The Obama administration’s offer of a package of advanced weaponry and military assistance worth billions of dollars in return for an Israeli commitment to freeze settlement construction for just three months marks a troubling development in the relationship between the two allies. There’s a reason that this deal has drawn criticism from an unusual chorus on both the left and the right among Americans who care about Israel’s security. It’s not beneficial to either nation.

Yes, the deal has the unseemly odor of a bribe, a desperate attempt to persuade Israel to enable a resumption of negotiations with the Palestinians. (And what are the Palestinians offered for their own brand of intransigence?) But this is about more than perception. It’s about linkage.

For decades, the American commitment to Israel’s security has largely been insulated from the politics of the day. Even during the Obama administration, which some view as unduly demanding toward the Israeli government diplomatically, the U.S. has strengthened its efforts to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge. Will that now become a subject of negotiation, a bargaining chip employed by either side?

Forwarding the News

Thoughtful, balanced reporting from the Forward and around the web, bringing you updated news and analysis each day.

Terms(Required)

I agree to the Forward's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy

Email(Required)

As Elliott Abrams and Michael Singh noted recently in Foreign Policy, either the $3 billion in additional fighter jets to Israel is just a sweetener — about $33 million in taxpayer funds for each day of the freeze — or the offer represents something more ominous: A new willingness by the U.S. to use weaponry “as pressure to tidy up a diplomatic mess of its own making.”

That’s a complaint from the conservative camp, but others have voiced similar concerns. Daniel Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel, also believes this is “a very bad idea.” As he wrote in The Washington Post, by “subjecting Israel’s defense needs to the political demands of an American administration, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has done something quite dangerous for Israel — he has made those needs contingent, negotiable, optional.”

There are safer ways for the Obama administration to prove its unquestioned support for Israel’s security. And better reasons for the Israelis and the Palestinians to resume their negotiations.

The Forward is free to read, but it isn’t free to produce

I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward.

Now more than ever, American Jews need independent news they can trust, with reporting driven by truth, not ideology. We serve you, not any ideological agenda.

At a time when other newsrooms are closing or cutting back, the Forward has removed its paywall and invested additional resources to report on the ground from Israel and around the U.S. on the impact of the war, rising antisemitism and polarized discourse.

Readers like you make it all possible. Support our work by becoming a Forward Member and connect with our journalism and your community.

This is a great time to support independent Jewish journalism you rely on. Make a gift today!

—  Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO

Support our mission to tell the Jewish story fully and fairly.

$90 $180

$360

Other amount