Why is Trump's "shock" to Israel regarding aid considered a "historic shift" in American policy?

Analysis by Stephen Collinson from Ofoq News Network - Donald Trump is undoubtedly the most pro-Israel American president in the modern era. So his announcement on the day of the midterm congressional elections that Washington would end its annual aid to Israel - amounting to nearly $4 billion - came as a resounding shock. However, as is often the case with Trump, this announcement - which he made on Fox News - lacked details and was difficult to determine its exact dimensions.

It may ultimately turn out that its impact on the ground is less severe than the shocking announcement suggests. However, Trump's move remains another exciting turning point in his relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - his partner in the Iran file, an issue that now threatens the Republican Party's hopes in the midterm elections being held on Tuesday.

This step comes at a very sensitive political moment, as Israel is experiencing a state of political uncertainty following last week's elections that did not result in a clear winner, amid questions about Netanyahu's future. The political dynamics within the United States also cannot be ignored; It seems that Trump acknowledges - in one way or another - the point of view of some Democrats, when he insinuates that continuing to provide aid to Israel has become politically unsustainable in the United States.

This reflects an extraordinary crack in the established bipartisan consensus in America on support for Israel. The matter does not stop at how the House of Representatives or the Senate, if the Democrats control them after Tuesday's elections, will deal with this issue. Rather, the announcement indicates a new era characterized by ambiguity for Israel. Netanyahu has always sided with Republicans in Washington through successive administrations, but he faced widespread internal criticism because of his handling of the situation in Gaza following the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023. These criticisms were not limited only to progressives, but also included activists from the pro-Trump right-wing “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement.

Growing doubts about the existence of a majority in Congress that supports Israel and supports arms sales to its army will create serious geopolitical repercussions in the future for the Jewish state and for American policy in the Middle East. Trump causes a stir on Election Day. Trump loves to cause shocks, create controversy around himself, and distract attention.

So, his announcement - during an interview on Fox News - may have been a political maneuver on a day when many Republicans fear a strong blow from voters. It clearly caught the Fox anchors by surprise.

Trump said: “We made an agreement to give Israel $4 billion annually, and we agreed months ago to stop doing that... and they agreed to it because, as you know, they have become a very successful country.”

He added that the United States would still provide assistance to the Israelis if they needed it, but added: “By the end of this year, we will no longer be paying money to Israel.” It appears that Trump was referring to the annual US military aid to Israel, which amounts to slightly less than $4 billion annually, under an agreement concluded during the era of former President Barack Obama in 2016, and is scheduled to continue until the end of 2028.

The bulk of these funds are allocated to purchase weapons and equipment for the Israeli Armed Forces exclusively from American manufacturing companies. Therefore, this agreement has important implications for American companies and job opportunities in the United States. Attention is now turning to what US-Israeli military cooperation will look like in the future.

Benjamin Netanyahu told The Economist magazine in January that he wanted to "gradually reduce" US military aid to Israel over a period of 10 years, indicating that this shift was "under preparation." It is difficult to say whether Trump's statement means that US aid will stop immediately. This may be an interesting step, but it will not amount to a strategic rift between the two allies.

Foreign policy analysts - who previously worked in Republican and Democratic administrations - believe that the Israeli economy has become so strong that it no longer needs American aid to purchase military equipment. It is expected that the relationship between American arms manufacturing companies and Israel will remain strong, and the militaries of the two countries have recently worked in closer coordination than ever before, and this was evident even before the outbreak of the confrontation with Iran. For example, the administration of former President Joe Biden carried out large-scale air and sea defense operations to counter attacks launched by Iran in 2024 using cruise missiles and drones.

For his part, Brett McGurk - who held senior positions in the White House and the State Department during four successive administrations - believes that the issue of American aid to Israel is greatly misunderstood. McGurk said "the importance" of Trump's comments on Tuesday should not be overstated.

