As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepares to meet US President Donald Trump later this month in Florida, senior sources in his circle suggest that "Israel" is considering a new framework to detach from decades of US military aid, Israeli Channel 14 reported, as per a recent interview with Political Affairs correspondent Tamir Morag.
The occupation's current dilemma stands in stark contrast to its long-standing dependence on American weapons and funding to wage repeated military campaigns across the region.
Since 2016, under a deal signed during President Obama’s term, "Israel" has received $3.8 billion annually in US military aid. This figure excludes additional wartime assistance provided during major offensives in Gaza, Lebanon, and beyond. From air defense systems to advanced munitions, US aid has been central to "Israel’s" military operations in occupied Palestine and neighboring countries.
Despite the current talk of disengagement, "Israel" has continued to accept this support, most recently during its genocide in Gaza.
According to a report by Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, $21.7 billion in US funding went to military aid for the Israeli occupation over the past two years, while an additional $9.65–$12.07 billion was spent on US operations in Yemen and the wider region.
3 for 1 US-to-'Israel' ratio
According to Morag, former minister Ron Dermer is pushing a new model for future cooperation. His proposal would shift aid from direct military funding to joint research and development projects, with the US contributing two to three dollars for every dollar invested by "Israel".
This suggestion comes in response to rising opposition within the US, particularly from right-wing factions, against foreign military aid, including to "Israel."
Dermer argues that under the America First approach, Washington may no longer sustain blank-check policies. He contends that a partnership model may better secure continued support under changing political conditions.
While some in Netanyahu’s circle support the proposed shift, others insist it is both possible and necessary to negotiate a new direct aid agreement after the current one expires in 2028. Critics of Dermer’s approach believe that abandoning guaranteed military funding, especially in an unstable region, would be a strategic mistake.
'Strategic, not economic, implications'
Political analyst Yaakov Bardugo also stated that the potential move has strategic significance, rather than financial. He noted that the political tide in Washington may be turning against "Israel," with rising resentment over its military actions and growing isolation even among traditional allies.
Nevertheless, he said that Netanyahu may now be seeking to redefine "Israel’s" standing with the US, not as a dependent partner, but as a self-asserting player amid shifting geopolitical realities.
Still, the contradiction remains stark: While high-level officials float the idea of “independence,” "Israel" continues to receive and rely on, massive US military assistance to carry out its wars in the region.
Israeli 'disengagement' from the US: Rhetoric vs. military dependence
Talk of an Israeli “disengagement” from the United States is largely rhetorical; the material record from recent wars shows deep, structural dependence on U.S. arms, logistics, and intelligence that no spin can erase.
Under the 2016 MOU, the Israeli regime already receives roughly $3.8 billion a year in military assistance, while Washington poured at least $21.7 billion into the Israeli war effort after October 7, 2023. US deliveries of thousands of heavy bombs, missiles, and advanced platforms (including F-35s and other systems bought and sustained with US assistance) and recurring logistical support have been central to Israeli operations.
Even US intelligence sharing has been a decisive enabler in Israeli attacks and assassinations, showing how much leverage Washington holds.
Given that reality, Netanyahu’s occasional talk of strategic independence reads less like policy than propaganda: openly admitting that the Israeli regime is effectively a client of US military power would undercut the nationalist narrative at the core of the Zionist project, so the rhetoric must do the political work his material dependence forbids.
Source:Websites
