Nearly two months after Hamas shocked Israel with its violent attack, around 1,200 Israelis and 10,000 Palestinians have been killed in the war [1] [2]. For countless protestors, these numbers speak for themselves [3].

The vast majority of the international community is steadfast in calling for Israel to allow lasting humanitarian ceasefires in the interest of minimizing civilian casualties. In the United States, however, protestors carry with them an additional message: a heavy condemnation of US military support to Israel.

As pressures mount on the US to withdraw support, why has President Biden’s administration continued to back Israel? To understand the calculus behind the US decision to support Israel, we first need to unpack the political trade-offs woven into their contentious relationship and analyze why—in light of recent events—this decision is sorely due for a reevaluation.

The "Shot": US Support for Israel

Quickly following the October 7th attack, President Biden reaffirmed US solidarity with Israel and has since been vocal about supporting Israel’s right to self-defense within the bounds of international humanitarian law [4]. In general, the US has shown support for Israel through both diplomatic and military channels. 

From a diplomatic perspective, Secretary of State Antony Blinken has paid visits to a selection of Middle Eastern states with the intent of deterring further involvement from regional players [5]. Biden also made a wartime visit to Israel to promise a redoubling of military assistance to the country [6].

From a military perspective, the US dispatched a carrier strike group just three days after Hamas’ attack, stationing it in the Mediterranean Sea to deter any regional actors that may want to escalate the situation or take advantage of Israel’s wartime vulnerability [7]. While the Biden administration has made clear that they do not intend to put boots on the ground, they have been supplying Israel’s military with ammunition as well as funding artillery and munitions production [8]. Additionally, Biden has proposed a $14.3 billion package to Congress in response to Israel’s request for support in restocking their Iron Dome missile interception system [9].

Longstanding military and political ties between the US and Israel find their roots in the Cold War. As US forces spread themselves too thin with direct involvement in the Vietnam War, they needed a way to curb the growing Soviet influence in the Middle East that was already beginning to spread among Arab states. In 1967, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) impressed the US by winning the 6-Day War without external aid. This made Israel an attractive and timely geopolitical ally as it would allow the US to hamper the spread of Soviet influence without expending troops in the Middle East. 

Subsequent US administrations have been committed to keeping Israel both a US ally and the most qualitatively advanced military in the Middle East. This relationship began with the US giving and selling weapons to Israel, then evolved into joint weapons research and development throughout the 80’s and 90’s. Israel’s role as the US watchdog in the Middle East grew to be indispensable following the terrors of 9/11, which placed doubts on American relations with Saudi Arabia [10]. Because Israel was a budding democracy and was largely non-Muslim, their shared values were more inviting to US trust. Since then, Israel has enjoyed continued US military support, developing weaponry built from US parts and having 16% of its military budget funded by the US [11]. Now, US politicians who champion continued military support for Israel apply this rhetoric of Israel’s longstanding friendship as a rationale for their decision. 

In addition to becoming an extension of US surveillance overseas, one of the key strategic reasons why the US propped up Israel’s military so determinedly has been to safeguard oil prices. Israel’s powerful military was meant to act as a stabilizing force in the Middle East, as any unrest could threaten the regional oil supply that America relies on heavily [12]. But, with Israel now needing US intervention to deter further escalation, what incentive does the US still have to support Israel? 

The Israeli Perspective: "A Friend in Need"

Put simply, Israel needs US support to survive. Since the outset of the conflict, Israel has fought an uphill battle against two stopwatches—one of tactical asymmetry and one of political asymmetry. Critically, these two paradigms run against each other; attacking Gaza indiscriminately would quickly destroy Hamas, but the countless civilian casualties would cost Israel all its political legitimacy. Israel is forced to make difficult choices in addressing both fronts as losing either militarily or politically directly threatens state survival—US support affords them the time to make these decisions.

From a tactical standpoint, Israel’s borders render defense a geostrategic nightmare. Its elongated shape makes simultaneously defending multiple fronts almost impossible. Focusing all resources on fighting Hamas would leave Israel defenseless to attacks from Hezbollah along its northern border with Lebanon. Israel’s thin nature also deprives it of the strategic depth to tactically withdraw from any border clashes and leaves most of its territory squarely within artillery range. Additionally, Israel is a non-Arab state surrounded by occasionally hostile—or neutral at best—Arab states, meaning it has no regional military allies to depend on [13].

Owing to these persisting disadvantageous conditions, Israel has long relied on the “Ben-Gurion” doctrine, which outlines Israel’s defense strategy along three foundational pillars: deterrence, early warning, and battlefield decision. Battlefield decision refers to the IDF’s ability to end conflicts quickly and decisively; this is their fallback measure when—like what happened on October 7th—the first two pillars fail. 

Hamas poses a formidable threat to the IDF, testing the limits of their military capability. They have had years to construct intricate tunnel systems and stockpile ammunition in preparation for an all-out war with Israel. Their attacks have demonstrated a cunning mix of technological sophistication and guerilla improvisation [14]. While the US backs Israel’s forces, Iran—looking to expand its sphere of influence in the Middle East via proxies like Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon—has been financially supporting and supplying Hamas with rockets, arms, and training for years. The level of coordination in Hamas’ October 7th attack also points to likely collaboration with and advisement from Iranian officials [15] [16].