McGurk, a global affairs analyst at Ofoq News and author of the book “Brink,” which deals with his role in negotiating the release of hostages during the Gaza crisis, added: “I don’t know if he intends to end the memorandum of understanding when it expires in 2028, or if he intends to stop it immediately.” The issue of Israel and the Palestinians has become an “internal” issue. Trump’s announcement came at a time when tens of millions of Americans are casting their votes, in the wake of an election campaign that revealed a new overlap of the issue of Israel and the Palestinians in American domestic politics.

It was striking to hear him seem to be responding to the opposition of some Democrats - such as the Democratic candidate from Michigan, Abdul Rahman Al-Sayyed - to providing American aid to Israel, noting that Trump himself had directed a torrent of anti-Muslim speeches to Al-Sayyed. The Democratic candidate argued that Americans are paying more for food commodities because of a war that the United States is waging at the request of Israel.

In a statement to the “Fox & Friends” program, Trump asked: “Why should we endure harsh criticism from crazy people like the master when they (Israel) do not need that? It is a weak argument, as one might ask: Why don’t we give everyone $4 billion?”

The Israel issue led to a confrontation over the weekend between El-Sayed and his former rival in the Democratic primary, Haley Stevens, who later announced her support for his Republican rival, Mike Rogers. Stevens had objected to an advertisement published by a left-wing influencer, in which a couple appears in a grocery store blaming Israel for rising prices.

Although Al-Sayed denounced the announcement - and his team stressed that his campaign had nothing to do with it - this confrontation highlighted the division over Israel, a division that may further complicate any new Democratic majority in Congress. Progressives see Trump's shift in position as confirmation of the validity of their views. On the other hand, critics of this trend believe that criticism of the Israeli government often descends into anti-Semitism, an accusation that candidates like Al-Sayyed deny.

Trump may also be seeking political gain of his own; Stopping American aid to Israel is consistent with his approach based on the slogan “America First” and his opposition to using American wealth to support foreign countries. As for his argument that he will use unspent funds to reduce the fiscal deficit, it seems less convincing, given the significant inflation in the national debt during his two terms in office.

While progressives are angry at Israel over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, anti-Israel sentiment is also rising among the pro-Trump right within the Republican Party, driven by the opinions of influencers and podcasters with broad fan bases. Donnie O'Sullivan, a Ofek News correspondent who spent months speaking with Trump supporters, found that many of them believe that the United States is fighting a war on behalf of Israel, and are skeptical about the nature of the American relationship with the Israeli government.

In a Quinnipiac poll published in June, 48% of respondents said the United States provides excessive support for Israel, 38% of respondents saw US support for Israel as adequate, while only 7% considered this support insufficient. This is the highest percentage of voters who believe that Washington exaggerates its support for Israel since the foundation began asking this question in 2017.

In an indication of shifting attitudes toward Israel within the Democratic Party, Rahm Emanuel - who served as White House chief of staff under Obama and is likely to run for president in 2028 - called for an end to unconditional US military aid to Israel, calling in a speech he gave in Tel Aviv earlier this year for the establishment of a new relationship between the United States and Israel. Politically, it might make sense for Israel to try to separate its military decisions and purchases from the polarization of American domestic politics.

With this, she will be free to make her own decisions about what to buy; Although it is unlikely in practice to turn towards European manufacturers, given the state of overwhelming popular anger in Europe towards what is happening in Gaza, as for the idea of ​​purchasing Russian or Chinese equipment, it seems very unlikely in light of the explicit American opposition to that. But such scenarios portend more trouble for Israel if it remains a hotspot in American politics.

While presidents have the power to approve arms sales to foreign countries, lawmakers can try to block them; However, the chances of gathering a parliamentary majority capable of overriding the presidential “veto” seem slim in this case. Another possibility that worries Israel's supporters is that political hostility could lead to a president - from either party - who is less committed to Israel's security needs than Trump, Biden, or their predecessors.

As Rahm Emanuel noted in an interview with Fareed Zakaria on Ofoq News in July, Israel may pay a price for its actions; He said: “This is not a problem that concerns the Democratic Party alone, but rather it is a problem that concerns America as a whole.”