AllStances: Should the US Support Israel?

Debate has been sparked over US support for Israel in the past two years, particularly amid the recent war between Israel and Iran and subsequent US bombings to eliminate Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The question of whether America should continue its consistent support for the state of Israel is hotly debated, and even breaks down the typical left/right lines.

While the left is largely more sympathetic to Palestine — 49% of Democrats report more sympathy for Palestine than Israel, according to Gallup — the right is the opposite, with 79% of Republicans feeling more sympathy for Israel. However, on the right, a split is emerging on the topic, as prominent conservative voices such as Candace Owens (Right bias), Tucker Carlson (Right), and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) have begun to question or speak out against continued US support for Israel and the nations’ lobbying efforts toward US politicians, primarily via The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). 

Stance 1: The US should maintain full support for Israel

Core Argument: Maintaining full support for Israel coincides with maintaining a strategic partner in the Middle East and upholding democratic and political values.

Supporting Arguments:

• “America provides Israel – the Middle East’s sole democracy and our strategic partner – with annual security assistance to help it defend itself, by itself, against mounting threats across the region.” [AIPAC]
• Since October 7th, 2023, Israel and its citizens have been targeted by terrorist organizations such as Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen, which are all Iran-backed proxy groups; this has resulted in the deaths of over 1,300 Israelis.
• Israel provides the US with significant hard power support through counter-terrorism intelligence – helping to prevent against foreign and domestic attacks, while also providing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and missile defence technologies.
• Soft power support is also provided through high technologies in a variety of sectors such as medical or sustainability, while helping “maintain American economic competitiveness and promote sustainable development.” [The Washington Institute]
• Israel promotes US job creation by spending military aid on US products, while also helping expand US trade and private sector growth by being home to over 2,500 US firms.
• The US and Israel have common values, it being “the Middle East’s only liberal democracy, Israel shares America’s dedication to the rule of law, free markets, and technological innovation, forming the bedrock of the vital bond between the two nations and serving as the foundation for their strategic relationship.” [Heritage Foundation]
• Due to regional instability, the threat of intervention from “an axis of hostile revisionist powers” supported by countries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, could threaten dominant western values in the region; therefore prioritizing the US-Israel alliance is imperative.
• Israel should be supported from a theological perspective — Scripture calls for the support and upholding of Israel as a nation because the nation plays a crucial role in end times prophecy. Israel is therefore not only a geopolitical ally, but a nation with a divinely ordained role in the Second Coming of Christ. [Some Christians, particularly evangelicals]
• Even outside of faith, many believe the protection of Israel is not just religious, but cultural or existential, especially after the Holocaust.
• Refusing to support Israel is antisemitic because it denies Jews the right to self-determination and therefore equality.

 

Stance 2: The US should provide only humanitarian aid & security to Israel and its neighbors

Core Argument: The US should provide only humanitarian assistance & security to Israel and neighboring countries, allowing for partnerships focused on human welfare, civilian protection, and conflict de-escalation without being militarily or ideologically bound.

Supporting Arguments:

• To avoid being complicit in controversial military actions or civilian casualties, “deemphasizing the use of ground forces in combat operations abroad” would not only preserve US reputation, but also “free resources for maintaining primacy in the global commons.”
• Instability is often a result of hard foreign intervention, and can also create “resentment toward the U.S., or escalation of regional tensions.”
• US bombings in Iran on behalf of Israel have been received poorly by some international allies. Regional allies and partners such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia have condemned the attack as these events could further destabilize the Middle East. The UN and Russia have also expressed condemnation of the bombings. These actions could weigh on US diplomacy efforts in the future.
• If support was reduced to humanitarian aid only, this would be a “cost-effective, high-impact” solution, to help “empower people in crisis, helping them to survive, recover and rebuild their lives.” “Aid organizations often play a role in conflict resolution by providing neutral grounds for dialogue.”
• “Just as the U.S. once phased out financial aid to Israel, so, too, should the U.S. transition Israel from a military financing recipient to a security partner.” This would create an “equal partnership” and would allow Israel to seek self-determination as a strategic partner instead of a military aid recipient.

