channel 12 poll, right-leaning former prime minister Naftali Bennett would win with 36% support, while Netanyahu would come in second with 28%. In other words, Netanyahu remains a mainstream political figure with significant support, by Israel’s multi-party standards.

This is not meant to be an endorsement nor a critique of Netanyahu, but merely a sober and unbiased review of the actual math behind the headlines.

The principal Israeli complaint against Netanyahu is that (according to some) he has put the war against Hamas ahead of efforts to return the hostages, perhaps even as a cynical ploy to hold onto power as long as possible. Other critics argue that Netanyahu has mismanaged the war — by not acting decisively enough at the outset or at other pivotal points.

For his part, Netanyahu insists that only military pressure can induce Hamas to agree to a hostage release deal. While some of Netanyahu’s critics claim that he alone is stopping a deal, many others, including the US, claim Hamas is the main impediment, a view supported by numerous Hamas statements and actions.

For example, in every recent negotiation, Hamas has agreed to return hostages only in a slow trickle, yet when Israel agreed to this framework last May, Hamas immediately changed the deal, indicating that they would initially return the bodies of dead hostages while still holding on to living hostages until later. Meanwhile, Hamas gave contradictory and changing reports as to how many hostages they could even locate. In other words, based on evidence, it is possible that Israel could give in to every Hamas demand and yet still not necessarily secure the return of the remaining hostages or even close a deal at all.

Another Israeli complaint against the Prime Minister, including by some IDF commanders, is that Israel can and should agree to end the war against Hamas and may then simply re-enter Gaza later, if necessary, though other military and political leaders disagree. A case in point: when Israel signaled last month that it may be open to negotiating an end to the war, Hamas immediately shifted the focus of negotiations, seeking international enforcement mechanisms that would prevent the IDF from ever breaching the agreement, even in the face of dire military need.

To be clear, this is not intended as a critique of complaints by the families of hostages, who are undergoing unimaginable suffering, nor of the IDF commanders, who have performed exceptionally under difficult circumstances, but rather this is meant to be an accurate and unbiased review of the complex and very real challenges that stand in the way of Israel achieving its goals, including the return of the hostages.

Israel is an outspoken democracy where criticizing the government is practically a national sport. While Netanyahu has faced considerable internal criticism, there are actually a variety of nuanced opinions on the complex challenges that Israel is facing.  Ultimately, the claims by some American headlines and political leaders that most Israelis oppose Netanyahu are an oversimplification at best, and a broad misreading at worst.

Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.