But, knowing that it is in Israel’s best strategic interests to end this conflict as soon as possible, Hamas is also doing what it can to drag out the war. Alongside stockpiling ammunition, experts have reported that Hamas has amassed enough food, water, fuel, and other basic necessities to “hole up” in their elaborate tunnel systems for at least three to four months [17]. 

Furthermore, while anti-Israeli sentiment simmers worldwide, it is far past its boiling point in the immediate Middle Eastern region. Although Hezbollah has engaged in several low-level clashes with the IDF in recent weeks, sustained US presence in the region thus far has proven critical in deterring Hezbollah from initiating a full-scale invasion of Israel’s northern border [18]. Compared to Hamas, Hezbollah boasts a much larger arsenal of missiles, double the militants, and generals that have extensive military experience from battles in Syria [19]. If Hezbollah or other regional belligerents were to ramp up attacks against Israel, the IDF would not be able to defend the Israeli state on its own—this likelihood grows the longer this war rages on. The IDF depends on US military aid—both via deterrence and replenishing ammunition—to not only defeat Hamas but secure Israel’s survival as a state. 

From a political standpoint, Israel loses international legitimacy and support by the hour. The Gaza Strip’s high population density already makes avoiding civilian casualties difficult. The fact that Hamas has created complex tunnel systems running underneath civilian areas makes it even harder for the IDF to target just Hamas combatants [20]. 

The heartbreaking reality is that the military arms of both sides—Hamas and the IDF—treat civilian casualties as an unavoidable tragedy on the path to winning the war. However, every innocent life lost delegitimizes the attacker and legitimizes the side of the victims. As the Palestinian death toll soars far above the Israeli death toll, support for Palestine grows while the Israeli government loses legitimacy.

Biden has thrown Israel’s legitimacy a lifeline through his public show of continued support; without US political support, the entire world would stand against Israel. But, as US military officials question the extent to which the IDF is prioritizing civilian safety in their attacks, pressure on the Biden administration to pull the plug on support is increasing—a possibility that would likely doom Israel to other threats in the region [21]. 

Effectively, Israel faces the challenge of balancing these two time bombs. Whatever actions the IDF chooses to take would shave off seconds on one stopwatch but lose them minutes on the other [22]. Meanwhile, Hamas seems prepared to spiral this conflict into a war of attrition [23]. Without both the military support and political backing of the US, Israel would likely already be in ruins. Israel’s decreasing legitimacy has immense implications for the US. By unconditionally supporting Israel, any reduction in Israel’s legitimacy necessarily entails a blow to US legitimacy as well, ultimately framing the US as a warmongering interventionist.

The "Gamble": Is Continued Support Still Worth it for the US?

As the IDF faces international backlash for the thousands of Palestinian lives lost, the geostrategic appeal Israel once offered to the US as a democratic ally in the Middle East is diminishing. The IDF’s decision to continue its attack on Gaza despite both domestic and international protests calling for a ceasefire has invited criticism of Israel during this war. However, Israel’s democratic legitimacy has been on the decline for years.

The Israeli government has grown dangerously undemocratic in the past decade. The current Knesset (Israeli Parliament) is arguably the most right-wing cabinet to have governed Israel, having compromised LGBTQ+ rights, curbed religious freedoms, and enacted a plethora of other anti-liberal policies [24]. At the helm of this nationalist and exclusionist fiasco of legitimacy sits Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, currently serving his sixth term as the nation’s leader [25]. A collection of parties that opposed Netanyahu formed a coalition in 2021 to dethrone him, but Netanyahu responded by linking arms with right-wing ultra-Orthodox parties, resulting in the extremist government currently in power. 

Netanyahu has consistently demonstrated a troubling habit of prioritizing his personal political survival over the greater interests of the Israeli state. Throughout the past few years, he has been dodging his own corruption trial, where he faces several charges, including fraud and bribery [26]. But more recently, in January 2023, Netanyahu and Israeli justice minister Yariv Levin proposed a judicial reform package designed to tweak Israel’s legal institutions in ways that would only reinforce the political power of Netanyahu and his ultra-Orthodox allies [27]. 

The passing of this judicial reform package would represent a major democratic backslide by limiting the judiciary’s ability to overturn laws, critically undermining the balance of powers in Israel’s government. Long before any mention of war, thousands of Israeli civilians had already taken to the streets to protest against this frightening prospect the Israeli government was hurtling towards, obstructing major highways and dressing up in blatant reference to Margaret Atwood’s dystopian fiction, The Handmaid’s Tale, as a stand against authoritarianism [28]. 

