All eyes were on President Donald Trump last Tuesday when he touched down in Riyadh for a four-day, three-country tour of the Middle East. But by the end of Trump’s big trip, a more momentous Mideast event was unfolding about 1,000 miles northwest, in the Gaza strip.

There, the Israeli military was laying the groundwork for Operation Gideon’s Chariots, a campaign to flatten Gaza, conquer the strip, and concentrate all civilians in small areas of the enclave. As Trump toured opulent Gulf states, Israel escalated strikes on the beleaguered Gazans, killing hundreds on Thursday and Friday alone. On Saturday, one day after Trump departed the region, Israel announced it had launched its planned operation.

Just before the president’s trip, many analysts, detecting a rift between Trump and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, had expected (and hoped) that the U.S. president would push Israel to halt its war rather than escalate it. Rumors arose that he might even formally recognize a Palestinian state. While Trump did make some noises about the hunger crisis in Gaza, he did not implore Netanyahu to cease fire, and, indeed, he renewed his call for the U.S. to participate in the Gaza takeover.

This was a serious error by the president, the only person outside Israel with the power to stop the carnage in Gaza. While Trump has signaled a desire to put some policy daylight between the two nations, he hasn’t suspended military aid to Israel, nor even threatened to do so (though some in his inner circle may have conveyed such a threat in private). Unless that changes, the Gaza war likely will rage on toward a grim finale, namely, ethnic cleansing. That would be a catastrophe for the Gazans themselves, obviously, and would further destabilize the Middle East. But it could also, in the long run, put the people of Israel in grave danger, leaving their nation isolated and despised on the world stage. 

A small country with under 10 million people—around one-tenth the population of Iran, its chief adversary—Israel is weaker than it seems and dependent on the U.S. for its security needs. Washington not only sends Israel billions of dollars in military aid each year, but positions U.S. forces to deter Israel’s enemies, scrambles to thwart attacks on Israel when deterrence fails, and runs diplomatic cover for Israel at the United Nations. 

There are signs, however, that Israel’s superpower shield won’t be around indefinitely.

Like much of the world, Americans are turning against Israel—with a majority of U.S. adults, especially younger ones, now disfavoring the country—and increasingly don’t want their tax dollars to fund the war in Gaza and Israel’s related antagonisms in the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran. Other Western nations—including Italy, normally a vocal supporter of Jerusalem—have soured on Israel and are calling for an end to hostilities in Gaza. Meanwhile, Antonio Guterres, the UN chief, has been doubling down on harsh condemnations of Israeli actions. 

As Israel’s expansionist militarism alienates Western allies and the international community, it’s also inflaming the antipathy of neighbors and rivals in the Middle East, which is why Saudi Arabia has put on hold plans to normalize bilateral relations. This is a perilous dynamic. If 10 years from now a new generation of Western leaders withdraw assistance, Israel could experience pronounced military vulnerability, deep unpopularity globally, and near-total diplomatic isolation. Trump should cut Israel off now before it finds itself in that unenviable circumstance.

An ancient text sheds light on the ethics of America’s continued military aid to Israel. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates imagines a scenario in which a man has borrowed weapons from a friend who subsequently goes mad. Should the man give back the weapons, as pledged? Socrates believed that he should weigh the debt obligation against the potential harms of returning what was owed. In this case, as Socrates sought to show his interlocutors, justice requires withholding weapons from a friend who poses a danger to himself and others.

The same logic applies to America’s military aid to its ally Israel, which has acted with a degree of violent recklessness in Gaza lacking any precedent in modern times. Indeed, this real-world case is clearer cut than the one imagined by Socrates, since the U.S. does not “owe” Israel any weapons at all. The munitions that Washington sends abroad are funded by American taxpayers and delivered to foreign nations at the discretion of the White House and Congress, however entitled to them some recipients, including Israel, have come to feel.

Many American politicos, including in the Trump administration, have lost sight of this basic asymmetry at the heart of the U.S.-Israel relationship. Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, during a recent meeting with Israeli families, explained why the U.S. wouldn’t force Israel to end its war. “We’re not the Israeli government,” Witkoff said. “The Israeli government is a sovereign government. They can’t tell us what to do, we can’t tell them what to do.” 

Witkoff’s insistence that Israel “can’t tell us what to do” is encouraging, but his comments also reflect a misconception of the U.S.-Israel relationship. The White House, in fact, has every right to demand an immediate end to the Gaza war, since it is being fought with American weapons. Israel, of course, would then have every right to refuse—in which case American assistance should cease. And honestly, when has the U.S. ever declined, on principle, to tell other countries what to do?

The actual reason the Trump administration isn’t pushing Israel to end the Gaza war pertains not to the principle of non-interference in the politics of other nations, but to the fraught politics of America, where the Israel lobby remains a powerful force. While a split seems to have developed between Trump and Netanyahu—the former declined to visit Israel during his Middle East trip, has struck bilateral deals with Israel’s enemies Hamas and the Yemeni Houthis, is pursuing a nuclear deal with its arch-nemesis Iran, and lifted sanctions on Syria over Israel’s objections, among other moves—the president has been reluctant to challenge Israel publicly. 

Indeed, Trump has dismissed the claim that private tensions exist. During a Saturday interview on Fox News, Trump denied that he was “frustrated” with Netanyahu. “No, look, he’s got a tough situation,” Trump said. “You have to remember, there was October 7 that everyone forgets.” Until Trump takes a harder line, Netanyahu will continue to brush aside White House concerns. 

To be sure, criticisms from Trump and other officials secured Israel’s decision Sunday night to permit a small amount of food aid into Gaza. But the U.S., despite its enormous leverage, is failing to halt the military campaign that makes such aid depressingly necessary. Because of this lack of progress, some commentators have questioned whether an actual rift between Trump and Netanyahu has even emerged. 

My own view is that the rift is real, but narrower than many believe and with more limited consequences. Amid the deterioration in bilateral relations, White House officials have cancelled trips to Israel and exhibited real frustration with Netanyahu, notwithstanding the president’s denial. But they’ve also taken pains not to highlight or even acknowledge the discord in public. 

Subscribe Today

Get daily emails in your inbox

Email Address:

After Vice President J.D. Vance called off a Tuesday visit to Israel, he cited “logistics” as the reason, though the decision was reportedly motivated by Netanyahu’s escalation in Gaza. Like the Biden administration, which routinely grumbled about Netanyahu behind closed doors, Trump officials haven’t given the Israeli leader much reason to think that U.S. assistance is conditional on good behavior.

Time is running out for the White House to change tack. While most Israelis favor striking a ceasefire agreement that brings the hostages home and enables normalization with Arab nations, Operation Gideon’s Chariots represents a different, darker path forward. If Israel carries the operation through, its reputation on the world stage will suffer irreparable damage, and Western leaders will grow increasingly reluctant to sustain assistance to the Jewish state. In that possible future, Israel’s geopolitical position will be precarious.

Trump, in his inaugural address, vowed to govern as a “peacemaker and unifier.” Ahead of the election in November, he presented himself as Israel’s “big protector.” The White House regularly says that the president will continue to be the greatest “friend” Israel has ever known. But as Socrates knew, sometimes giving weapons to a friend who is expecting them isn’t the right thing to do. The president should suspend military aid to Israel now—for its own sake.