Eleven Hard Questions About Israel and American Interests, Answered

If you talk about Israel at a family barbecue, you will lose your appetite before the potato salad is gone. One uncle says the aid is a scandal. A cousin says it is a sacred obligation. A neighbor says it is all about oil, and a different neighbor says oil has nothing to do with it. Everyone is certain, and almost no one has read the memorandum.

You deserve better answers than the barbecue gives you. The questions below are the ones skeptics ask, and they come from both directions. Some come from the left, some from conservatives who are tired of foreign commitments, and some from people who simply want to know what the country is doing and why. I try to answer each one straight. The policy is fair game for argument. People are not, and you will not find me waving a flag at anyone who asks a hard question.

Ground rules

Two rules for this post.

First, I argue policy, never the people. A citizen who is skeptical of aid to Israel is not a bigot, and a citizen who supports it is not a dupe. Any argument that questions someone's loyalty because of his religion or ethnicity is a bad argument, and conservatives should say so out loud.

Second, I use no current dollar figures or polls. Numbers in this area change, and many articles on the subject are out of date by the time you read them. Where a figure matters, I tell you where to check: the Congressional Research Service, the State Department, and Congress.gov.

The case for the alliance

1. Why does America back Israel at all?

For four reasons that stack on top of each other, and you should weigh each separately.

One, shared political values. Israel is a parliamentary democracy with free elections, an independent judiciary, and a press that can say harsh things about its government. In a region where that is rare, a democratic partner is worth something, even if no ally is perfect.

Two, strategic position. Israel sits near the Suez Canal, the eastern Mediterranean, and some of the world's most important energy routes. During the Cold War it was a counterweight to Soviet-backed regimes. It remains a capable military force next to an unstable neighborhood.

Three, capability. Israel's armed forces are professional, and its defense industry produces technology that the United States uses and learns from.

Four, history and conscience. Many Americans, of many faiths, feel an obligation toward the only Jewish state, especially after the Holocaust. That is a moral argument, not a strategic one, and it is fair to label it as such.

A skeptic can accept the first three and dispute the fourth, or the reverse. What you cannot do is pretend there is only one reason. For the dated history of how those reasons built up, see From Truman's Recognition to Camp David, the US-Israel Alliance in Dates.

2. Is it just about oil?

No, and the oil argument is weaker than people think. Israel has no oil to speak of. And the one time the alliance clearly cost the United States in energy terms was in 1973, when Arab producers embargoed oil to the United States after America resupplied Israel during the Yom Kippur War. If American policy were really about oil, that decision would have gone the other way. The Arab oil states were the bigger prize for anyone counting barrels.

The better version of the question is about interests in the region as a whole, and that deserves a straight answer: the United States has interests on several sides and has to balance them. It does so imperfectly.

3. What does America get from intelligence and military cooperation?

Quite a bit, though much of it is classified and I will not pretend to know the details. In general terms, the two countries share intelligence on terrorism, missile technology, and regional threats. They cooperate on missile defense. The Israeli military tests equipment in real combat conditions, and the lessons feed back into American practice. American arms sales to Israel also benefit American manufacturers and keep production lines running.

The honest limits: this is a relationship in which the United States gives more in direct aid than it receives in direct cash. The question is whether the intelligence, technology, and strategic value are worth it. Reasonable people say yes. Reasonable people can say it is not worth it. But "America gets nothing" is false.

Money and conditions

4. How does the aid actually work?

Not the way most people think. American military aid to Israel is governed by multi-year memoranda of understanding, usually spanning a decade, negotiated between the two governments. The two most recent ones were signed in 2007 and 2016, and a 1998 understanding began the shift described below. Congress then appropriates the money each year within the framework.

Three features are worth knowing.

• The shift from economic to military aid. Beginning in the late 1990s the two countries agreed to phase out economic assistance and concentrate on military assistance. Israel's economy had grown enough that cash for general purposes no longer made sense.
• Spending in America. Over the years the arrangement has required more and more of the military aid to be spent on American-made equipment. The money goes to American factories and workers. The 2016 framework phased out the earlier exception that let Israel spend part of the money at home.
• The commitment not to ask for more. In the 2016 agreement, Israel agreed in effect not to seek additional funds from Congress beyond the memorandum, except in emergencies.

I deliberately do not give you the totals. Look them up at the Congressional Research Service, which publishes regular reports on this subject, and confirm the date of the report before quoting a figure.

5. Shouldn't a conservative oppose foreign aid on principle?

It's a fair question, and conservatives have argued it for generations. The principle that Washington should spend only on matters within its constitutional responsibilities is a sound one. National defense is among those responsibilities, and military aid to an ally is part of a defense posture. Whether it is wise is a policy question, not a constitutional one.

What a consistent conservative should insist on is the same scrutiny for every foreign-aid line, not special treatment for one country, either favorable or hostile. Foreign aid in total is small beside the big domestic entitlements. If the goal is to restore fiscal sanity, foreign aid is not where the money is. That does not mean it should be exempt from review. It means the review should be even-handed and based on results.

6. Is American support unconditional?

No, and history shows it. President Eisenhower forced Israel out of the Sinai in 1957. President Ford announced a "reassessment" of policy in 1975. President Reagan held up F-16 deliveries after the 1981 strike on Iraq's nuclear reactor and suspended cluster-bomb shipments after the 1982 Lebanon war. President George H. W. Bush delayed loan guarantees in 1991. Every one of them was a friend of the alliance.

