The silence was deafening over the weekend and on Sunday after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for the first time, publicly pitched one of the most radical transformations in US relations in decades, saying he planned to zero out US military aid by 2038.
In a Friday interview with The Economist, which most of the media picked up on only on Saturday, Netanyahu said he would seek to restructure the $38 billion that Israel received and will receive from the US in the prior memorandum of understanding.
He was referring to the MOU that runs from 2018 to 2028, encompassing joint investments in major products like the F-35, F-15I, artificial intelligence, and other specific items.
According to the prime minister, the political ground has changed in America in terms of how much the country is willing to spend on foreign aid, and Israel’s economy has grown sufficiently that it can try to maneuver toward much greater independence in weapons production.
History of US aid to Israel
Historically, Washington has provided substantial military aid to Jerusalem, dating back to after the 1967 Six Day War, with a major jump during the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
This was followed by a long line of MOUs starting in 1981 with an increase of another $425 million in aid to Israel – a major sum at the time – all the way until the present time.
No reports have emerged that US President Donald Trump told Netanyahu to request less aid in advance of his comments.
Sources have indicated that the prime minister may have acted preemptively based on his reading of the MAGA movement and the Trump administration’s aggressive anti-foreign aid positions, as well as heavy criticism of military aid to Israel from US Democrats since 2024.
Despite these radical changes, there was no criticism of Netanyahu from his key opponents, such as former prime minister Naftali Bennett.
Nor was the prime minister met with backlash from opposition and former senior security figures, including Blue and White leader Benny Gantz, Yashar chair Gadi Eisenkot, or Democrats head Yair Golan, despite requests for comment from The Jerusalem Post.
It was unclear if they did not comment because they agree with Netanyahu, which they did not want to highlight, or because even though they disagree, they might believe they will score less politically with the average citizens on this issue.
These political figures may also think they will do better by sticking to criticism of the government’s support for haredi (ultra-Orthodox) exemptions from the IDF, of failing to probe the October 7 massacre, and of criminal cases like cases 1000, 2000, 4000, and “Qatargate.”
Separately, no current defense official has remarked on the issue either. In addition, most former defense officials from the IDF and the Mossad, including those who have at times been ready to criticize Netanyahu, refused to comment on the issue when requested by the Post, or stated that they would need more recent classified updates to fully assess the situation.
Some of this began with a US Heritage Foundation report in 2025 that called for reducing aid to Israel starting in 2032 and ending it by 2047.
Supporters of a new approach to the Israel-US MOU, though not necessarily the same as the Heritage Foundation’s stance, have said a switch is necessary to address changes in both the US and Israel.
These supporters include former ambassador to the US Michael Herzog, the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy, and likely Israel’s Ambassador to the US Yeichel Leiter, who was supposed to attend the Heritage Foundation report’s launch until its controversial contents were leaked.
US Senator encourages Israel's independence from aid
ONE FASCINATING and lightning-speed flip on the issue has been stalwart Israel-supporter Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham.
Less than three weeks ago, and leading into Netanyahu’s December 29 critical meeting with Trump in Florida, Graham had vehemently rejected the new model of partnerships instead of aid.
“Some in Israel, I think, including Netanyahu, think these days that Israel should downgrade the next MOU when it comes to the dependence on the US. Big mistake.... The day it is seen in Washington that you really don’t need us is a big mistake... The people you’re trying to please will never be pleased,” Graham told the Post.
“There’s an element of antisemitism, of anti-Israel in America, and it’s growing. In my view, the biggest mistake we could make is to let these loud voices subdue the relationship,” he added. “It is now time for the relationship to grow.... If you think now is the time to weaken the relationship with Washington, you do so at your own peril.”
However, immediately after Netanyahu’s public comments on Friday, Graham did a U-turn, saying “we need not wait 10 years” to begin scaling back military aid to Israel.
