The U.S.-Israel Alliance: Should Foreign Aid be Demilitarized?

United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator Mark Green's visit to Israel, August 2019. Photo by Matty Stern.

With an election season on the horizon and all eyes on global conflicts, the U.S. government is increasingly coming under fire for its foreign policy toward Israel. The latest aid package passed by the House sent politicians into a frenzy. Meanwhile, as the majority of Americans support a ceasefire, the Biden administration has found shortcuts to increase military support for Israel, even bypassing Congress to approve the sale of weapons. The devastating impact on civilians in Gaza, along with severe public backlash, has put America’s Israel policy under exceptional scrutiny. If the goal of U.S. foreign aid is truly to advance global development and improve the security of its closest allies, then the U.S. should demilitarize its assistance to Israel.

Israel’s purported goal in its current war in Gaza is to destroy Hamas, a militant group responsible for killing about 1,200 people in Israel on October 7, 2023. While the main concern among many Israel supporters has been to bring home the roughly 240 hostages who were captured that day, the most successful release of hostages occurred during a temporary ceasefire lasting from November 24 until December 1. During this period, 105 Israeli hostages were released in exchange for 240 Palestinian prisoners (most of whom were under 25 and had not been convicted of crimes). With the reuptake of military warfare following the temporary ceasefire, the death toll in Gaza mounted to nearly 20,000 while those wounded numbered 52,586 as of December 19. Over 60% of the housing units in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed, and the vast majority of Gaza’s 2.2 million residents have been displaced. Meanwhile, negotiations to return the remaining hostages have stalled, even as three Israeli hostages in Gaza were mistakenly shot dead by Israeli Defense Forces on December 15. As it would appear, Israel’s goal to destroy Hamas is at odds with Israel supporters’ demand for the safe return of hostages, all while Palestinian civilians continue to pay the price. 

Military aid yields less developmental results than humanitarian aid, yet it has been a defining feature in the tight relationship that characterizes the U.S.-Israel alliance. Israel has been the largest beneficiary of U.S. aid, having reportedly received roughly $150 billion in taxpayer assistance as of 2022. Israel is also the single largest recipient of U.S. military financing through the Foreign Military Financing program. It receives nearly $4 billion a year under a Memorandum of Understanding that stipulates $38 billion in military aid over ten years. Funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile system has been separately approved by the U.S. in addition to the existing yearly allocation of aid.

In mid-October 2023, President Biden requested an aid package from Congress to the tune of $106 billion. Funding for Israel amounted to $14 billion of this package, with the rest reserved for Ukraine and other foreign interests. However, that proposal was rebuffed, and the House bill that passed instead has been the subject of much dispute. The new package is a standalone Israel bill, stipulating $14.3 billion of aid. It would be financed by cuts to I.R.S. enforcement, a contention that is forcing many Democrats to oppose a package they would normally support. Even some Republicans have voiced opposition to the bill, which is expected to add $26.8 billion to the deficit in total. Separately from this package, the Biden administration has bypassed Congress to allow the sale of about 14,000 tank shells to Israel, using an Arms Export Control Act emergency declaration to guarantee immediate delivery. The tank rounds are worth $106.5 million and are part of a larger sale being considered for approval by Congress. Reuters has reported that the larger sale is valued at over $500 million and will provide over 45,000 shells for Israel’s Merkava tanks, which are regularly deployed in the Gaza offensive.

As U.S. policy has remained firm and unequivocal in its support for Israel, public opinion, intergovernmental organizations, and even politicians are increasingly calling for restrictions on aid. Debates within the Democratic Party have flared up as some senators, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have demanded a policy of conditionality for the Israel aid. Such a policy would require Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to commit to a plan to minimize civilian casualties in order to receive funding. “This is a humanitarian cataclysm, and it is being done with American bombs and money. We need to face up to that fact–and then we need to end our complicity in those actions,” Sanders said in a recent statement. Separately, over 1,000 United States Agency for International Development employees have called for a ceasefire in Gaza. Pro-Palestinian marches and protests significantly outnumber pro-Israeli ones as public support for Israel has continued to decline. Even the Biden Administration has warned that the Israeli military is not doing enough to reduce harm to civilians in Gaza. 

Still, the U.S. vetoed a U.N. Security Council Resolution for a ceasefire in Gaza as recently as December 8, 2023. Could taxpayer dollars be put to better use mobilizing resources in Gaza to support civilians? The U.S. has approached the conflict in Congo with humanitarian aid in an attempt to de-escalate the conflict, but the same cannot be said for Gaza. The conversation around demilitarizing aid to Israel predates the current conflict, with experts arguing that Israel does not need more military aid as recently as August 2023. With over half a trillion dollars in GDP, Israel has the second highest GDP in the Middle East/North Africa region, behind only Saudi Arabia, as of 2022. Israel is also a global arms exporter, selling arms about three times the value of U.S. military aid annually. Is it beneficial for the U.S. to continue pumping more money into the Israeli war machine?

History suggests the contrary. Past conflicts have shown that military violence has failed as a response to terrorism. In the wake of September 11, 2001, the U.S. pursued an aggressive strategy of military intervention to which the failure of the War on Terror is widely attributed. The military intervention and occupation of Middle Eastern countries made matters worse, creating chaos and resentment and fueling further terrorism, as events in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen prove. Even after decades of enormous investment, U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq failed to produce progress toward long-term peace and stability. Even domestically, the Federal Bureau of Investigation found in a 2012 study that the top motivation for homegrown terrorist attacks was radicalization caused by anger at America’s military intervention in the Middle East.

Israel’s forceful and aggressive military campaign in Gaza provides little cause for optimism to those fearing a repeat of America’s failed War on Terror. The most recent crackdowns in Gaza are likely to drive growth in support for Hamas in Gaza. If the current military campaign has a similar effect on Palestinian public opinion as crackdowns in the past, it will further set back the cause of long-term peace and guarantee “renewed violence in the years ahead.” 

Amid drastic casualties, global backlash, and even a warning by Pope Francis that it is “forbidden to respond to terror with terror,” it is clear that the current response to Hamas by Israeli and U.S. forces is going wrong. The political uproar following the latest aid provisions for Israel signifies a growing divergence between U.S. policy and the suggestions of experts and the public. Military aid has not been effective at resolving conflict, reducing civilian casualties, or addressing terrorism in past conflicts. With Israel on the offensive, it is unlikely that this conflict will reach an agreeable end for either party. A simple start would be to demilitarize the nature of U.S. assistance to its greatest ally in the Middle East. The best approach to combat Hamas’ power in Palestine is an investment of time and money into negotiations, healthcare, infrastructure, and developmental resources. If the U.S. prioritizes global development and the security of its allies, including the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas, then de-escalation through non-combative means is the only path forward.

Celeste Abourjeili (GS ’24) is a staff writer at CPR studying political science and Middle Eastern affairs.