Opinion | It’s Time to Impose Conditions on Aid to Israel

Israel’s latest major ground offensive into Gaza City, along with its attempted assassination of Hamas’s leaders in Doha even as they were nearing agreement on a ceasefire deal, provides irrefutable evidence — as if more were needed — that it has no plans to end the war in Gaza anytime soon. 

The Netanyahu government has proven it is hellbent not just on continuing the war but expanding it, sending more forces into Gaza, flattening buildings, driving out the population, and refusing to put on the table the deal that could most easily end the war : a full ceasefire, withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and a genuine humanitarian surge, in exchange for Hamas releasing all of the hostages, with no other conditions attached

This week’s UN summit, at which France became the latest of some 150 countries to recognize a Palestinian state, is unfortunately unlikely to make much difference on the ground. In fact, far from dissuaded, Israel is reportedly contemplating even more egregious steps, including forced eviction of Palestinians from Gaza, returning Jewish settlers to the Strip for the first time since 2005 and annexing large parts of the West Bank — where it has already been aggressively expanding settlements, working to undermine the Palestinian Authority and turning a blind-eye to growing settler violence against Palestinians.

The Trump administration, after pledging to pursue peace and working constructively with the outgoing Biden team to generate the longest ceasefire and hostage deal since the conflict began, has not opposed any of this. On the contrary, President Donald Trump has said decisions about escalation in Gaza are “up to the Israelis” and even urged them to “finish the job,” arguing that Hamas must feel more pressure to make a deal.  

The U.S. Congress has also done almost nothing to curb the Israeli onslaught. The Republican majority has voted in lockstep against any measures to do so, while Democrats have been, at best, deeply divided.

Under these circumstances, with Hamas decimated and humanitarian conditions in Gaza beyond intolerable, we believe it is long past time for more decisive U.S. action to try to end the war. And that includes the most meaningful and material step the United States could take — arguably the only one of consequence — which is to finally leverage the billions of dollars it provides to Israel annually for security assistance. 

President Joe Biden — in whose administration we both served in senior national security positions for four years — was not willing to do so for a range of reasons. The most defensible of which was that Israel faced genuine military threats from not just Hamas but Hezbollah, Iran, Shia militia groups in Iraq and Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen, and he was not prepared to weaken Israel’s defenses in face of those threats — or to risk making attacks more likely by doing so.  In May 2024, Biden did halt the shipment of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel to prevent their use in densely populated Gaza, and he warned Israel that he would withhold additional offensive weapons if Israel conducted a major ground operation in Rafah when large numbers of civilians were there. But he ultimately never did so, in part because of concern that it would leave Israel excessively vulnerable to external threats.

We believe that argument became far less compelling over time, including while we were still in office, and especially as the threat from Hamas declined — undermining Israel’s case for perpetuating the war — and the humanitarian situation in Gaza became unconscionable. 

But whatever was the case in 2023 and 2024, the argument against restricting American arms is today no longer sustainable. Hamas is weaker than ever, the Hezbollah threat has been dramatically reduced, and Iran’s military leadership, ballistic missile force and air defenses have all been severely weakened. Those realities, combined with the truly catastrophic harm that the IDF is inflicting on Palestinian civilians and the Israeli government’s manifest lack of interest in ending the war, makes it clearer than ever that there is no longer any legitimate excuse not to put weapons in play.

Regrettably, the Trump administration is unlikely to do so. Trump has given Israel a green light for whatever it wants to do in Gaza, and just last week again voted against an unconditional and permanent ceasefire that was supported by all 14 other members of the UN Security Council. On Sept. 19, even as he expressed alleged frustration at Israel’s attack on Qatar, Trump asked Congress to approve an additional $6 billionin weapons sales to Israel, a strong signal that he has Netanyahu’s back, even for the renewed offensive in Gaza.

Nor are Republicans in Congress likely to get on board. Notwithstanding growing opposition in the MAGA base to Israel’s actions, and a distaste for spending money on foreign military assistance, for now at least they are unwilling to vote against either Trump or Israel. That stance could change over time, but meanwhile Republican views should not prevent Democrats from making clear where they stand on such a fundamental issue. And doing so would send a message to Israel about what the future could hold if and when they return to power. 

There are several ways Democrats could — usefully — send such a message.

One is to continue to vote in favor of joint resolutions to disapprove delivery of specific arms sales, a prerogative of the Senate, the last of which got the largest number of Democratic votes (27), a slim majority of the Democratic caucus, since the conflict began. The growing momentum behind such votes, receiving support from several centrist senators with a long pro-Israel track-record, should already be seen as a wake-up call in Jerusalem. One upcoming delivery would be particularly clear-cut, of bulldozers that the Israeli army uses to demolish Palestinian homes in Gaza and the West Bank.

A second option available to lawmakers would be even more targeted at the conduct of the war in Gaza. Congress could pass a measure that would require Israel to certify that it will no longer use any U.S. weapons in Gaza. The prohibition could remain until the war ends with the hostages home and Israel certifies that it will not displace Palestinians outside of Gaza or resettle Jews there — or if Hamas refuses to end the war despite Israel’s agreement to do so on this basis.

Implementation of this latter approach would be challenging, and it would not satisfy those who want to stop the flow of major categories of weapons entirely, at least until the war is over, a position we would support. But our many recent conversations with House and Senate members suggest a more targeted approach has the best chance of generating enough support to send a strong and unified message, as a first step on which to build. An approach targeted at the use of weapons in Gaza would remove the main argument —credible or not — against a full arms cut-off, which is that Israel would somehow be left vulnerable to genuine threats from elsewhere.

And it would also mean that either the Gaza war ends or Hamas is exposed as the only barrier to peace. Should Israel, on the other hand, choose to continue with the war anyway, the United States could finally distance itself morally and materially from the slaughter. 

Some would argue that even with Israel’s enemies weakened, any form of arms conditionality would leave it vulnerable to attack. But the right kind of restrictions would not do so, and Israel should not be able to use that argument as a shield against any form of U.S. leverage whatsoever.

Critics might also claim that perceived U.S. pressure on Israel would lead Hamas to believe time is on its side and that it should just hold out for a more favorable ceasefire/hostage deal. But that claim is belied by the fact that Israeli military pressure — which has been intense since Israel broke the last ceasefire over six months ago — has failed to free the hostages or produce Hamas’s collapse or unconditional surrender. Maintaining unconditional U.S. military support while Israel pursues the unachievable goal of “total victory” is simply a recipe for further conflict and suffering.

More than 65,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since the fighting began, many of them civilians and children. Virtually every one of the 2.1 million residents has been displaced from their homes, in many cases more than once. Widespread starvation and mass suffering is taking place. Clear majorities of both Israelis and Americans now favor bringing the war to an end and the hostages home. And an entire generation of Americans is turning against Israel because of the Gaza war.

Under these circumstances, it is entirely reasonable for the United States to demand that the war end — as is now called for by a solid majority of Americans and Israelis and most of Israel’s own defense establishment.

There was a rationale for standing unequivocally behind Israel after the horrific Oct. 7 attacks. But the argument that the United States should not use its most effective point of leverage to bring the war in Gaza to an end has not been tenable for quite some time. It is past time for Democrats in Congress and beyond to demonstrate where they stand.