ByZVIKA KLEIN

JULY 10, 2026 06:00

A top defense source shared with me recently an insight that many US debaters on Israel have overlooked. Israel aims in fresh security discussions with Washington to shift from an aid recipient role to that of a full partner.

Our leading military reporter Yonah Jeremy Bob labeled the concept clearly: not an MOU but an MOP. A memorandum of partnership.

Keep that phrase in mind as Washington prepares for heated debate on halting support to Israel while few participants realize both capitals already seek its conclusion.

The existing memorandum of understanding worth 38 billion dollars across ten years concludes in 2028. Negotiations for its successor began last month under Defense Ministry Director-General Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amir Baram and Israeli Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter. The ministry statement outlined plans to move gradually from assistance toward fully mutual cooperation.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorsed this in a letter supporting a resolution by Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Indiana) to phase out the yearly 3.8 billion dollars. He stated the moment has come to advance from aid recipient to partner.

Even Gil Pinchas the military outgoing chief financial adviser dismissed the notion of free funds as the minor element in the overall ties.

Thus the upcoming Washington clash centers on an outdated issue. The assistance period concludes regardless. The key lies in what follows and whether Americans grasp the benefits they obtain.

For five decades the alliance has been presented through charitable terms such as aid assistance and generosity. Those terms never fit well and now form the alliance main political flaw. If viewed as charity it becomes a gift subject to withdrawal when the donor changes mind.

The mood is shifting.

Critics target the identical arrangement

Rahm Emanuel former White House chief of staff US ambassador to Japan and potential 2028 presidential contender visited Tel Aviv this week and offered the standard Democratic view: Israel is affluent US voters are shifting end the subsidies and sell Israel arms like any other partner.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) from the America First side criticized the new US-Israel defense technology effort. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-California) a progressive assailed it from another angle.

The Quincy Institute a Washington think tank favoring reduced US presence overseas cautions about a vanishing aid check and visible grants folded into Pentagon buying channels that prove tougher to track.

Pro-Palestinian campaigners claim joint production merely creates another channel for taxpayer resources to Israeli defense companies.

Review those points once more. None assert the relationship is contracting. Quincy the most pointed among them makes the reverse claim: the partnership grows deeper more industrial and less transparent. On the facts the critics hold accuracy. They overlook the sole relevant question in alliance matters. Does it benefit America?

Polling highlights the pressure. A survey this month by AP-NORC the Associated Press polling unit showed 31 percent of Americans including about half of Democrats view Israel actions in Gaza as genocide.

Israel rejects the charge Washington rejects it and I reject it. Yet the political reality persists. The generation that accepted this alliance without question exits the scene. Its replacement seeks a results-based argument. Israel must supply one.

Two figures worth noting

The strongest US case against the MOU ignores strategy entirely: Why direct billions to Israel when Americans struggle with health costs?

Valid frustration flawed calculation. US health outlays reached 5.3 trillion dollars in 2024. The MOU stands at 3.8 billion dollars yearly or about 0.07 percent of that total. Significant funds deserving review yet unrelated to insulin prescription pricing.

Second figure concerns fund allocation. Almost none arrives as cash to Jerusalem. The resources go mainly to American planes munitions and parts and the pact ends Israel option to use any portion domestically. By 2028 virtually every dollar reaches US plants and US employment.

Remove the charity wording and the MOU resembles an American industrial policy instrument that equips an ally while securing Washington leverage over Israeli buying and planning beyond any treaty reach.

Benefits to America

Israel mastered air defense through repeated attacks. The US holds unmatched military size yet no American setup has confronted what Israeli systems have: rockets from Gaza missiles from Lebanon drones from Yemen ballistic missiles from Iran and combined attacks designed to overwhelm layered protections.

Trump Golden Dome homeland defense idea drew straight from Israel multitiered setup. America can model missile attacks. Israel has intercepted them above its cities. That knowledge reaches Washington at far lower cost than independent development.

Cyber follows similar lines. The US leads in cyber power. Israel developed unique strengths in certain areas due to constant threats and the prime example according to overseas accounts remains the action against Iran nuclear program which The Washington Post linked to US and Israeli specialists collaborating.

AI-supported combat presents challenges. Israel field application of decision aids and digital command tools raises serious legal and ethical issues and rightly so. That is precisely why the experience holds value for the Pentagon: actual data on successes failures and necessary limits before America encounters a major conflict. Some lessons merit adoption. Some require limits. All deserve examination.

The least discussed item on the balance sheet may prove largest. Israel lacks a NATO-style pact. No US troop must protect Tel Aviv. Israel handles pressure from Iran and its allies directly in a region Washington cannot overlook but prefers not to occupy. A less capable Israel would not stabilize the Middle East. It would complicate American decisions.

Where critics hold ground

The shift from visible grants to industrial ties might reduce oversight. Treat this seriously. Stronger partnership demands greater accountability not less: congressional checks reporting rules and end-use tracking. A democracy seeking ally backing must justify its actions.

We must also acknowledge our ledger side. Reliance on Washington creates risk. Future leaders may impose terms Israel cannot meet. A mature nation develops its production base and Washington will value Israel more for that effort not less.

Final assessment

Present the next pact as charity and it fails because charity offers the weakest argument for 3.8 billion dollars yearly amid debates on insulin costs. The stronger argument has always been evident: a strategic investment yielding clear American gains in manufacturing technology intelligence deterrence and combat insights. That argument succeeds with any group including doubters.

Israel must stop sounding like a dependent recipient. America must stop claiming this is charity. Both governments have agreed the aid era ends. They must now confidently describe what replaces it.

Not an MOU an MOP.