Netanyahu Shows Why U.S. Aid To Israel Must End

The U.S-Israel relationship must mature

Notwithstanding the horrible incident Saturday night, the news does not stop, and neither do we. The Middle East in particular continues to demand our attention.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s legacy will include:

1.) The colossal Oct. 7 security debacle, followed by war-deploying tactics that defied international law and horrified the world; and

2.) A cataclysmic shift in the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Thanks to the Gaza and Iran wars (the latter, which Netanyahu encouraged Donald Trump to launch), the United States’ disapproval of Israel has skyrocketed. A recent Pew poll showed 60% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Israel; among Democrats, disapproval is at 80%. Voters under 50 in both parties have an unfavorable view of Israel. It is no mystery why: An authoritarian prime minister engaged in constant war (and whose government is part of a coalition with rabid racists) disregards civilian casualties and no longer seeks peaceful accommodation with Palestinians.

Raphael BenLevi explains that the interests of the U.S. and Israel in the region have diverged sharply under Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition. In the past, our aid helped “to incentivize Israel to negotiate peace deals with the Palestinians” (for example, to urge a Camp David deal in 2000 and progress at the Annapolis summit in 2007). However, “the prevailing mindset of the Israeli public and its political leadership since October 7 has shifted,” BenLevi observes. “The country is no longer willing to take any chances with its security and is unlikely to consider any policies that leave it exposed to invasion or rocket and missile attacks.”

That is a delicate way of saying that after the trauma of Oct. 7, Israel’s stance has been that an aggressive and constant war with little regard for civilians was essential to its survival, and that a Palestinian state must be resisted at all costs. The current Israeli government adamantly opposes negotiations to contain the Iranian threat and insists on wholesale occupation and warfare in Lebanon to remove any remnants of Hezbollah. It pines for creating a failed state in Iran (which would create a haven for terrorists and a nuclear proliferation nightmare). It inflicts mass civilian casualties in Beirut, Gaza, and Iran, as if total destruction of its opponents is possible and the sole means to protect itself.

This approach does not align with U.S. interests or values. As the failed Iran war shows, Israel’s position puts the region in greater peril and the world’s economy/energy supply at the mercy of Iran. If the war shows anything, it is that a purely military solution cannot obliterate Israel’s security threats; like it or not, Israel at some point must seek political accommodation and negotiation. As The Economist put it, “Israel’s overwhelming military superiority is not a solution in itself. One consequence is that people who once sympathized with Israel in democracies around the world, most notably in Europe and America, have grown increasingly hostile to it.”

Now, the U.S. and Israel do have common interests. The U.S. generally prefers democratic allies (and Netanyahu puts Israel’s democracy in question). The U.S. has a longstanding commitment to preserve a homeland for the Jewish people — but also to recognize the aspirations of Palestinians. The U.S. benefits from intelligence sharing, joint technology development, and cooperative regional deterrence with Israel. None of that, however, justifies perpetual, lavish military aid without conditions.

The 2016 U.S.-Israel memorandum of understanding for military aid will expire in 2028. Using our blank check recklessly, to both countries’ detriment, makes Israel’s approach unsustainable. In light of changed circumstances, we must reconfigure our support.

For one thing, as Israel’s economy and technology have matured, it can take greater responsibility for its own defense. When no longer dependent on U.S. aid, Israel can nurture its own defense industry.

Moreover, tensions are heightened in continual fights over whether U.S.-provided weapons should be used in ways that clash with Americans’ interests. Rather than promote bipartisan agreement, aid has become a flash point that undermines bipartisan support for Israel.

As a result of these developments, many pro-democracy, pro-Israel progressives now advocate shifting to “a US-Israel security relationship that treats Israel as a normal ally — not an exception that receives unquestioning, blank check support from the United States,” as J Street recently put it.

“The use of American weapons in ways that have resulted in mass civilian casualties and raised serious concerns about war crimes, alongside policies that diverge from US interests, has intensified scrutiny of how American support is structured and delivered,” J Street argued. It makes a case for phasing out direct aid. Arms sales to Israel can maintain its qualitative advantage but must comply with U.S. law (e.g., prohibiting sales to countries that violate human rights or block humanitarian aid). And “[w]here US and Israeli interests align… cooperation, including joint research and technological investment, should continue.” However, these arrangements should “include genuine cost-sharing and aim to produce defense items that both countries plan to field.”

Even Israelis have advocated dropping the old aid model, BenLevi writes:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, giving voice to the growing disquiet in Israel’s security establishment that dependence on U.S. largesse has unnecessarily constrained Israel’s military actions, recently insisted that the country had “come of age” and should seek to wind down over “the next ten years” the U.S. military aid it receives.

MAGA Republicans, encouraged by Christian Zionists and Islamaphobic white Christian evangelicals, would love to keep sending blank checks to a right-wing Israeli government that wages indiscriminate war on Muslims and propounds authoritarian domestic policies. But that arrangement offends most Americans. To the extent the very same MAGA crowd demands Europe (which does align with our interests and values) become more self-sufficient, their argument for awarding Israel special treatment divorced from U.S. interests does not hold up to scrutiny.

We have seen this play out in AIPAC’s dark money battle in the Democratic primaries. Rather than advocate simply for strong U.S.-Israel ties, AIPAC now insists on unqualified support for the extremist Netanyahu government. It attacks genuinely pro-Israel candidates (e.g., Tom Malinowski, Daniel Biss) who dare to consider conditioning aid. It has backed election deniers so long as they support unconditional aid. AIPAC’s strategy has earned Democrats’ enmity, undermined pro-democracy defenders, and occasionally helped the least pro-Israel candidate win (e.g., N.J. 11th). That is lousy for democracy and for bipartisan support for Israel, which Israel historically prized as a guarantee of continuity in the U.S.-Israel relationship.

In short, the U.S. must cement mutually beneficial policies with Israel, as it does with other countries. We can support Israel’s legitimate defense needs and foster areas of cooperation, but also vigorously oppose harebrained wars, domestic authoritarianism, and human rights violations (including violent repression in the West Bank).

We have reached a critical juncture in the U.S.-Israel relationship. As we set the contours of future military/security arrangements, we must put relations on a firmer footing. Otherwise, Israel may lose all U.S. support for the foreseeable future — with only Netanyahu to blame.