And the law applies to Israel as it applies to every recipient. American arms-export statutes and conditions on the use of American weapons are written in general terms, not for one country. So when someone says the aid comes with no strings, the correct reply is that strings exist, and presidents have pulled them. You may think they should pull harder or less often. That's an argument, and it's a legitimate one.

Peace, Jerusalem, and land

7. What is the two-state debate really about?

The idea is that there would be a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side. It has been American policy across many administrations of both parties. The 1993 Oslo Accords were meant to start the process. The trouble has always been the details: borders, security arrangements, the status of Jerusalem, the fate of refugees, and whether the Palestinian leadership can govern and deliver security.

In 2005 Israel withdrew its settlers and forces from Gaza. Hamas won legislative elections in 2006 and took over Gaza in 2007. Skeptics of the two-state approach point to that as a lesson about what happens when territory is handed over without a governing partner that rejects violence. Supporters of the approach say the lesson is that you need a partner and a process, not that the goal is wrong.

I will not tell you the question is easy. A policy can support a Palestinian state in principle and still insist on security guarantees. A policy can also decline to push for one at a given moment because conditions are not right. What matters is that the policy is argued on the merits.

8. Why is Jerusalem such a flashpoint?

Because the city is holy to three faiths and claimed as a capital by two peoples. Israel's government sits in Jerusalem. The 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act put Congress on record that the American embassy should be there. Presidents signed waivers delaying the move every six months for more than two decades, and the embassy opened in Jerusalem in May 2018, after the United States recognized the city as Israel's capital in December 2017.

The supporters' argument: a country's capital is the city its government chooses, and a Congress-passed law ought to be carried out. The critics' argument: moving the embassy before a final peace deal prejudged an issue meant for negotiation and risked unrest. Both are real arguments. Notice, though, that the real fight was about timing and sequencing, and a president of either party could have made the decision.

The UN, the churches, and the critics

9. Why does the United States stand with Israel at the UN?

Because for decades the UN has treated Israel differently from other countries, and the pattern is documented. The clearest example is General Assembly Resolution 3379 of November 1975, which declared Zionism "a form of racism and racial discrimination." The General Assembly repealed it in December 1991, after the Cold War ended. When a body reaches that kind of conclusion, an ally has reason to be wary of what it says next.

The critics' reply: American vetoes in the Security Council on Israel-related resolutions isolate the United States and make it look like it is shielding a government from scrutiny. They note that the United States has not always vetoed. In December 2016 the Obama administration chose to abstain on Security Council Resolution 2334, which condemned settlements, letting it pass. Both choices were policy choices by presidents.

Check each vote on its own terms. A veto that blocks a one-sided text is different from a veto that blocks a balanced one. See also Vandenberg's Conversion and the Republicans Who Built the Postwar Order for how an earlier Republican generation thought about the UN.

10. What about the Christian Zionist tradition, and its critics?

The tradition is real, and it is old. Many evangelical Christians, shaped by a reading of biblical prophecy that has roots in the nineteenth century, hold that the return of Jews to the land of Israel has religious significance. They are among the most committed supporters of Israel in American politics.

Critics make three points. Some argue that the theology is a distortion that treats a living people as a stage prop for the end of history. Some, including Christians in the Middle East, say American policy that follows this view ignores the suffering of other communities, including Arab Christians. And some say that a foreign policy should be grounded in interests, not eschatology.

The fair answer is this. A citizen has every right to bring religious conviction to politics, as citizens did in the abolition movement and the civil rights movement. The test is whether the policy can also be defended on grounds anyone can evaluate. Most of the answers earlier in this post can be. Also note that support for Israel is not limited to evangelicals. It draws on Jews, Catholics, mainline Protestants, and secular Americans, and some members of each of those groups disagree with the policy.

11. Don't scholars say the "lobby" distorts American policy?

In 2006 two respected political scientists, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, published an essay and then a book arguing that a powerful domestic lobby pushed American policy further than American interests warranted. It drew heated responses, including accusations of bigotry that I think were unfair to their stated argument.

Here is how I'd handle it. Lobbying is protected by the First Amendment, and it exists in every area of policy: farm groups, defense contractors, the banking industry, labor unions, and so on. The question is whether it corrupts a process or merely makes the case. The test is the same as for any lobby. Is the argument true? Can the policy stand on its merits? Conspiracy talk about loyalty is poison and should be rejected. Honest debate about influence is part of democracy, and Americans who are pro-Israel should welcome it, because the case holds up.

What it adds up to

Put the answers together and you get a picture. The alliance rests on shared values, strategy, capability, and conscience. It is not unconditional, and it is not free. It is a policy that Congress funds, that presidents shape, and that voters can change. A conservative can support it, question it, or want to adjust it, and still be a conservative. What a conservative should refuse to do is let the argument become a loyalty test.

For a sense of how an old formula for regional peace was tested in the 2020 agreements, read How the Abraham Accords Broke the Old Formula for Middle East Peace. And if you want the broader constitutional frame for who controls these decisions, Congress Can Only Do What the Constitution Lists and Madison Said So is a good place to start.

The bottom line

• Support for Israel rests on values, strategy, capability, and conscience. Know which of the four you are talking about when you argue.
• The aid is governed by multi-year agreements and annual appropriations. Look up the current terms at the Congressional Research Service before you repeat a number.
• It has never been unconditional. Republican presidents have used leverage when they thought it served American interests.
• Argue the policy and leave the people out of it. Anyone who turns a foreign-policy debate into a question about his neighbor's loyalty has lost the argument.
• Ask your representatives what they would change and why. Both support and skepticism are fair answers, as long as they come with reasons.