A growing segment within the Democratic Party is advocating for a shift in US policy toward Israel, with proposals to cut financial aid and halt arms sales gaining traction. These once fringe ideas have moved into the mainstream of Democratic policy discussions, reflecting a changing political landscape.
In recent months, nearly half of House Democrats voted for measures to end aid to Israel, and approximately 40 percent of the caucus has called for blocking the sale of offensive weapons. This sentiment is echoed by potential future party leaders, with some suggesting that aid should be conditioned on Israel's compliance with US law or its commitment to a two-state solution. Recent election results, such as the primary defeat of Rep. Haley Stevens by Abdul El-Sayed, who advocated for a more adversarial stance toward Israel, indicate a potential rise in prominence for these views.
The impetus for this shift is rooted in concerns over Israel's conduct in the ongoing conflict. Critics point to actions in Gaza, described as collective punishment, and the expansion of settlements in the West Bank as violations of international law. Supplying military and financial aid under these circumstances is seen by some as contrary to American moral obligations and security interests, undermining respect for the US and international law.
However, the effectiveness of these proposed measures in altering Israeli policy, particularly regarding a two-state solution, is a subject of debate. While ending financial aid to Israel, which amounts to $3.8 billion annually, has some political appeal, analyses suggest it would have little impact on Israeli policy. Israel is a wealthy nation that could fund its own military, with estimates indicating a need to increase its defense spending as a percentage of GDP from 7.9 percent to 8.5 percent without US aid. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has even expressed a desire to reduce reliance on US financial support, viewing it as potentially limiting Israel's strategic autonomy.
Conversely, restricting arms sales could have a more significant effect. The US supplies 68 percent of Israel's imported major arms between 2021 and 2025. While Israel has domestic capabilities for manufacturing some weaponry, it relies heavily on the US for advanced combat aircraft, including the F-35, and essential spare parts and maintenance. A broad cutoff of these supplies could significantly constrain Israel's military operations. However, even with reduced access to US weaponry, Israel would likely retain significant military superiority over Palestinian resistance groups, given its domestic arms industry and efforts toward "munitions independence."
Furthermore, public opinion in Israel shows a strong opposition to Palestinian statehood, with a 2025 Gallup poll indicating 27 percent support for a two-state solution and 63 percent opposition. This sentiment is even more pronounced among Jewish Israelis. Political leaders in Israel have largely reflected this public stance, suggesting that an arms embargo alone might not compel a fundamental shift in Israeli policy towards a two-state solution.
Achieving significant policy changes in Israel would likely require a more comprehensive and sustained pressure campaign. This could involve a broader arms embargo, extensive economic sanctions targeting those involved in settlement expansion, and the withdrawal of diplomatic support at the United Nations. Such measures would need to be sustained over a prolonged period and potentially require bipartisan support to overcome Israeli resistance and achieve transformative impact.
While the efficacy of these measures in fundamentally altering Israeli policy remains uncertain, proponents argue that reducing US aid and restricting arms sales would still serve important purposes. These actions could constrain Israel's capacity for certain military actions and, regardless of their impact on policy change, would improve America's moral standing and global image by reducing complicity in actions that violate human rights. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, noted that the US has played a significant role in Israel's military advantage and should exert leverage to avoid complicity in war crimes, whether or not it changes Israeli policy on a two-state solution.