Later today, Gadi Eisenkot walks into the President’s Residence in Jerusalem and receives the mandate to form Israel’s next government. Benjamin Netanyahu has never been closer to losing power. And the biggest open question in the U.S.-Israel relationship goes with him: the future of Israel military aid, which President Trump says he settled with Netanyahu in a private deal nobody has seen.
Indeed, that is the problem in one sentence. A $3.8 billion-a-year commitment should not rest on a handshake between two men. One of them may be out of office before Christmas.
Eisenkot Gets 28 Days and a Fragile Majority
President Isaac Herzog announced his choice Saturday night after consulting every party in the new Knesset. According to The Times of Israel, parties holding 67 of 120 seats recommended Eisenkot. Netanyahu got 46. United Torah Judaism, with seven seats, recommended no one.
Those 67 recommendations are not a government, though. Eisenkot’s own four-party bloc holds 48 seats. The other 19 belong to two Arab-led parties, Ra’am and the Joint List. Hawkish members of his bloc reject any government that depends on them. Meanwhile, Eisenkot has made recognizing Hamas as a terrorist organization a condition for joining his coalition. Ra’am leader Mansour Abbas called for Hamas to be disarmed and removed from power. Still, he stopped short of calling it a terror group in his meeting with Herzog, citing fear for his family’s safety.
So Eisenkot is also working another path. Avigdor Liberman says he will accept “painful compromises” on ultra-Orthodox military service to avoid relying on Arab parties. As a result, United Torah Judaism has signaled openness. Israeli TV reports say Shas would not vote against such a government if UTJ’s rabbis approve. That math could produce a razor-thin 61 seats. Eisenkot has 28 days, plus a possible 14-day extension. If he fails, Netanyahu could get the next shot.
Netanyahu, for his part, now calls for a “national unity government.” His version, however, keeps every ally from his last coalition. He also warned that a government “dependent on Hamas supporters won’t fight Hamas.” Eisenkot’s party criticized the video. We covered how this deadlock started in our look at Israel’s exit polls, when Arab parties first emerged as possible kingmakers.
The Israel Military Aid Deal Nobody Wrote Down
Now add Washington. On Election Day, Trump told Fox News that he and Netanyahu “made a deal months ago” to stop the $4 billion a year. “We’ve already agreed that by the end of this year we won’t be paying Israel,” he said, according to Reuters. He added that the U.S. will still sell Israel weapons and will “help Israel if they need it.”
However, the trouble is the paperwork. The current Israel military aid agreement runs through September 2028. Trump gave no details about how the money would stop early. Israeli finance and defense officials said they were surprised. Herzog called it “a bolt from the blue.” One senior Israeli official told Ynet: “Nobody knows anything.” Netanyahu, meanwhile, has said nothing about it since the election.
Eisenkot pounced. He said Israel’s security establishment was “learning through the media about a change in the strategic relationship.” In his view, that proves Netanyahu “can no longer be trusted and must be replaced.” Republican Rep. Don Bacon put it more plainly to CNN: “What I really had heartburn about is the Israelis didn’t know about it.”
What the Israel Military Aid Numbers Actually Say
Here is the record, from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The first 10-year memorandum of understanding, signed under Clinton, pledged $21.3 billion in military aid. The second, under George W. Bush, pledged $30 billion. The third, signed under Obama in 2016, pledged $38 billion for fiscal 2019 through 2028. That breaks down to $33 billion in Foreign Military Financing grants and $5 billion for missile defense.
Two years remain on that deal, worth about $7.6 billion. Yet the memorandum is not a treaty. CRS notes that MOUs are not legally binding and do not need Senate ratification. Congress still has to appropriate the money every year. In other words, any president can promise, but only Congress can pay or stop paying.
Furthermore, CRS notes two facts that matter for taxpayers. First, most of this aid buys weapons and services from U.S. defense contractors. Second, Israel is no longer a struggling young state. Its per capita GDP ranks in the top 30 worldwide, and its defense budget has reportedly risen more than 150 percent in a decade.
Democrats Will Hold the Checkbook in January
That power over Israel military aid changes hands on January 3. As we noted in our midterms week in review, Democrats won both chambers. Some of them want aid gone entirely. Rep. Ro Khanna said “Zero aid Israel” would be part of his party’s agenda. Michigan Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed, whom Trump singled out by name, now says he agrees with the president on ending it.
Public opinion has moved, too. A Quinnipiac poll in June found 48 percent of voters, and 66 percent of Democrats, think the U.S. is too supportive of Israel. Back in 2017, those numbers were 16 and 20 percent. On the right, Vice President JD Vance blamed part of the GOP’s midterm losses on the Iran war and the Israel relationship. Christians United for Israel fired back, calling his comments a “dog whistle.”
Netanyahu himself has read the room. In October he told Israeli TV that Israelis should “get used to the fact” that the old aid levels “won’t happen because America has changed.” For that reason, his government reportedly wanted a new deal before the new Congress is sworn in. Now he may not be the one signing it.
The Conservative Case: Phase It Out, on Paper
Fiscal conservatives should say the quiet part out loud. Ending grant aid to a wealthy ally is the right goal. Washington is borrowing heavily to pay its own bills, as our breakdown of the Treasury’s $618 billion borrowing estimate showed. A rich, capable democracy should buy its own weapons. In June, Israel’s Defense Ministry and the Trump administration opened formal talks on a framework to “gradually transition from aid to a completely reciprocal partnership,” built on joint research and co-production.
Moreover, that is a good deal for Americans. Joint programs give the U.S. access to Israeli innovation in areas like missile defense and counter-drone systems. They also keep American factory lines running on shared money instead of grants. In short, replacing Israel military aid with partnership costs taxpayers less.
But the way you get there matters as much as the destination. Announcing it on morning TV on Election Day is not policy. Neither is a private understanding that Israel’s defense officials, its president, and possibly its next prime minister learned about from the news. Allies plan budgets, fighter purchases, and missile stockpiles years ahead. CRS points out that some deals already financed with U.S. aid, like advanced fighter jets, run well into the next decade. Pulling the rug out midstream does not save money. Instead, it creates chaos, and enemies notice chaos.
Therefore, the conservative ask is simple. Put the end of Israel military aid in writing. Set a declining schedule, replace grants with cost-shared joint programs, and send it to Congress for a vote. That way it survives Netanyahu’s exit, and it survives a Democratic House.
Judge Israel’s Next Government by Hamas and Iran
Some on the right will treat Netanyahu’s fall as a loss for America. It is not. America’s alliance is with Israel, not with one prime minister. Eisenkot is a former army chief of staff. One of his four conditions for any partner is a commitment to destroying Hamas’s military and governing power. Hold him to it. If his coalition leans on a party that will not call Hamas a terror group, that is a fair concern. Then again, it is Israel’s choice to make, and Israeli voters already made theirs.
Meanwhile, the war with Iran is not over, as we covered when Netanyahu pushed for more strikes. Whoever governs in Jerusalem will need to know what Washington will provide, what it will sell, and what it expects in return. Today, nobody can answer those questions with a document. That is the real failure here. Peace through strength runs on commitments both sides can read. If the era of Israel military aid is ending, end it the conservative way: on paper, on a schedule, and with a vote.
Sources: The Times of Israel on Herzog tapping Eisenkot; Reuters on Trump’s aid announcement; Congressional Research Service, Insight IN12695; Ynet on confusion in Israel over the aid announcement.
