(Adobe stock / Grispb)
For decades, American military assistance has helped Israel become one of the world’s most formidable military powers. But perhaps the ultimate measure of that success is whether Israel has reached the point where it can begin to do without it.
That is a question Israel should answer before Washington does.
A recent debate between former Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren and defense analyst Jonathan Schanzer highlighted the dilemma. Oren urged Israel to move quickly toward independence from American military aid. Schanzer warned that relinquishing assistance amid regional threats could compromise Israel’s security.
Both have compelling arguments. But the more important question is not whether Israel should eventually end its financial dependence on Washington. It is who should make that decision, and on whose terms.
Israel should take the initiative. For too long, American military assistance has been treated as indispensable to the U.S.-Israel relationship. Yet the longer Israel insists that it cannot defend itself without American financial support, the more it reinforces a perception of weakness that its military achievements contradict.
That perception has consequences. It invites American politicians to treat assistance as leverage over Israeli decisions. It gives Israel’s critics another argument against the relationship. And it suggests to Israel’s adversaries that its security ultimately depends on political decisions made thousands of miles away.
There is also an uncomfortable question of responsibility. Israel cannot reasonably insist on complete freedom of military action while expecting American taxpayers to underwrite its defense indefinitely. Sovereignty carries obligations as well as privileges.
None of this diminishes the value of American assistance. Nor does it suggest that Israel could responsibly abandon it tomorrow. American weapons, intelligence, technology and strategic cooperation remain essential. Financial independence should never be confused with military isolation. But the distinction between assistance and partnership is what needs to change.
The current military assistance agreement expires in 2028. Israel should propose a negotiated transition, perhaps over another decade, progressively replacing American grants with Israeli-funded purchases while expanding joint defense development, intelligence cooperation and access to critical American systems.
Such a transition would require difficult budgetary choices, increased domestic production and safeguards against compromising military readiness. Those are serious challenges, not reasons for postponement. More importantly, the initiative should come from Jerusalem. Waiting until an increasingly polarized Congress questions American assistance risks turning a deliberate act of national maturity into an embarrassing political retreat.
Washington should welcome the change. American support has helped create a prosperous, technologically sophisticated ally whose military capabilities and intelligence benefit the United States. That relationship should endure long after direct financial assistance ends. The objective is not to diminish American friendship or Israeli security. It is to strengthen both by eliminating a dependency that has outlived its original purpose.
Israel has spent nearly eight decades demonstrating that it can survive, prosper and defend itself against extraordinary odds. It should now demonstrate that it can pay for its defense as well.
The greatest tribute Israel could pay to American generosity would be to declare, on its own terms and timetable, that the assistance worked. And that Israel is ready to graduate.