Even amidst an existential war, Netanyahu’s priorities lie with saving face, not resolving the situation. In the weeks following Hamas’ attack, the Israeli government faced criticism for having allowed Hamas to grow in strength instead of intervening. Netanyahu spearheaded this naïve decision. He argued that Israel benefits from Hamas’ rule over Gaza because, with the Palestinian Authority (PA) in control of the West Bank, the two competing parties would create a split between the Palestinian territories and sow disunity among Palestinians. Netanyahu banked on Palestinian internal discord distracting them from pushing for a two-state solution [29]. 

Yet, when Netanyahu was proven wrong on October 7th, he deferred any blame. Three weeks into the war, he tweeted a message on the social media platform X claiming that his military advisors had failed to warn him of a possible surprise attack by Hamas; he later apologized and clarified that he had been warned, but continued to deny any responsibility [30]. Both before and during this war, his decisions have shown that he cares so much about his own political survival that he is willing to leave Israel’s international legitimacy to rot. 

That said, beyond Israel’s lack of democracy, its repeated inability to seriously address the Palestinian question adds another reason concerning why continued US support has become increasingly unjustifiable in recent years. Shortly before Netanyahu came to power in 2009, a significant majority of Israelis had indicated that they were open to figuring out a two-state solution [29]. But, with Netanyahu’s personal political motives steering his decisions, Netanyahu has since worked tirelessly toward securing the political interests of his right-wing allies, chief among them being maximalist expansionism by means of expelling Palestinians from the region and annexing Palestinian territories. 

This has resulted in Israel’s continued military occupation of the West Bank and its draconian blockade of the Gaza Strip. Even before the war, this blockade inhumanely restricted the flow of goods like electronics and medicine, deteriorating Gaza’s infrastructure to the brink of collapse. The crowded enclave faced an unemployment rate of nearly 50%, 31% of households could not meet basic education needs, 78% of piped water was unfit for drinking, and 1.3 million Palestinians were in need of food aid [31]. These unnecessarily unjust living conditions prompted claims of Israel’s government conducting unlawful “collective punishment”—which many cite as justification for Hamas’ October 7th attacks [32].

There exists a burgeoning divide between the democratic watchdog the US wants Israel to be and the authoritarian, self-centered instigator the Israeli government has descended into becoming. This unsavory mix of growing international criticism against Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and Netanyahu’s deliberate upheaval of Israel’s democratic institutions certainly makes for an unappealing US ally. But more importantly, it suggests that the case for unconditional US support in Israel should have faced scrutiny long before the start of this war.

The "Dark": What Happens Next?

The ongoing war is not the sole reason why continued US support of Israel remains controversial. But, what it has done is uncover the gross underbelly of Israel’s descent into authoritarianism. The lack of US action in response to Israel’s political failures over the past few decades is a mistake that politicians, diplomats, and policymakers alike can only reflect upon in retrospect. For now, the question of continuing US support in Israel is equal parts contentious, complex, and concerning. 

Thus far, the Biden administration has adopted a more cautious stance, continuing to support Israel militarily while placing an emphasis on minimizing civilian casualties—an optimistic and near-impossible duality. The US has dispatched military experts with extensive field experience conducting operations in urban environments with the hopes of advising the IDF on how to best approach their invasion of Gaza with as few civilian casualties as possible [33]. 

Will this approach work? It remains unclear. The “fog of war” enshrouds many answers in uncertainty, only to be revealed ex post facto. Only time can tell whether remnants of Israel’s legitimacy—and, by extension, that of US ties to Israel—can be scrapped together from the ashes of this conflict. 

What is certain is that the international community will endeavor to abide by deontological morals, sticking to international humanitarian law whenever possible. The US needs to follow suit in its support to Israel. While the US’ focus on humanitarian relief efforts offers an encouraging start, they must make explicit that their priorities lie with protecting civilians on both sides and safeguarding democratic values, not being Israel’s guardian protector. 

The US announced a humanitarian aid package of $100 million to Palestine on October 18th [34], but this number is still dwarfed by the $14.3 billion Biden proposed in his military support package to Israel. The US needs to restructure its support to Israel to reflect its political stance by allocating more resources toward humanitarian assistance. As for Israel’s need to defeat Hamas quickly, the US could be more strategic with how they fund the IDF’s efforts. For instance, the US can continue replenishing Israel’s defense systems but cut back on general military funding until Netanyahu and his radical right-wing administration can prove to the US that Israel is still an ally worth keeping. 

Under Netanyahu, Israel is no longer a democratic ally—it hasn’t been for years. However, the US has the power to utilize Israel’s reliance on US support to pressure Netanyahu’s government toward meaningful change. Instead of casting aside reservations regarding Netanyahu’s leadership, the US can opt to only provide military support on the condition that Netanyahu rescinds his judicial reform package or, more urgently, makes a strong and lasting commitment to figuring out a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. 

Shifting from unconditional support to more thoughtful funding policies has the potential to both mobilize lasting peace in the region and begin restoring Israeli democracy. The US has become far too entrenched—and far too important a player—in this war to turn its back on the situation in the Middle East. But, as for the shot in the dark that is its continued support to Israel, perhaps the US can still be smart about how it takes aim. 

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent those of any previous or current employers, the editorial body of SIPR, the Freeman Spogili Institute, or Stanford University.