There’s something profoundly troubling about watching political leaders lose an election and immediately look everywhere for answers except in the mirror.

It’s what children do when they fail a test. They blame the teacher, the questions, the classroom. Anyone but themselves.

Eventually, we expect children to grow up. Shouldn’t we expect the same from our elected officials?

Following Tuesday’s Republican losses, Vice President JD Vance took to X to explain what went wrong.

He cited a pollster who identified four things that could bring disaffected Trump voters back: ending the war, addressing inflation, putting America first, and changing America’s relationship with Israel.

Changing America’s relationship with Israel?

Mr. Vice President, you didn’t have to agree with the pollster. You had an opportunity to challenge the implication.

You could have acknowledged Americans’ frustration while explaining what our alliance with Israel actually means for American security. You could have distinguished opposition to the Iran war from opposition to the U.S.–Israel partnership.

Instead, you repeated the finding without offering that distinction.

What exactly should change? Military cooperation? Intelligence sharing? Joint defense development? The structure of American military assistance?

Those are entirely different conversations, with very different consequences.

America First and standing with Israel are not mutually exclusive.

When political advertising replaces economic reality

Consider the Michigan political advertisement supporting Abdul El-Sayed.

Produced by Rebellion PAC, an independent organization, the advertisement portrayed an American family struggling to afford groceries while suggesting that U.S. support for Israel was responsible for their financial hardship.

El-Sayed’s campaign initially distanced itself from the advertisement without addressing its substance. He later stated publicly that he did not agree with its contents. The initial reluctance to challenge the message directly is what raises questions about political responsibility. 

That distinction matters.

Saying “I didn’t make the advertisement” is not the same as saying “The advertisement is wrong.”

The advertisement’s suggestion deserves examination. Where is the evidence that American support for Israel caused that family’s grocery bills?

Americans are struggling with the cost of living. Those struggles are real, and they deserve serious solutions.

But Israel does not set American grocery prices, determine American healthcare policy, or control inflation.

Compelling advertising is not the same as sound economic analysis.

Americans have every right to question foreign aid. But they also deserve to understand what their country receives in return.

What America actually receives from Israel

American jobs and defense manufacturing. Much of U.S. military assistance to Israel finances purchases from American defense companies, supporting domestic manufacturing, workers, and defense production. This remains a real taxpayer expenditure, but it is not simply money transferred abroad without economic activity in the United States.

Missile defense technology. The United States and Israel jointly develop and produce systems including Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow. American companies participate in production, while both countries benefit from research, technological development, and operational experience.

These arrangements are documented in the Congressional Research Service report on U.S. foreign aid to Israel.

Intelligence and counterterrorism. The United States and Israel cooperate against shared security threats, including Iran and armed organizations operating throughout the Middle East.

Cybersecurity and innovation. The partnership extends to cybersecurity, homeland security, defense research, and technological development, as documented in the U.S. State Department’s security cooperation overview.

These are strategic interests, not charitable gestures.

And there is another contribution that deserves far more attention.

Boots on the ground

Israel has its own soldiers confronting threats in one of the world’s most dangerous and strategically consequential regions.

Its military confronts Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iranian-backed armed groups whose activities can also threaten American interests.

Israel does not fight America’s wars for it, and no one can calculate precisely how many American deployments Israeli operations may have prevented.

But consider the alternative.

If Israel were no longer there to confront these threats, who would?

Those threats would not necessarily disappear. Other regional powers and armed organizations could compete to fill the vacuum. American forces might face additional responsibilities.

And those responsibilities could carry consequences for American military families.

I explored these questions in my three-part Times of Israel series, “Delete Israel.” Okay. And Then What?

In Part I: What Does ‘Free Palestine’ Actually Look Like If It Wins?, I examined the potential consequences for Palestinians themselves.

In Part II: Israel Is Gone. Who Fills the Vacuum?, I explored the regional security vacuum and what it could mean for America and Western democracies.

And in Part III: The Celebrity Megaphone and the Morning After, I questioned the responsibility of public figures who amplify political slogans without addressing their potential consequences.

Spoiler alert: It doesn’t end well for Western civilization as we know it.

That was my conclusion from examining the hypothetical. It is not a prediction that can be established with certainty, but the strategic questions are worth asking.

Because slogans are easy. Governing is hard. And consequences do not disappear because they don’t fit into a campaign advertisement.

From aid to partnership: Israel’s next chapter

And here is something that makes this entire debate even more interesting.

Israel is already preparing for a future without American military aid. 

This is not hypothetical.

In January, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his intention to phase out U.S. military assistance over the next decade.

In May, he reaffirmed that position in an interview with 60 Minutes, explaining that he wanted to eliminate the financial component of American military support while preserving military cooperation.

And on November 3, President Trump announced that the two leaders had agreed to end approximately $4 billion in annual assistance by the end of 2026.

That accelerated deadline has not been publicly confirmed by Netanyahu, and the existing assistance agreement runs through fiscal year 2028. How the transition will be implemented remains an open question.

But the direction Netanyahu has advocated is unmistakable.

Israel wants to move from aid recipient to strategic partner.

Greater investment in its domestic defense industry. Greater control over military procurement. Less dependence on American financial assistance and the political conditions that can accompany it.

There is a difference between being an ally and being dependent on one.

And there is an equally important difference between ending financial assistance and ending an alliance.

Israel is not proposing to walk away from America. It is proposing to stand more independently alongside it.

That independence would come at a price. Israel would need to replace billions in financing and strengthen its ability to obtain or manufacture advanced military equipment.

But the United States would also need to consider what this transition means for American defense contracts and Washington’s influence over Israeli security decisions.

The relationship could evolve toward greater joint research, defense technology, intelligence sharing, and commercial military cooperation rather than traditional financial assistance.

Indeed, the Congressional Research Service has examined this proposed transition, including opportunities for expanded joint defense investment.

And that brings us back to the question Vice President Vance should have addressed.

If America changes its relationship with Israel, are we talking about ending financial dependence between allies or weakening the strategic partnership itself?

Those are not the same thing.

And confusing them does neither country any favors.

Leadership Begins With Accountability

Americans have legitimate concerns about inflation, military spending, foreign intervention, and the Iran war. Those concerns deserve serious attention.

The Republican Party also has every reason to examine why voters rejected it.

But weakening America’s relationship with Israel will not fix America’s grocery prices, healthcare costs, inflation, or domestic policy failures. Those problems demand accountability and solutions from American leaders, not the convenient scapegoating of a strategic ally.

I believe the administration should have demonstrated a clearer and more consistent stance in confronting terrorism, supporting America’s allies, and explaining its foreign-policy decisions.

Americans can disagree about military intervention without ignoring the strategic value of an alliance.

And elected officials have a responsibility to explain the consequences of the policies they discuss, especially when those policies concern American national security.

Israel did not cast America’s ballots.

Israel did not run the Republican campaigns.

Israel did not write America’s economic policies.

The administration’s decisions, its conduct of the war, and its handling of domestic concerns deserve examination on their own merits.

Mr. Vice President, if you believe America’s relationship with Israel needs to change, explain what that change would accomplish.

And if you are simply reporting what voters told a pollster, explain why their proposed solution would or would not serve American interests.

Because leadership requires more than repeating public dissatisfaction. It requires the willingness to question the proposed answers.

Before we reduce the U.S.– Israel relationship to another argument about billions of dollars, I want to leave you with one final thought.

The question is not simply what America gives Israel. It is also what Israel’s existence may prevent America from having to sacrifice.

And that includes something far more precious than money.

American lives.