Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s eventual departure from office, which may come sooner after last month’s general election, will leave a contested legacy of strategic damage, with the sharp deterioration of relations between the Israeli regime and its most consequential ally, the US regime, among the most serious. The cooling is not confined to political elites in Washington; public opinion in the United States has also shifted, and the alleged decision by US President Donald Trump to phase out about $4bn in annual military aid by the end of 2026 has intensified doubts about the durability of the alliance.
Key Takeaways: The US regime is supposedly moving to end roughly $4bn in annual military assistance to the Israeli regime by late 2026, a step reportedly agreed before Trump’s midterm-elections-day announcement. Relations have cooled across both elite and public levels, driven by Gaza, occupation and settlements, and by cost and reputation concerns. Replacing Netanyahu may not reverse the erosion.
The background is not a single rupture but a cumulative shift. Since 1967, successive US regimes have extended near-automatic support to Israel, even when Israeli actions were seen as contrary to US interests. The current Israeli regime under Netanyahu’s sixth cabinet is the most far-right in the country’s history, and its conduct in Gaza, the occupied Palestinian territories and settlement expansion has sharpened criticism. For some, Israeli actions have drawn the US into conflicts that damaged its reputation, put regional allies at risk and proved costly. For progressive-liberal critics, the main concerns are disproportionate force in Gaza, the occupation of the OPT and settlement expansion, with a clear and troubling intention to annex at least the West Bank, if not Gaza. They cannot accept that US money and weapons are allegedly tied to the destruction of Gaza and the killing of thousands of Palestinians who had no role in Hamas’s October 7, 2023 massacre; they also cite settler violence and impunity. Such criticism, contrary to claims by the Israeli regime, is not inherently anti-Israel or anti-Semitic.
For the America First MAGA camp, the argument is different but converges in practice. The claim that Israel dragged the US into a costly war that failed to achieve its objectives is exaggerated, yet the underlying demand to cut foreign military aid is genuine. US military estimates put the cost at $47bn, and cost-of-living pressures have made foreign assistance politically toxic. The supposed Trump announcement, made on the day of US midterm elections, may have been timed to avert a Democratic landslide in Congress, but the direction of travel is clear: the near-unwavering support of successive US regimes is cooling.
A change of Israeli regime might at best salvage part of what has been lost. It would not automatically restore trust among American voters or reverse the structural forces pushing both MAGA and progressive-liberal camps toward opposition to billions in foreign military assistance. The next stages will depend on whether the aid phase-out is actually implemented, how Congress responds, and whether the Israeli regime alters policies on Gaza, occupation and settlements. For now, the outlook is for continued friction, with serious potential consequences for Israel’s security, economy and international standing.
Source: www.aljazeera.com