 

Stance 3: The US should end all support for Israel

Core Argument: Withdrawing support for Israel would benefit US interests by improving credibility among global alliances while preventing foreign overreach and military aid waste. This would prevent complicity in human rights abuses and would prioritize national interests.

Supporting Arguments:

• Israel receives tens of billions of taxpayer dollars in foreign economic and military aid, overexerting US resources and diverting politicians’ focus and American tax dollars away from solving problems here at home.
• Israel has committed numerous human rights violations and has been careless in its attacks against Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. Approximately 56,000 have been killed since October 7th, 2023, overwhelmingly Palestinians. 90% of the Gazan population has been displaced and hundreds of thousands are not receiving the necessary humanitarian assistance due to Israeli blockades.
• The UN says that the Israeli pager attack against Hezbollah was a “violation of international law”, and resulted in the injuries of over 3,000 people, many of whom were bystanders.
• By supporting Israel, the US undermines the Foreign Assistance Act, the Arms Export Act, and the Leahy Laws, which obligates US aid recipients to uphold human rights. In this case, Israel should be sanctioned and ineligible for aid.
• “The US cannot use arguments based on international law to support Ukraine’s efforts to resist Russian aggression, yet simultaneously turn a blind eye to Israel’s violations of Palestinian human rights.”
• US support for Israel implicates the US in Israel’s alleged breaches of international law. The US is also one of the only major nations to reject the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu. These complicit acts shine poorly on the US reputation.

• Many Israelis believe that Netanyahu’s government is shifting away from democratic values and towards a theocracy, leading to a potential decline in shared Western values and increased conflict over religious values.
• Public opinion for the US-Israeli financial partnership is dwindling, with 53% of adults in 2025 viewing Israel unfavorably, up from 42% in 2022.
• Israel has one of the largest lobbying firms in the US (AIPAC), and militarily supporting a country that has a large lobby in the US is a conflict of interest as politicians may be swayed to support military or financial backing.
• Many Orthodox and Reform Jews disagree over Israel’s role — some ultra-Orthodox Jews oppose Zionism altogether, seeing the modern state as incompatible with religious prophecy.
• Scripture does not deem the modern state of Israel as playing a key role in end times. The Christian Church — the body of believers in Christ — is the “New Israel” or spiritual Israel, not the nation of Israel specifically. Therefore, theological perspectives upholding political support of Israel hold no weight, being based on speculatory, literalist interpretations of the Bible. [Some Christian denominations, such as Orthodox]
• Being against Israel’s outsized influence on the United States, foreign policy, and the broader world in general is not the same as being antiSemitic. One can reject the state of Israel’s impact on US policy, taxpayer funding, and other nations without hating or rejecting Jewish people as a whole.

 

Stance 4: The US should provide conditional support for Israel on a case-by-case basis

Core Argument: US support for Israel should be conditional and dependent on the particular case, which would allow the US to secure strategic interests while not being overly committed to support or defense.

Supporting Arguments:

• “Support for Israel is symbolic and conditional – and especially does not include unconditional willingness for direct military involvement alongside Israel.”

• Committing to total support is not strategic nor beneficial to the US. This type of policy is particularly unwise when a state such as Israel is enacting policy that will detriment US interests in the long-term and will slander the US global reputation.

• “Failing to place any conditions on US military assistance to Israel could disincentivize other recipients to respect US laws.”

• 45% of Americans would consider US involvement in an Israel-Iran conflict if there is a “clear American interest or to achieve a diplomatic solution”, suggesting support for condition-based action.
• Transparency with aid to Israel should be improved, as “Israel is also the only country in the world for which the United States does not have tracking mechanisms to determine which weapons go to which military unit.”
• No country should be above US law, and every country, including Israel, should be accountable to the same standards as all other aid recipients.
• “Decade-long MOUs (Memorandum of Understanding) on weapons to Israel are antithetical to long-term U.S. interests and make it difficult to ensure weapons are leveraged to achieve these interests.”

---

Reviewed by:

Editor-in-chief Henry A. Brechter (Center bias)

News and Bias Assistant Emily Allen (Left bias)

News and Bias Assistant Johnathon Held (Lean Right bias)