Stephen M. Flatow is an attorney and the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995. He is author of A Father’s Story: My Fight for Justice Against Iranian Terror (now available in an expanded paperback edition on Amazon.com) and is the president of the Religious Zionists of America-Mizrachi. An oleh chadash, he divides his time between Jerusalem and New Jersey.
For years, defenders of U.S. military aid to Israel have answered critics with a familiar point: much of the money is spent in the United States, supporting American defense contractors, American workers and the American industrial base.
The point is true. It is also insufficient today.
At the end of the day, Foreign Military Financing is still American taxpayer money appropriated for Israel’s defense. Israel does not write the check. American taxpayers do. We weaken our own argument when we pretend otherwise.
The better argument is not that aid to Israel is not aid. The better argument is that U.S. military assistance to Israel has been one of the most successful strategic investments America has ever made - and that successful investments should eventually mature.
That distinction matters.
In light of the latest reported U.S.-Iran understandings, the continuing missile threat from Tehran and its proxies, and renewed debate in Washington over the value of foreign aid, this question is no longer academic.
Israel is not Ukraine. It does not ask American soldiers to fight its wars. It does not need American troops to defend its borders. It does not request that the United States station divisions in Tel Aviv, Haifa or Beersheba to protect Israeli civilians from Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran or the Houthis.
Israel fights its own battles. Its sons and daughters defend their own homes. Its pilots fly their own missions. Its soldiers enter the tunnels. Its reservists leave their families and businesses to stand guard over the Jewish state.
That alone separates Israel from many other recipients of American assistance.
But the case for the U.S.-Israel relationship is not charity. It is mutual interest. America receives from Israel intelligence, technology, battlefield experience, missile defense innovation, counterterrorism lessons, cyber expertise and a reliable ally in one of the most dangerous regions in the world. Israeli battlefield experience has helped America understand threats that American forces may face tomorrow. Israeli-developed or Israeli-tested systems have contributed to the protection of American troops and American allies.
That is not dependence. That is partnership.
Still, friends of Israel should be honest enough to admit that the annual aid debate has become a political vulnerability. Israel’s enemies have learned to reduce the entire U.S.-Israel relationship to a crude accusation: Israel is a burden. Israel is a leech. Israel takes American money while Americans struggle at home. This even though other countries receive much more U.S. aid and larger grants.
The accusation is false and malicious, but it lands with some people because our answer too often sounds like accounting rather than strategy. “The money goes back to American companies" may be true, but it does not fully answer the moral and political question. If Israel is a strong, prosperous, technologically advanced country, why should it still receive annual military grants?
That question should not frighten us. It should challenge us.
The answer should be that Israel is grateful for American support, that the support has strengthened both countries, and that the next stage of the relationship should move beyond the language of aid.
Israel should begin planning to outgrow the grant model.
Not tomorrow. Not recklessly. Not in a way that damages Israel’s qualitative military edge or weakens deterrence against Iran and its proxies. But deliberately, seriously and publicly.
The current aid structure was designed for an earlier era. Israel was once a small, poor and besieged country struggling to absorb immigrants, build an economy and survive repeated wars.
Today Israel remains besieged and small, but it is no longer poor. It is a regional military power, a global technology leader and a country that has demonstrated, again and again, that it can innovate under fire.
The October 7 war and the Iranian missile threat have also exposed a hard truth. Israel cannot afford to be dependent on foreign production lines for the basic tools of survival. Fighter jets are one thing. Israel is not going to manufacture its own F-35. Nor should it try. The development, production and sustainment of fifth-generation aircraft belong in a different category.
But munitions are another matter.
So are missile-defense interceptors. Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow and the coming Iron Beam are not luxuries; they are the shield that allows Israeli civilians to live, work, pray and raise children under fire. Can Israel afford to pay for all of them on its own tomorrow? Probably not without painful tradeoffs. Israel must be able to produce far more of its own artillery shells, precision-guided munitions, Iron Dome and other air-defense interceptors, drone defenses, spare parts, battlefield electronics and emergency wartime stockpiles.
The issue is not whether Israel can instantly replace American support for missile defense. It cannot. The issue is whether a serious country waits until the next barrage to discover that its defenses depend too heavily on foreign appropriations and foreign production lines.
This is not an argument against the United States. It is an argument for Israel taking on the responsibility to supply itself.
America should remain Israel’s indispensable ally. Israel should continue to buy the aircraft and advanced systems it cannot produce efficiently on its own. The two countries should continue joint development on missile defense, cyber, drones, artificial intelligence, tunnel warfare, battlefield medicine and anti-terror systems. American and Israeli defense industries should deepen cooperation.
But the relationship should evolve from annual grant aid towards strategic-industrial partnership.
That would be good for Israel. It would be good for America. And it would be devastating to the “Israel as leech" argument.
Imagine if Israel said clearly: We are grateful for decades of American support. We know what it has meant. We also know that mature allies should grow stronger, not more dependent. The next U.S.-Israel agreement should focus less on grants and more on joint production, joint development, joint stockpiles, shared technology and Israeli self-reliance.
That would change the debate.
It would also restore dignity to the argument. Israel’s friends should not sound embarrassed by American aid, and Israel’s enemies should not be allowed to define it. The aid helped build an ally that fights its own wars, shares its knowledge, protects American interests and stands on the front line against many of the same forces that threaten the West.
But success should have a destination.
The goal should not be to end the U.S.-Israel alliance. The goal should be to end the vocabulary of dependence.
Israel should not apologize for receiving American military assistance. It was not a handout thrown into the wind. It helped produce one of America’s most capable allies. But Israel should also be confident enough to say that the relationship can mature.
Let Israel buy the aircraft it cannot build. Let Israel build more of the munitions it must never be without. Let America continue to benefit from Israeli intelligence, innovation and battlefield experience. Let both countries deepen cooperation without leaving Israel vulnerable to the charge that it survives on someone else’s generosity.
The answer to those who call Israel a burden is not to deny the aid. It is to prove that the alliance has done what successful alliances are supposed to do: produce a stronger partner, not a permanent dependent.
Israel’s next great strategic achievement should not only be defeating its enemies. It should be ensuring that when the next war comes, Israel has more of what it needs in Israeli factories, Israeli warehouses and Israeli hands.
Gratitude is proper. Partnership is essential. But dependency is not destiny.
Israel should now begin the work of outgrowing the aid argument.