The relationship between the United States and Israel has long been described as one of the closest strategic partnerships in the world. Washington provides Israel with extensive military assistance, diplomatic support and political backing, while successive U.S. administrations have repeatedly described Israel as a major ally.
But the relationship also raises an increasingly uncomfortable question.
If Israel is prepared to ignore Washington when American pressure conflicts with Israeli government policy, why should Washington continue adjusting its own position to accommodate Israel?
This debate has become increasingly visible whenever disagreements emerge over Gaza, regional military operations, ceasefire negotiations, settlements, Iran or broader Middle East diplomacy.
The United States may publicly call for restraint, negotiations or a particular diplomatic outcome, only for the Israeli government to pursue a different course.
That does not necessarily mean Israel is obligated to follow every American demand. Israel is a sovereign country and has its own government, security policies and political priorities.
But the same principle applies to the United States.
Washington is also entitled to place American interests first.
A Relationship With Enormous U.S. Support
American support for Israel extends far beyond friendly diplomatic statements.
The relationship includes military assistance, weapons cooperation, intelligence sharing, diplomatic backing and extensive political engagement.
For decades, Washington has also frequently defended Israel in international forums and played a central role in attempts to negotiate agreements involving Israel and its neighbours.
Supporters of the relationship argue that Israel provides the United States with an important strategic partner in the Middle East and that cooperation benefits both countries.
Critics argue that the relationship has become too one-sided, particularly when U.S. leaders appear unable or unwilling to use American leverage when Israeli policies conflict with Washington’s stated objectives.
That is where the central question becomes difficult to avoid.
If U.S. support is considered essential, should that support come with expectations?
Disagreement Between Allies Is Normal
Countries do not automatically surrender their independence simply because they are allies.
Australia disagrees with the United States.
European governments disagree with Washington.
NATO members frequently argue over defence spending, military interventions and foreign policy.
Israel is no different.
The issue is therefore not whether Israel should obey the United States.
It is whether Washington should continue providing extraordinary levels of support without being prepared to reconsider that support when major disagreements arise.
An alliance should theoretically involve influence in both directions.
If one government regularly expects another country to provide weapons, diplomatic protection and political support, it is reasonable for the supporting country to expect its concerns to carry significant weight.
America First — In Practice
U.S. politicians frequently talk about putting American interests first.
That principle should logically apply to every foreign relationship.
American foreign policy should ultimately be determined by what American leaders believe benefits the United States, not simply by what benefits another government.
That does not automatically require abandoning Israel.
It does mean Washington should be willing to say no.
Military assistance, diplomatic protection and political cooperation should never prevent an American administration from pursuing policies it believes are necessary for regional stability or U.S. national interests.
The same standard should apply whether the country involved is Israel, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, Britain, Australia or any other ally.
Partnership should not mean automatic agreement.
Why This Debate Matters
The Middle East remains one of the most volatile regions in the world.
Decisions involving Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iran and the wider region can have consequences far beyond Israel itself.
American troops, American military assets, American taxpayers and American diplomatic credibility can all become involved when regional conflicts escalate.
That gives Washington a legitimate interest in decisions that could potentially drag the United States deeper into another Middle Eastern conflict.
If Israeli leaders believe they have the right to reject American pressure when they consider it inconsistent with Israel’s interests, American leaders must have exactly the same freedom.
That means questioning policies, conditioning support where appropriate and refusing demands that Washington believes could damage U.S. interests.
The Bottom Line
Israel is a sovereign country and has every right to make its own decisions.
But sovereignty works both ways.
The United States is also a sovereign country.
Supporting an ally does not require automatically accepting every request, defending every policy or following another government’s strategic priorities.
If Israel can tell Washington no, Washington must also be prepared to tell Israel no.
A genuine alliance should involve cooperation, negotiation and mutual respect — not automatic obedience from either side.