“The billions in taxpayer dollars that would be saved by expediting the termination of military aid to Israel will and should be plowed back into the US military. I will be presenting a proposal to Israel and the Trump administration to expedite the timetable dramatically,” wrote Graham on X/Twitter.
The 10-year period for reducing aid was also much shorter than the Heritage proposal to zero out aid by 2047.
Critics of Netanyahu's new policy
Still, there were some critics of Netanyahu’s new policy.
Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid told KAN News that he viewed Netanyahu’s statement as simply seeking global headlines, and that the prime minister had “erred professionally.”
“This is not a reason to abandon such important security cooperation. It will increase the tax burden on Israel, and it will bring us down from being at a military-technological global high point. It will weaken the Israeli-American lobby, which is already weakened,” Lapid said.
Former National Security Council chief and 2025 government defense commission chief Prof. Jacob Nagel also criticized the dropping foreign aid ideas Netanyahu expressed, while remaining generally supportive of the vast majority of the prime minister’s policies.
In a recent op-ed in the Post, which Nagel said he still stands by, he wrote that “Netanyahu should present Israel’s acute need for American main platforms over the next decade: various fighter aircraft, aerial refuelers, helicopters, munitions, and thousands of light armored vehicles for the ground forces.
“The next agreement must include a full implementation of all assistance within the US, thereby creating thousands of American jobs. It should focus solely on the main platforms and eliminate all other uses that characterized previous decades only in part.”
Moreover, he pointed out that “there are talks about the need to reduce Israel’s dependence on the US,” but that “it is important to understand that aerial platforms do not increase Israel’s dependence, since Israel would purchase them from the US regardless.”
“Building Israel’s Defense Industrial Base (DIB) to enhance Israel’s munitions independence was strongly recommended by the Nagel Committee, and it will receive billions of shekels in investment over the coming decade. However, it will not include the development and production of these main platforms in Israel,” Nagel wrote.
“Purchasing the main platforms with US assistance will allow Israel to allocate its own budget to building a stable DIB in areas where Israel must be independent. At the same time, Israel will use these aerial platforms to carry out missions vital not only to Israel but also to the US across the Middle East, at the lowest cost President Trump could find [while] helping to build the US DIB.”
Critically, he made clear that “irresponsible claims that the pressure the Trump administration exerts on the prime minister to make diplomatic concessions stems from the security assistance demonstrate complete ignorance and a lack of understanding of the global ‘balance of power.’
“The US is Israel’s central, and at times, sole, ally,” the defense expert noted. “As the world’s leading superpower, it will exert legitimate pressure on its allies, including Israel, to support American interests, even if the security assistance will be reduced to zero.”
In other words, Nagel said Israel should try to maintain military aid for critical platforms, pointing out that eliminating such aid will not free the Jewish state from American pressure regarding its policies from time to time.
THE SENIOR director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Bradley Bowman, has provided detailed recommendations for restructuring the prior MOU into a strategic partnership that would maintain substantial American assistance to Israel.
For example, he wrote, “Israel, for its part, would commit to 1) spending at least 4.5% or 5% of its gross domestic product (GDP) each year on defense for the duration of the agreement; 2) spending at least $1b. each year of its own resources procuring American-made military hardware and boosting the American defense industrial base (DIB); and 3) investing at least $150m. each year on combined US-Israel military research and development efforts to advance shared combat readiness priorities.
“In return for these commitments, the US would provide Israel $5b. each year through what would be known as a partnership investment incentive – or PII. This PII would enable Israel to use existing foreign military financing (FMF) mechanisms to procure US military hardware,” Bowman said.
“There would be two differences relative to the current MOU. First, Israel would be required to spend all PII in the US. Israel would also be required to spend PII in areas designated by both militaries as combat preparedness priorities and by the Pentagon as DIB priorities,” he wrote.
It is unclear whether Netanyahu’s public statements indicate that the alteration of military aid to joint investment is a done deal, or whether they were intended to build goodwill with Trump in a way that would allow the prime minister to preserve aspects of military aid in creative ways behind the scenes.