Israel Can’t Take America for Granted

Israel has spent decades treating its alliance with the United States as the bedrock of its national security. That assumption is now being tested. The political landscape in Washington is shifting, Congress is becoming increasingly important to the future of American support for Israel, and Tuesday’s election results should serve as a warning that the old rules no longer apply. Israel can continue to demand American support — but it can no longer assume that support will arrive automatically, indefinitely or without political conditions. 

Israel has spent decades treating its alliance with the United States as the bedrock of its national security.

That assumption is now being tested.

The political calculations in Washington have changed, and Israel would be making a serious mistake by pretending otherwise. Tuesday’s midterm results — combined with the warning delivered by Vice President JD Vance in their aftermath — should force Jerusalem to take a hard look at where its relationship with Washington is heading.

The next time Israel seeks to purchase F-35 fighter jets, replenish missile stocks or secure funding for systems such as Iron Dome and Arrow, it may discover that Washington is no longer operating under the same political assumptions.

American support remains powerful. But it is no longer something Israel can simply take for granted.

The Money Is Not Automatic

The numbers alone should get Jerusalem’s attention.

Israel receives roughly $3.8 billion a year in American military assistance under an agreement negotiated during the Obama administration. Approximately $3.3 billion goes toward military procurement, while another $500 million supports joint missile-defense programs, including Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow.

But there is an important reality that is sometimes overlooked in Israel: Congress must appropriate that money.

The funds do not simply appear because the White House supports Israel.

The current agreement runs through September 2028, but it is an agreement between two governments — not a legally binding command to future members of Congress.

That means lawmakers can make funding more difficult. They can demand conditions. They can challenge appropriations. And they can refuse to approve new funding.

A president cannot simply order Congress to spend money Congress has declined to authorize.

That constitutional reality could become increasingly important.

Congress Is Becoming the Battlefield

The issue goes well beyond direct military assistance.

Major American arms sales to Israel are also subject to congressional scrutiny. Although lawmakers do not normally need to cast an affirmative vote to approve such transactions, Congress has mechanisms for delaying or attempting to block them.

Major weapons sales must generally be reported to Congress when they exceed certain financial thresholds, giving lawmakers a period in which they can review the proposed transaction.

Members can introduce legislation seeking to block a sale. Senior lawmakers can also raise objections during the informal review process.

A determined president may be able to overcome such resistance.

But the fact that a president can overcome congressional opposition does not mean congressional opposition is irrelevant.

The political environment has changed.

A weapons sale that might once have moved through Washington with relatively little controversy could increasingly become the subject of a public political fight.

That creates a potentially dangerous scenario for Israel.

Israel could have the money to purchase American weapons — yet encounter political resistance to the sale.

It could need additional missile interceptors following a war — yet face resistance to the funding necessary to replenish its stockpiles.

Those are not abstract Washington arguments.

They directly affect Israel’s military readiness and its ability to protect its citizens.

Israel Is No Longer the Same Country

There is another major transformation underway — and it could ultimately redefine the alliance itself.

President Donald Trump has indicated that the traditional model of direct American military assistance could eventually give way to a different framework for U.S.-Israel defense cooperation. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also discussed moving in this direction.

The concept is straightforward: instead of Washington simply providing billions of dollars for Israel to purchase American weapons, the two countries could increasingly invest together in the development and production of advanced military technologies that serve both nations.

There is a strong argument for this approach.

Israel is not the country it was when American military assistance became a central pillar of its defense strategy.

Israel today has a powerful economy, a sophisticated defense industry and technological capabilities that the United States itself increasingly values.

Artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, counter-drone technology and advanced air and missile defense are areas where cooperation could benefit both countries.

Congress is already considering legislation that would establish a new U.S.-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative, potentially expanding joint work in precisely these areas.

But there is a catch.

The legislation has passed the House but has not yet become law. And even if it becomes law, authorization does not automatically guarantee funding.

Some lawmakers have already sought to remove or substantially change the provision.

That means Israel could face the worst of both worlds: the old aid model could be weakened while the new partnership intended to replace it remains politically uncertain.

The Democratic Victory Is a Warning

None of this means every Democrat supports cutting military assistance to Israel.

They do not.

Nor does Tuesday’s election mean that every proposal to restrict Israel’s military cooperation with Washington will suddenly become law.

President Trump remains in office. He retains broad executive authority. He can veto legislation.

But Israel would be foolish to dismiss the election results.

The political center of gravity in Washington is moving.

And Jerusalem needs to understand what that means.

The Israeli opposition faces its own political arithmetic. Without cooperation from Arab parties, figures such as Gadi Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Liberman and Yair Lapid do not currently have the numbers required to form a government.

That reality has not changed.

But the urgency has.

The election should force Israeli political leaders to confront a changing international environment and recognize that political paralysis carries a price.

A New Government Would Help — But Not Enough

Replacing Netanyahu could improve Israel’s relationship with Washington.

A new prime minister could potentially rebuild relationships with Democratic lawmakers, restore trust with congressional leaders and create a less hostile political atmosphere between Jerusalem and Washington.

But Israelis should not fool themselves.

Changing the faces at the top of the government will not automatically change the way significant parts of the Democratic Party view Israel.

It will not.

The disagreements are deeper than one prime minister.

They involve settlement expansion, settler violence, the future of Gaza, relations with the Palestinian Authority, judicial policy and broader questions about Israel’s long-term political and diplomatic strategy.

Those disagreements will not disappear simply because Netanyahu is replaced by Eisenkot, Bennett or anyone else.

A new Israeli government might receive a honeymoon period.

Meetings in Washington could become warmer. Congressional rhetoric could become less confrontational. A new Israeli leader not associated with Netanyahu’s policies could receive a measure of goodwill.

But goodwill has limits.

If the underlying policies remain unchanged, the political disagreements will return.

Changing Leaders Is Not Enough

This is the uncomfortable truth Israel needs to confront.

A new government without meaningful policy changes will not solve the underlying problem.

If Israel continues expanding settlements and outposts, fails to confront settler violence and offers no credible diplomatic horizon, a new administration in Jerusalem will eventually face the same political pressures.

The question, therefore, is not simply whether Netanyahu remains prime minister.

The larger question is whether Israel changes course.

Israel is entitled to defend itself.

It is entitled to reject policies that it believes threaten its security.

It is entitled to insist that the lessons of October 7 cannot simply be forgotten.

And there are legitimate security concerns surrounding the creation of a Palestinian state that many Americans do not fully appreciate.

But defending Israel’s vital interests is not the same thing as unnecessarily widening the political divide with the nation that remains its most important strategic partner.

There is a difference between standing firm and becoming strategically isolated.

Israel needs to understand that difference.

The Cost of Isolation

The direction of Israeli policy could carry consequences far beyond diplomatic arguments.

Greater international isolation could mean increasing pressure from Washington, mounting diplomatic challenges and, eventually, economic consequences that ordinary Israelis would feel.

That should not be dismissed as an empty threat.

Israel has survived wars, terrorism and diplomatic pressure before.

But no responsible government should deliberately make its strategic position harder.

The United States remains central to Israel’s military capabilities, diplomatic position and technological future.

That makes the relationship too important to gamble with.

Israel Needs a New Strategy

The answer is not for Israel to become a passive client of Washington.

Nor should Israel accept every demand coming from American politicians simply to preserve good relations.

Israel must remain capable of making its own security decisions.

But strategic independence does not mean strategic isolation.

The path forward requires a government capable of maintaining Israel’s military strength while recognizing the political realities of modern Washington.

Ideally, that means a broad national-unity government.

But changing the government will only be the beginning.

The next leadership will need the courage to make difficult decisions, repair relationships across the American political spectrum and recognize that Israel cannot continue pursuing the same policies while expecting the relationship with Washington to remain unchanged.

The Old Assumption Is Gone

For decades, Israelis have regarded the alliance with the United States as one of the fundamental pillars of their national security.

That alliance remains extraordinarily powerful.

But the political foundation beneath it is no longer as stable as many Israelis once believed.

Washington has changed.

Congress has changed.

The Democratic Party has changed.

And the American political debate over Israel is changing with it.

Israel does not have to surrender its security interests to adapt.

It does, however, have to recognize reality.

The days when American support could simply be assumed are ending.

The United States will remain Israel’s indispensable ally — but the alliance will require political investment, strategic discipline and a willingness from Jerusalem to understand the changing realities of Washington.

Israel cannot afford to ignore that warning.